Anybody use Innuos Zenith or similar server with Bartok or Rossini?

Audio Systems
41

Right. I respect and learn from all my fellow dCS community, but I am with Anup on this one. I’ve listened to a lot of systems. Demo’ed several very high end USB servers well above the Innuos in cost, fiddled with the Pro USB on my MSB Select II DAC. My experience is the exact opposite of Ian’s. I have yet to hear a USB rig best a properly set up Ethernet system.

If you hear that, then yes, I would agree something needs to be improved. By all indications, the Ethernet input on the Bartok should be superior to the USB. So, why did it sound worse? I believe you that it did sound worse to you, but I would want to understand why—because it shouldn’t. That’s the question that should be asked. Perhaps the dealer connected the Bartok to the network with a shielded Ethernet cable? Or has a noisy switch, or is running things right off the combo modem/router/wifi box? Who knows.

We know from comparisons of similar equipment from the same manufacturer—e.g., the PS Audio DirectStream and its Network Bridge and Direct Memory Player, all three of which I have owned and have high-value SQ—that the same company’s implementation of Ethernet and say, I2S between the transport and the DAC, can produce audibly different results. But that’s not because a protocol is inferior or spinning discs are superior; it’s because of how well it is executed in the DAC itself.

I agree, but Melco specifically assert in their S100 data sheet that “data integrity” is one of the reasons to invest in the S100, and they state more than once that traditional IT doesn’t value what makes music special as much as it values speed and throughput. And the Lowbeats review Pete referenced also casts a lot of aspersions on “data integrity” in the standard Ethernet environment. And it’s almost all incorrect and definitely misleading.

I hope you know I am not asserting “if you can’t measure it, you can’t hear it.” Never. But we should be able to explain it, even if only conceptually. I can get tempted by just about anything that offers a real prospect of improving my system’s SQ, or that provides a realistic engineering explanation for how it helps prevent a problem from arising in the first place. Optical is a good example, and there are a number of devices that help deploy it with minimal risk of RFI/EMI injection in the conversion process. It may not be perfect, but it can be an improvement or a preventive device.

In that same vein, I want to be able to understand how/why something improves SQ in my system. And with all due respect to Pete, that Lowbeats “review” sure doesn’t provide any basis for understanding the claimed improvements. The reviewer asserts this in his conclusion:

Another important argument: The advantages of the Melco are always felt to the same extent, regardless of which network player you use. So unlike, for example, high-quality cables, the effect and tonal benefits of which depend heavily on the connected components, the S100 retains its value, even if something changes in the playback chain. It is the foundation for a truly audiophile music streaming chain.

Hmmm. Makes everything better no matter what you connect or change [better even than a direct cable without the switch, according to this reviewer]? Are we to take such a statement seriously? Something is so “universally wrong” with Ethernet for music purposes that this box makes it better in every system the same way and to the same extent?

Give me a reason—doesn’t even have to be measurable, merely logical—for believing that this box can make some change somewhere in the various OSI layers that might have audible effects, and I’ll plunk down $2k on a sale-or-return basis without any hesitation. But tech-babble rigmarole about how music digital is not really 1s and 0s like other computer information, or how unsquared or unfocused waves can affect the timing in the DAC, is not helpful. Anyone who pays attention here knows the story about how 1s and 0s are transmitted through Ethernet physically. And a switch can only send what it receives. It receives and transmits packets. It doesn’t make them bigger-better-stronger. TCP error correction occurs at the endpoints, not in between, and at a layer well-removed from the physical network. If enough data is lost or damaged so that the endpoints cannot fix it, neither will a switch. And if all the packets do get through, then that is all the information the DAC requires or can use. So long as the switch does not inject some new [even euphonic] noise into the line, it’s job is done.

I am also not suggesting that we know everything there is to know about Ethernet [though its definitely not some babe in the woods compared to USB, whether for music or anything else]. Anup’s point about the 50+ year evolution of Ethernet also suggests to me we will keep learning. [I’m a big Ravenna fan, and had rather hoped it might take off by now. Oh well. :shrug: ]

If you hear a switch or any box making a difference, you have to ask yourself at least two questions:

  1. What is the change I am hearing?
  2. What is being removed/improved/added, e.g., noise, better clocking, etc.?
  3. How is that change effected?

Another way to look at that is: what was my system not doing as well as it should have been before I inserted this new box? These are valid questions, and the S100 or other device may be a valid solution if there was a problem it can address. But for anyone already with a proper network, it’s a solution in search of a problem.

P.S. To answer Ian’s very first question in the OP, until Melco makes a Roon server, I will stick with the Roon Nucleus+. I’ve looked at the Innuos line more than once; the ZENith has the integrated CD ripper that the Nucleus does not, as well as more music software options. But I require neither. I’ve also looked at the Silent Angel Rhein Z1 Roon Music Server, but have not been persuaded [mostly because of the marketing blather, but partly because of their network switch which was not credible to me].

2 Likes
42

If you hear that, then yes, I would agree something needs to be improved. By all indications, the Ethernet input on the Bartok should be superior to the USB. So, why did it sound worse? I believe you that it did sound worse to you, but I would want to understand why— because it shouldn’t . That’s the question that should be asked. Perhaps the dealer connected the Bartok to the network with a shielded Ethernet cable? Or has a noisy switch, or is running things right off the combo modem/router/wifi box? Who knows.

The dealer had apparently dozens of devices on their network and pretty standard generic cabling. There indeed could have been something wrong with their network in particular, or even Qobuz. You would think with their $110,000 Wilson Alexx’s they would have noticed, but then again some people just like a more “digital” sound. I’m personally not that much of the fan of the ubiquitous D’Agostino+Wilson DCS pairing.

When my Bartok arrives on Friday I will have the opportunity to do some testing in my own system. Unfortunately, I did not have the option of doing this before purchase.

Qualitatively the was a certain hazy signature over everything and grayish background that I didn’t like streaming off Qobuz.

We know from comparisons of similar equipment from the same manufacturer— e.g. , the PS Audio DirectStream and its Network Bridge and Direct Memory Player, all three of which I have owned and have high-value SQ—that the same company’s implementation of Ethernet and say, I2S between the transport and the DAC, can produce audibly different results. But that’s not because a protocol is inferior or spinning discs are superior; it’s because of how well it is executed in the DAC itself.

One of my current DACs is the PS Audio Directstream. I’ve found the input sound quality was indeed highly variable, although I never used the network Bridge. Right now I have a MacBook with Audirvana-> 12" Wireworld Starlight 7 Platinum USB->iFi iGalvanic 3.0->Shunyata Sigma USB->iFi iPurifier-> Matrix XSPDIF-2-> Wireworld Starlight 7 Platinum HMDI (I2S)-> Directstream. This chain could undoubtedly be improved with a better digital source but it provides a deeper black background than the Bartok at the dealers. (Part of the rationale for the Innous is that I was planning on buying one for my other DACs anyway) I use a similar chain with a Mytek Manhattan II substituting the I2S with a Shunyata Alpha AES cable and it also has a really nice black background.

If the Bartok ethernet input in my home setup can significantly better these chains without fancy cables or black boxes, I would love to save the money and put it toward better power cables or a nice vibration rack. I will have to try it for myself.

43

You and me both. With all the different design/engineering and manufacturing in the industry, it can be surprisingly difficult to find truly diverse offerings to hear.

That alone speaks volumes, at least to me. Not sure what that dealer is doing, but network topology doesn’t sound like their strongest suit,. I am impressed you made the decision to go with the Bartok, even without a strong network playback showing, inasmuch as network playback is one of its key value propositions. I look forward to reading about your in-home experience.

2 Likes
44

Likewise! I’ve been tracking RAVENNA/AES67 for years as it adopted some very robust technologies from the Telecommunication space to properly standardise Audio-over-IP (along with the corresponding SMPTE 2110 standard for Video-over-IP).

My hope is (was?) that it would eventually develop into a viable open industry standard replacement/unifier for DLNA/UPnP, Roon/RAAT, HQPlayer/NAA, Spotify/Connect, Apple/Airplay, and all the other proprietary bitstream transport implementations, but the AES67’s relatively heavy resource requirements make it less than ideal for such broad consumer use I guess (albeit, there are already some very lightweight implementations).

Even Melco has implemented RAVENNA on their N1x-Servers since 2017 (though apparently supported only in the MK2 hardware/firmware?). Maybe if StreamUnlimited implements it in their SDK, we might see wider adoption. :crossed_fingers:t4:

1 Like
45

I’ve got a Merging NADAC. It was Merging that first alerted me to the possibilities of Ravenna. And I have a custom builder in Canada who is incorporating it into a DAC he is building for me. Of course, it will take more than that to enjoy its benefits.

1 Like
46

I haven’t been able to do any testing re: ethernet play back, but I discovered that at least some of what I didn’t like was Qobuz. Running a demo version through Audirvana from my MacBook to Directstream DAC I can tell that the streaming versions (even with the same sample rate and master) don’t sound as good as the stored ones. It is still a bit more relaxed than the showroom demo, but I can hear there is a loss of sonic contrast.

I suspect there may be more to it than that, but we will see.

47

This has become quite along thread so I am a little disoriented as to exactly where we are now but I believe from your new posting that you haven’t yet received your Bartok .

If Qobuz sounds inferior to the same repertoire that you have as either a rip or download then you are certainly doing something wrong or something that can be improved upon. There are too many possibilities why this should be to speculate but Qobuz should either sound the same as your existing resources or better. I wouldn’t now spend circa 80% of my total music listening time devoted to Qobuz, despite my owning many thousands of albums stored as files or as hard copies in various media, were it otherwise.

1 Like
48

I won’t post again until I’ve had a a chance to do the hardware comparison.

That said, your response is heavily reliant on “should” and the presumption that I must have done something incompetent. I have no idea why Qobuz has less tonal contrast, dynamics and presence compared to the exact same FLAC music at the exact same bit depth and sample rate downloaded from HD Tracks, as played from the exact same music player, through the exact same digital signal chain and DAC. I also have no idea why this signature would be noticeable on multiple systems, but I think anybody should be able to hear the difference.

This relates to my original post inasmuch as I have been troubleshooting the sonic problems I heard in my showroom demo. Qobuz explains some of it.

49

That is a quotation from your original posting.

Some people simply hear things differently to most others. I often see posts on another forum which I contribute to from someone who cannot bear listening to any format that has higher resolution than redbook. Further it must only be processed by a DAC using a resistor ladder. Otherwise he asserts that it is unlistenable. For my part I cannot bear upsampling.

So you may be right - for you. If so there is no solution other than not listening to Qobuz.

However I would wait until your Bartok arrives and you can listen to Qobuz via ethernet connection without a computer , it is burned in and you have decided on the configuration of its facilities ( for example filters) that you prefer before you make a final decision.

Aside from the above observation I repeat that if Qobuz sounds inferior to a rip or download of the original there is something wrong.

BTW, isn’t this an odd forum to write to complaining about the sound of Qobuz via Audirvana, a Mac and a PS Directstream DAC?

1 Like
50

Such as? I tried this on 7 different HD Tracks downloaded FLAC albums of varying genre, sample rate and bit depth. I heard similar effects with Qobuz via Mosaic on the Bartok. With the same versions, same sample rate and bit depth, same player, and reproduced on two different listening systems (on which wasn’t my own), what is you think I am doing wrong?

I don’t see it that way as it corroborates my experience listening to Qobuz with the Bartok and I am trying to isolate the variables involved in my experience of network playback.

51

I cannot comment sensibly until you have your own Bartok installed in your system. As I mentioned above it seems you are still awaiting delivery of this. I am unable to make any useful comments about what you may have heard at a local retailer or when using equipment unfamiliar to me.

52

Ian, I am curious about this comparison. Do you know for a fact that it is the exact same track? You have two different sources here: Qobuz streaming (not downloaded, correct?) and HDTracks downloaded and stored locally. Do you know for certain they are truly the same files?

Is there any possibility that Audirvana is the culprit? It’s been years since I used it regularly, and I liked it then; I assume it’s even better now. Have you checked other forums to see if Audirvana users report any Qobuz deficiencies similar to what you are hearing? What about over at the PS Audio community forum? Is anyone there reporting similar Qobuz deficiencies? I would check the Roon forum as well.

Also, forgive me not remembering, but are you playing files to the DirectStream out of your Mac and into the DS USB input? Are the local files stored internally on the Mac or on the LAN? What’s your internet DL speed? Have you compared similar files in Tidal? Might it be worth a paid month of Qobuz membership to be able to actually download the files from them and listen to them locally?

To Pete’s point, what you are hearing shouldn’t be due to a deficiency in Qobuz files or their streaming. Granted, every single one of us hears uniquely. But what you are describing sounds more than severe enough for it not to be unique. Others would have heard it. I love Qobuz, and I’ve done some file comparisons and not found them wanting.

53

I will need to do further testing, but the files are the same as far as I can tell. HDTracks or Bandcamp FLAC vs Qobuz streaming. I have not compared HDTracks downloads vs Qobuz downloads, and so I can’t compare the exact file size. I may try this. It’s possible that the masters are the same but the FLAC compression levels are different for streaming.

I suppose there could be a quirk with the way Audirvana unpacks the streaming data. The stored files are coming right off of the Mac SSD. I have two different versions of Audirvana from before and after they changed the audio engine and I could see if streaming quality is different.

54

A word of caution regarding the Melco S-100.

I am running Roon on a Wolf Audio Alpha 3SX to an S-100 and then on to a dCS Rossini Player. I have repeatedly experienced the dreaded “audio files loading slowly” message from Roon when I tried to use a 100mb port on the S-100 for my Hi-Res and DSD streams from my music server to my dCS Rossini. On the other hand, using a 1gb port on the S-100 worked fine. While your mileage may vary, I have been advised by MELCO that there is not enough “headroom” on the 100MB ports to run Hi-Res and DSD streams through the 100MB ports when there is other significant traffic on the network. Furthermore, MELCO advises that it is not possible to change the 100mb ports to 1GB ports.

Other users of the S-100 have reported that they have not been having similar problems when using a 100mb port for sending Hi-Res and DSD streams. While my problem could be a network or system problem, I am doubtful that this is the problem. And the Melco representative (who seems well-versed in the technical aspects of the S-100) without hesitation gave the “headroom” explanation when I contacted Melco.

Thus, if one wants to play Hi-Res and DSD streams, one will probably not be able to take advantage of the higher sound quality advertised by Melco for the S-100’s 100mb ports. In addition, one may have more than four devices that need to connect to the four 1gb ports on S-100. These limitations are not reported by Melco, which is lamentable.

Finally, you may have seen reports of an optional fiber optics converter (the “OP S-100”) for the S-100. I have been told by a MELCO dealer that the MELCO OP S-100 is only available in Japan.

55

Yes, that is correct in respect of Roon. The difference in the intended application of ports 1-4 and ports 5-8 ( the latter intended for Roon or TV) is explained by Alan Ainslie of Melco Europe in a quotation that is included in a review of the S-100 in the German Audio magazine HiFi Statement ( see page 2 - you may need to use a translation app ( I did) :

It is, however, not correct that in general you cannot use the 100mb ports for hi-res PCM or DSD files. I have not experienced any problem with hi-res PCM files from Qobuz via the S-100 ( so max in this case of 24/192). As I use a Melco N1 as NAS I do not use the S-100 for locally stored files as Melco provide a switchless ethernet solution to connect to an external streamer ( in my case the Vivaldi Upsampler). Therefore I have not tried my DSD128 files.

Correct, but I suspect that would concern a very small number of people. In total the device offers 8 ports which is already more than most home routers/switches offer. It is, after all, not an industrial product and is not competing with Cisco.

I daresay that Melco will import the OP S-100 converter to e.g. Europe if there is evidence of sufficient demand.

BTW, for English speakers the current edition of Hi-FI News carries as very enthusiastic review of the S-100 by Andrew Everard who is usually fairly sceptical on matters that are based around commercial audiophile network solutions compared to IT based D.I.Y. ones.

56

Having had some time to get used to the Bartok and experiment I thought I would update the thread with my conclusions:

  1. Did connecting the Bartok directly from the Innuos streamer output sound different than connecting the Innuos as a NAS via router? Most definitely yes. In fact, this difference was noticeable even on the other side of an Uptone EtherRegen. Direct from the Innuos is a more clean, lean, low noise sound that can also be a bit on the sharp and punchy side, whereas from the router is looser and more rounded.

  2. Did fancy ethernet cables change the sound? Yes, there was a pleasant improvement, albeit, not quite as much as I hoped. At present I just have one Shunyata Sigma ethernet cable that I use for just upstream of the Bartok. I hope to add another one for the other side of the EtherRegen.

  3. Did adding an Uptone EtherRegen change the sound? Yes, quite a bit. With the EtherRegen The Bartok sound has a more natural flow to it, blacker background, less haze, although it did make things a bit brighter.

A subpoint, I used two different DC cables powering the EtherRegen from an Uptone LPS 1.2, one silver cable by Audio Sensibility, and a copper one by Ghent Audio. They sounded…really different. The silver was quite a bit brighter and more detailed, while the copper was much darker. The result is pretty much the same as when I used them to power a Matrix X-SPDIF 2 for sending I2S to my Directstream DAC.

  1. Qobuz does actually sound a little different from the same files played off the Innuos. It is very slightly less present, as if the sound source was moved back 6 inches. I don’t think many will mind the difference if their system is good overall, and in the case of harsh or bright systems, Qobuz actually helps a little bit by mellowing things a tad on top.

  2. Any other unexpected changes? Adding an Synergistic Orange Quantum fuse to the Innuos subtly changed the sound, and was actually apparent even on the other side of the EtherRegen.

I can conclude that although it is characteristically different, ethernet is just as wiley as USB, and benefits just as much from refinement.

1 Like
57

:man_shrugging: Yeah, no. There are ways to optimize Ethernet,—and to improve SQ in a network audio system—but if the conductor choice for the PSU of your EtherREGEN [which even Alex and John advise doesn’t make much of, if any, difference], is moving your system darker/lighter, then you really have to ask yourself why. What is it about PSU power cables that could alter the tonal characteristics of your system? I don’t doubt you’re hearing it, Ian; I just doubt the cause, and given the near-impossibility of a blind or even semi-objective sighted comparison, well, I hope you can forgive me for wondering if you’re experiencing some expectation/confirmation bias. What have you got coming downstream and through the EtherREGEN that introduces, or is susceptible to, analog tonal changes? Even if we grant the possibility that something is changing the squareness or precision of the digital voltage signals, how does that cause the DAC—in your case, the Bartok—to sound different? Put another way, what is that cable choice causing your DAC to do differently? If I could just read even one engineering speculation as to why that might be the case, it could be possible to have a meaningful conversation. But even John Swenson over at Uptone has yet to publish measurements that show anything that could lead to an audible state change in a network system. He has his hypothesis, which I find interesting; but he has yet to prove or disprove it. In the meantime, we each get to spend our money on the things our ears and brains find desirable and/or acceptable.

The ER is a device still looking for a problem to solve [and BTW, I hope they find it; they’re trying interesting things]. I have an EtherREGEN in both my speaker and headphones systems [and the why of that is a separate conversation], and I power them with a 3d party PSU. To my ears, it sounds just like the Uptone in-line LPS. So why a separate PSU? Using the Keces allows me to use one receptacle in my power conditioners to power two/three devices in the front end of each system. That’s it. Not SQ, convenience. But for me, that may be because I already had very good optical isolation going into my DACs, and little, if any, way for any noise other than that generated by the DAC itself to get into my SQ.

Ethernet just as "wily "as USB? Sorry, no sale. [said respectfully, and lightheartedly; I am not flaming anyone] :smiley:

58

I spent a month comparing a lot of different factors in my system. So far, nobody I have asked can find any fault whatsoever in my power cables, interconnects etc. Almost every single thing I changed had some difference, but the least noticeable impact was the Innuos fuse, and easily noticeable but not giant was the ethernet cable. I’d say the source device on the other side of the EtherRegen had more impact than the ethernet cable.

I don’t think any of the changes I heard (save for the fuse) would be inaudible or trivial in a revealing system. If I compare the same streamed track from the network with regular ethernet cables, no EtherRegen, vs from the Innuos, Shunyata ethernet cable, the EtherRegen and custom DC cables, it’s like a completely different DAC. Vastly different.

I’m not one who believes that explanations are necessary in making audio quality choices. Perhaps someday the engineers will catch up to the listeners, and until then I go by what I hear. I’ve played this same game with high res denialist, digital cable skeptics, power cable skeptics, and ethernet is no different. There is no perfect self contained system, and everything can be pushed further towards transparency.

One way to think about all this is that the less noise (and it is noise, you can easily tell when it is there and when it isn’t) the more revealing of upstream components. The changes in timbre are obviously related to the noise profile coming down the line, same as with any power cable, power conditioner, or USB cable, although I have no idea why DC cables make such a big difference.

Network audio is never going to have a sonic profile like USB, but like I said, it’s just as interdependent and also presents a more or less infinite rabbit hole.

59

it may not be as wiley but ethernet is better SQ.

1 Like
60

Well, call me an objectivist if one must—though that doesn’t keep me from believing that each of us can hear different things and that different Jing’s matter—but I do think audible differences ought to be conceptually explainable, even if they are not measurable. I am not a denialist, and I don’t see this as a game. I have invested in excellent power, because it demonstrably makes a difference, in properly built power cables for the same reason, in excellent analog ICs for the same reason, in properly engineered digital cables for the same reason. My speaker and headphone systems are probably more resolving than your Bartok, but both our systems are more than good enough to hear the differences you are describing. However, if you don’t want to have your perceptions tested by reason, that’s up to you. I’ve got a wonderful partner with hearing that I think is better than mine, so I routinely ask her to test my perception of a new bit in our system. If we both hear a difference, that’s a good and simple thing, but if not, I have to ask myself what might be happening.

If one takes a physical item, like a [let’s use an easy one] power supply, and this power supply makes a system sound different, there are a number of reasons we could hypothesize for that. And those hypotheses allow us to test/reject/improve the construction of the PSU toward an outcome. You night choose to buy it without explanation, but the designer/builder has to know something about his/her design and choice of materials to make an educated guess about what might work or could be improved. And there is nothing wrong with accidentally discovering a way to improve something; that happens all the time. But then the accident is examined to discover “the why.” It’s true Ian that you don’t have to know it, but the people who design, build, replicate, and improve it do eventually have to know why. And some of us who buy want to know why. So, when you enthusiastically describe a “vast” difference arising from the improvements you made, for this audiophile, I want to know why. Because the “why” is far more likely to guide me as to the utility for me than your unexplained impression alone.

Over at Iconoclast Cable, their chief engineer publishes papers on cable design, with explanations about why cable design [much more than material] affects the throughput and outcome. Iconoclast cables are not cheap, perhaps what we might call low-to-mid in the high end, but they are extremely well-regarded, and they have some engineering to back them up and explain how and why they perform the way they do. Conversely, there is plenty of physics explaining why the human ear and brain cannot hear distinctions between the phase velocity propagation of copper vs. silver in a 3m cable. That doesn’t mean that listeners cannot hear the differences between cables; it only suggests that the choice of conductor in an identically designed cable might itself not be audible [to most]. But perhaps something about the cable geometry, construction, dielectric, etc. makes the difference. Again, you don’t have to know why, but somebody does.

I agree that noise is the likely culprit in any system in which the change of a component like a cable makes an audible difference in sound, especially on the digital side. But that’s quite a lot removed from how the conductor material in your otherwise well-made DC cable changes the tonal quality of your system. What about copper or silver could change the quantity or quality of noise in your system? You may not care about why, but I sure would like to know. And I am pretty sure Ghent Xu wouldn’t mind knowing, too [I’ve got several of his well-made DC cables].

I do respectfully disagree with your last statement. I’m not sure what you mean by “sonic profile.” I don’t believe there is a “USB sound” or a “network sound.” But network audio is nowhere near as interdependent as a USB-based system; that’s one of its advantages. And the rabbit hole is only as infinite as we choose to let it be without taking stock of reality.

I used to have a desk plate at work that said “Everything Matters.” I still believe that. But as an audiophile, I would probably add a coda: “But only an audiophile can hear them all.”

1 Like