Grimm MU1 Streamer - Really "The Best"?

@ghasley 

I would love to see pics of your audio den :-) 

Just to add to this thread. I have owned the Grimm for a fair amount of time! 3+ years. One of the earlier adopters.

Having met and spoken with the manufacturers close to nearly a decade back gave me the strength that they know this domain as well as others, and implement theory into practical to see if it actually works and sounds better.

Being able to play in mostly all formats for today, digital and analog the MU-1 has given me great enjoyment with some of the longest listening session which I have never done before, due to it’s convenience.

There may be other flavours, but do try it out and then decide.

One thing for sure, you won’t go disappointed that I wish I had heard this other component as its ’so much’ better than the MU-1.

You’ll only be playing in the space of personal preferences off one component over another.

@nyev 

No affiliation but there is a preowned Grimm just listed for sale on that other site. 8tb ssd, 8 gig ram. For those in Southern California, you could pick it up.

Once again, there are alot of opinions and everyone is certain of their path. The OP seemed to be interested in a one box solution and seemed to be interested at pricepoints between $10k and $20k. The Aurender is hard to go wrong with…and I wouldn’t worry too much about Antipodes QC…its great gear. The Innuos is also terrific and their customer support is exceptional. One thing the Innuos has going for it is you can use Roon…or not. The Grimm is optimized for Roon but if Roon isnt your preference then scratch it off the list. 

Alot of posters enjoy their dsd and for good reason…its the cleanest dirty shirt in the digital hamper. Just like in vinyl, there are millions of variables (phono stages, tube vs ss, step up transformers, cartridge choices, TT choices, idlers vs belt drive, multi motors, mass vs lightweight, cables, wires, isolation, power cables and treatment). I listen for enjoyment, I prefer the least number of variables to troubleshoot…but I recognize that others in our hobby prefer otherwise. There are more than a few setup photos on the Audiogon systems section where you can almost imagine the marital status of the individual and there interior design preferences. Ive mentioned before in other posts in other threads that there is a very valid (for them) subsection of individuals in our hobby whose setups more closely resemble something out of a Rube Goldberg drawing with special cable lifters, rare African wood footers and almost always….a single chair (usually a barcolounger with soiled/worn velour fabric with some Taco Bell stains here and there). Its all good, everyone gets out of the hooby what they want.

I assume though that the OP is after a clean install by his excellent choice of the Gryphon Diablo and their inboard dac. He can choose a well built/engineered server/streamer and elevate his enjoyment. One box, one power cable, one cable to his Diablo and accomplish his goal. OR…he can construct a shrine to “I can make it work but it takes 6 boxes, 6 power cables, numerous connection points and other unecessary tweaks and variables with no guarantee it will sound better because in most cases they havent experienced a five figure server/streamer in a proper way. For many here, they have an abundance of time and they enjoy the trial and error of introducing complexity. That doesn’t describe me.

Demo it in your room with your gear. Decide for yourself, there is no best and there are many roads to get where you want to go. 

+1, @lordmelton 

If you have the capability to add external clock, you must try this option. It’s what I call the ‘X’ factor. Based on what’ve experienced with my DAC and N20, a high quality 10MHz external clock is a next level upgrade. 

@kairosman

this thread has piqued my interest, I’ve decided I’m going to audition the Grimm to hear for myself what the fuss is all about.

This is an excellent step. Actually auditioning  of the Grimm MU1 in your audio system and compare to what you’re currently accustomed to. I don’t believe that USB and I2S are inherently better. But it’s just one man’s opinion. You will be in a position to determine for yourself. I applaud your effort and willingness to try. This beats preconceived notions and personal bias.

Best wishes,

Charles

@nyev Of course. The main problem with the Musetec 005 DAC is that it takes forever and a day to burn in. So, yes I used AES and USB in tandem until the USB started pulling away from AES.

I have a 10mHZ master clock connected to the N20, which contary to popular belief, also improves USB too.

I hope you don't mind me saying but it looks like your system components are set up for a revealing system while I think you want a more romantic sound with a seductive midrange, valves?

Audioquest Dragon PCs are some of the best PCs but they will tell you as it is, I have several.

Maybe Cardas would be better for you.

@lordmelton , just curious, have you compared the AES interface of your N20 to USB?

@kairosman Thank you, I2s is the best provided it is handled natively, although USB is very, very close. DSD is important to me so I won't use SPDIF.

I use the Aurender N20 to the Musetec 005 (which you have) an excellent pairing via solid silver USB, I have tried I2s too, but it needs to be native.

@lalitk 's system is probably the best that isn't off the charts price wise.

@lordmelton exactly my thoughts. I just can't understand in this day and age considering how quickly digital playback is evolving why a manufacturer would limit a product's input/output/format/sampling options. Some here have responded to my query by restating the manufacturer's and 'enthusiastic' reviewers' claims that SPDIF and AES are easier to clock precisely, but many other manufacturers suggest I2S is superior in that regard for many reasons most of which are too technical for me to fully appreciate. Rather than an either or approach, most higher end manufacturers try to give customers lots of choices, but regardless, this thread has piqued my interest, I've decided I'm going to audition the Grimm to hear for myself what the fuss is all about. 

“Curious about the Grimm but can’t quite get my head around no high-rate USB OR I2S output just AES.”
@kairosman

Further to what @ghasley said, MU1 is designed to stream max resolution upto 192kHz, which is also the standard for a single wire AES/EBU protocol. This pretty much eliminates the need to implement USB or i2S. While one can use MU1 in a conventional system, it truly intended to be a centerpiece for their LS series self-powered speakers.

@audioman58 , can you let me know the general characteristics of the Antipodes Antipodes K50, the MU1, the Aurender N20, and also the Innuos Zenith (Mk3) when combined with the PhoenixUSB Reclocker? From your post I imagine you have testing these.

Genuinely interested in a very general characterization of these products from someone who has experienced all of these. I know that each component is subject to a plethora of variables, but I hear the K50 for example universally described as tonally rich//dense.

I am starting to consider an alternate approach. Buy used, live with it for a few months, sell. If I find the magic streamer/server I can always sell and buy it new at that point. Even though I said I am not interested in the Aurender N20 I might start with this option as it’s the lowest cost of the class of products I’m looking at. Then I’d move to the K50. Then I’d trial a new MU1 (since there are never any used for sale). A long approach but I’d get very familiar with each.

One concerning thing I read in other forums (Whatsbest) is some concerns about the quality of Antipodes products, with more than a few accounts of people receiving new units that have major issues. Usually with SSD and USB interfaces not working at all. In all cases the issues were expeditiously resolved but it did spur some negative sentiment on the poor level of quality.

@kairosman 

Regardless, can someone explain why you think Grimm opted to forgo USB/I2S outputs?

Because it's for the same reason that people were told SACDs were no better than Cds. A lot of people here have DACs that can't play DSD so it's of no interest to them.

Additionally if you are over 70 years old can you really trust your own hearing?

You will naturally gravitate to sweet valves and R2R DACs.

DSD is the best, most accurate digital sound reproduction, bar none. DSD can only be reproduced over USB and I2s with very few exceptions.

In our north east audio club I have tested 90% of all dacs, and streamers out there .

that’s why building ,or have a super fast  streamer, server with HQ player gives anyone the most flexibility and sonic performance possibly and HQplayer is-not That expensive and the first 2 weeks are free.

@audioman58 

I missed the part in your posts where you had ever experienced Aurender, Grimm, Innuos or Antipodes server/streamers.

I truly don’t see how they can justify a little nuk board ,a intel i3 processor for $11 k 

whenfor $5k you can get the excellent Fiber optic Sonore with a intel I 9 processor 16 megs of ram ,super fast ideal for HQ player which needs at least a i7 processor

and takesRoon to another level which is built into the backend of arion , then you can literally tune this to your Audio system exactly to your taste with some time and practice .i am just starting to learn it , and theExcellentT&A 200 dac is built with HQ player in mind with several dither setting and a bunch of other adjustments 

withthe hdmi board its$7500 so at the moment I am saving it but it’s my favorite dac    
even against Denafrips latest plus 12 anniversary, and Holo springsmsy KTE ,

ilike it better-then the chorddave , including mola mola these2 May have a slight edge in pure transparency but are a bit too analytical compared .i judt want something that sounds great and very natural theT&A200 dac youcan get foraround $6600  with hdmi board .

There is other ways to do this for example Sonore optical server, rendu and excellent LPS  Sonore verygood asis uptone but I just was part of a shootout 

Linear Tube Audio makes a even better LPS in several ways in build as well as sound for a bit less  monies . I am working on  having 5 LPS including my latest 

modem- router combo upgrade the LPS with a decent pangea sig power cord and the very good stock Linear Audio DC Pc truly made a nice improvement from the starting point of the stream before going tothe optical which I use 2 Sonore deluxe modules, every power cable counts when streaming besides the Ethernet cables .

@kairosman 

Grimm chose spdif, primarily aes/ebu because superior jitter reduction and clocking were integral to its sound quality goals.

USB is clocked at the dac so variable results. I2S is great if the sender and receiver are optimized for one another. There are alot of great solutions out there. If you like what you have, stop looking…you’re welcome.

Regardless, can someone explain why you think Grimm opted to forgo USB/I2S outputs?

The Grimm team seems to be well organized, experienced and have done their homework/research. I get the impression they find no genuine superiority of USB orI2S signal paths. In fact they may have determined well executed AES/EBU is better sounding.

Hans Beekhuyzen did a recent review of the Magna Mano Ultra MK III and compared its AES output to I2S and found them equal in sound quality. So possibly more hype than real world performance enhancement. As has been mentioned during this thread (Numerous times) quality of and attention to implementation /optimization is likely the dominant determinant.

Charles

Have the Lumin P1 utilizing fiber optic from a Melco S100, and output on USB and/or BNC to Lampizator Baltic 4 or Musetec MH-DA005 or Gustard R26 then onto a Gryphon Diablo 300. I didn’t opt for an internal DAC cuz obviously I already had great external DACs. Btw I use Transparent cabling - and if you’re curious, the P1’s internal dual mono chip-based DAC is very good, a different flavor rather than something I’d say is better or worse than my external DACs, more importantly the P1 has proven to be a great streaming platform, as good or better than the Lumin U1 in my other system. Curious about the Grimm but can’t quite get my head around no high-rate USB OR I2S output just AES. My best results consistently come via a DDC using I2S although occasionally BNC is surprisingly more dynamic and engaging on some tracks though I have no idea why. Also the P1 renders a TV HDMI signal via ARC to 2 channel sound so I’m getting fantastic TV sound finally. Regardless, can someone explain why you think Grimm opted to forgo USB/I2S outputs?

@ghasley If someone says box A sounds better than box B, that can be debated. If some says "we are capable of 24/3072 resolution and our competition isn’t"...thats quantifiable, printable and repeatable but the secondary question rarely gets posed...does it matter?

Spot on!

I've asked that very question, do those numbers truly matter? Agree with @lalitk .​​@ghasley ​​​​​,  you've made numerous salient points in this thread.

Charles

@lalitk , I too thought I read something about Innuos supporting AES on their latest Pulse series (dedicated streaming players), but I checked earlier today and they don’t list AES under the list of supported interfaces.

UPDATE: My mistake, I was looking under the "connectivity" specifications, not "Audio Outputs". AES is in fact added on the Pulse series. Guessing Innuos will launch new servers / players based on the updates in the Pulse. Seems like they have an opportunity to launch an upgraded Zenith with the power supply updates of the Pulsar streamer, and with a high-precision "PhoenixUSB" clock under the hood, and with AES support, at a price that is halfway between the current Zenith Mk3 and the Statement.

I am currently running NUC -> MU1 -> Tambaqui where the NUC is serving as the Roon server.  Very happy with that configuration.  Have not done A/B between Roon server on NUC vs MU1.  Believe question of which piece of hardware to run Roon server on was brought up in MU1 audiophilestyle thread.  I recall conclusion was it shouldn’t matter.  Btw - good discussion/contributions.

“DSD 1024”

@ghasley

You’re on a roll today…LOL! I am catching up to your posts…As you might know the main DAW in the world for recording in DSD is max out in 256. That’s Merging’s Technologies Pyramix. If I am not mistaken all of the DSD 512 or 1024 stems from the original 256 recording. I believe any file sourced from an original master, regardless of its resolution is capable of sounding incredible on a well appointed system. Whenever I’m buying a download, I always check its provenance and DR measurements.

I concur with your assessment on Meitner DAC. I had the similar experience hence my reason to dump it in favor of my current DAC which is exemplary in its execution of digital files, local and those stream from Qobuz. Just like Grimm, Merging is highly regarded in the professional recording and mastering studios. I happen to own many recordings that were produced, mastered with Merging Clock. If you’re still collecting DSD’s, check out TRPTK and Turtle Records. You’re in for a royal treat my friend.

Back to your post, I concur with your assessment on Innuos focusing on USB. However it appears they are missing out hence their decision to include AES, SPDIF connectivity on newer Pulse series. If I recall, limited connectivity was one of the reasons why I never considered Innuos Statement at its release.

Almost forgot to mention, Total DAC is another DAC that was high on my list to try but I never really got around. So many great sounding components to choose from and not enough resources :-)

PS: I was quite surprised to see you moved away from all Shindo system (pre/amp and Mr. T). Someday, I am going to built all Shindo system around WVL or Horning’s. 

@nyev

As an aside, I wonder why Innuos does not support AES as the others do.

I’m going to put on my business hat and remove my hifi hobbyist hat and say its a combination of they are probably playing to their perceived strengths. If they believe they know more about usb or that they believe it is an easier interface to monetize, then that makes sense. With one type of output to try to optimize, they are probably better at focusing development resources in one direction. Support and the resources necessary to do it well is also optimized...

Since the reclocker came up in earlier posts, monetizing the usb as a business trying to make money is far easier. If your product puts out a fantastic aes signal and your clocking is optimized...how many $4k ADD ON boxes can you build and sell to hifi enthusiasts?

Anyone ever seen an AES/EBU optimizer? Linear power supplies that take said optimizers to amazing new heights? Neither have I. There is an established standard with aes that no one evidently disputes. Additionally, Innuos is smart to focus on the interface most likely to be fragmented...so its easier to gain market share and penetrate it. USB presents that opportunity. DSD 1024? yep. PCM 24/3072? Yep!

Its easier to sell a product with a moving target, where you can OBJECTIVELY differentiate yourself from the competition. If someone says box A sounds better than box B, that can be debated. If some says "we are capable of 24/3072 resolution and our competition isn’t"...thats quantifiable, printable and repeatable but the secondary question rarely gets posed...does it matter?

@davespencer thanks for posting. Is the above info sourced from Grimm/Roon?

If so, the superior Roon user experience is separated from all of the audio functions/stream, which are now handled by the Grimm? That would seem to validate the listening impressions of alot of us out here who are hearing something special via Roon through the Grimm even though our Innuos - "Roon" experience prior to Grimm ownership was better through Sense than through Roon. Thanks again.

@ghasley , great rationale; makes perfect sense.  As an aside, I wonder why Innuos does not support AES as the others do.

BTW, having ROON built in saves many people the cost of a $1500. ROON Nucleus.

One thing no one has mentioned is that the MU1 has its own iteration of ROON built into it. This was done to optimize communications and improve SQ. This was with knowledge and approval of ROON (it's ROON certified). This may address some of those critical of ROON SQ. 

I'm using the Grimm MU1 in front of a Mola Tambaqui, which has it's own streamer built-in, and the difference is incredible. With the Mola's selectable output voltage I can run my amps directly, but I still prefer running thru my ARC Ref 6 which provides a superior stage experience to my ears. 

@nyev

I agree with you that the Diablo is a very well engineered piece. I dont know in what way Gryphon built their board, where or what was optimized for the dac board in general nor their usb implementation in particular. With that said, I cant imagine that the usb to spdif handoff is revolutionary, more likely it was optimized. Therefore, and this is a WAG, the usb to spdif handoff as well as the clocking is more than likely very, very good but its unlikely the clocking is a world beater. The Grimm or the better Aurenders via AES will likely make a material difference.

One of the advantages of a high end company like Gryphon designing their own dac (or phono) board is they can build it to their standards based on the optimal traits to complement the Diablo. No interconnects needed, perfect integration, etc, etc. They dont have to overbuild it, they just build it to a high enough standard and thats where they should logically stop. Its a tremendous value but thats from a long ago, multi day audtition. If you like your Diablo and dont plan on moving up the Gryphon foodchain, you are set. If you are content, then dont overbuy on the server/streamer front.We all get caught up with bringing a howitzer to a pillow fight bu the analogy absolutely applies to hifi.

In your case, assuming you are happy with your Diablo and you just want to enhance/maximize what you have, I believe that the less you ask a dac board to do (even a dac board developed by an exceptional manufacturer like Gryphon) the better off you will be. The aes input will be an upgrade from companies the likes of Aurender, Grimm, Antipodes, et al.

@grannyring , as I’ve mentioned in past threads For a long time I didn’t hear the benefit of Innuos Sense over Roon that you and pretty much everyone else hears, until fairly recently. Not sure if it was due to a version change in either’s software or another tweak in my system, but I now hear far more detail and better imaging with Sense. Roon still sounds a little “bigger” to me in terms of scale, and also fuller, but Sense is just better.

@ghasley , thanks again for your input. One concern I had was not knowing how decent the AES implementation is on my Diablo 300 DAC, vs USB which I currently use. Sounds like it will work well. I suppose the Diablo DAC’s supercapacitor it uses to provide isolated voltage for USB would not be utilized when using AES? I like that flashing blue light on the front of the Diablo that indicates the super cap is charging, when you haven’t powered the unit in a while!  But it makes me think that Gryphon went the extra mile to make it’s USB interface on the DAC really good.

@grannyring 

I hear you and your sharing of your expeiences has influenced many of my decisions in the past. Thank you! You are always so kind to share what you learn…and to do so over the telephone as well. You are a real asset to all of us.

Your experience with the Phoenix reclocker doesn’t surprise me…but not because it isnt a terrific product, it is. It further reinforces that all products are not additive just because they are sometimes effective in certain situations. A simple example is if product A lowers the noise floor of something by 20% in a noisy system, what that product does well may make no audible difference in another system with a lower noise floor. I think we all to often suspend our decades of well earned logic with some of what we experience in hifi. For instance the reclocker may make a hige difference with average dacs with average clocking on their usb input whereas your dac likely has superior clocking. In short, the Phoenix is addressing something that you dac addresses more effectively. Thats my working theory as to why the Network Acoustics Muon system can be so absolutely transformative when I dropped it into my Innuos Zenith based setup while the Muon setup doesnt enhance the Grimm based setup in the least. In short, there are alot of products that address different things so when someone says its system dependent, what many of us are saying is “we dont know what needs addressing in your system, but in my system I made this change and it enhanced performance”. I read comments alot here on Audiogon that Reviewer A said it did this and I bought the power conditioner and it didnt do squat. Maybe the reviewer is in Brooklyn with bad power and the user who says it did nothing has phenominal power at their home. These subtlties in a system don’t stack like coupons on Amazon. For something to enhance a listening experience, there needs to be something to fix.

Be well Bill.

@ghasley 

Very insightful comments!!!

Charles

@lalitk I agree with you regarding upsampling in the typical dac, even in the price range you describe. That even goes for the Chord method…I still cant figure what people are hearing when they say they love the Dave…I couldnt sell my fast enough when I had it. The Grimm decidedly does it differently. Sometimes a new take on an old idea bears a different fruit.

I was an early adopter with DSD and have a ton of files so I get where you are coming from. In fact, I spent a considerable sum and amount of time converting all of my vinyl to dsd. There really arent that many titles originally recorded in DSD, which is where the real opportunity exists. Its a shame the adoption isnt gaining any momentum…tough to edit in dsd I guess.

Another test I did, which again, is far from scientific or proof of anything other than concept. I played back the same tracks from several of my High Definition Tape Transfer titles I own. On the Innuos I played the dsd, 24/192, 24/96, 24/44.1 versions of the same tracks. Sounded great on both my Totaldac and the Meitner MA3. As we went down the resolution scale, the Meitner/Totaldac each sounded equally terrific on dsd and the sound quality of the the Meitner differed more than the Totaldac as we went down in resolution. I surmise since the meitner upsamples everything was the root cause. I preferred the totaldac with lower resolution tracks. Fast forward…on those same tracks, I played the dsd version through the Zenith into the usb of my totaldac and then the lower resolution through the Grimm via AES. I preferred the Grimm 4fs version of the playback. Once again, it proves nothing other than with the Totaldac the Grimm provided a higher level of enjoyment.

I dont mean to burst anyone’s bubble but their is simply no consistentcy of data, software or hardware out there. Well over 90% of the dsd material out there was upsampled by someone using whatever they used to do it to varying degrees of success. A GREAT may of the top studios actually use Grimm clocks in their mastering/recording chains so Grimm probably does have a but more experience in that regard and thus, a great deal of confidence/knowledge in how they can maximize results.

Another test I did one time…I had just received my Studer R2R deck back from receiving a perfect calibration and cleaning from a studio guy in LA. I had a dsd recording I had purchased of an album, I had a perfect original pressing on vinyl and decided to do a little test. I offloaded one well known track of dsd file to a thumb drive, I recorded the same track from vinyl to tape and then recorded the dsd track playback to tape. I then went to LA with the tape and the thumb drive. I didnt tell the guys at the studio what I had done, I just asked them to listen to the three tracks and independently tell me their impressions. They had, IIRC, a Playback Designs dac and a studer very similar to the one I had. I recognize that bias probably played a significant role…but they rated the dsd file third….the needle drop second and the r2r recording of the dsd file as the best sounding. This happened 10-12 years ago so I recognize technology on the dsd/digital side of the equation has come a long way. My takeaway? I thought the dsd file sounded best, the needle drop second and the dsd to r2r transfer third. Vinyl and tape sound rolled off to me and they are used to that sound. Fast forward to today, what we can achieve in the home is so vastly superior to what was even possible 20 years ago. I believe a really good 24/192 recording of a large swath of available music beats the dsd version of the same file (which was probably upsampled to dsd from that same file). I have owned Playback Designs, Chord, DCS, several Totaldacs, Meitner and MSB Discrete as far as my dsd capable dacs. I just havent been able to digest the cool aid that dsd is the answer when so much of our available music was recorded in either analog or 16/44.1. For me, for my listening taste, in my system and the eras of music I enjoy I have consistently preferred my music in the original format/sampling rate, not upsampled….until the Grimm. Everyone’s mileage may vary but we simply cant insist we are purists and one method is always better. The music we enjoy has likely been recorded in analog to tape. Then several copies were made of the original master and several copies were maded from the copies and by the time the tape arrives to the person who will lovingly transfer it to dsd, they are quite often dealing with a third or fourth generation tape at best. They do their thing and then presto, we have a dsd or pcm snapshot of that tape. So when I see/hear the conversation shift to discussions about “original format” I tend to look away and resume what I was doing. There are darn few recordings that meet that criteria…I just judge it by enjoyment and choose not to obsess about it. Much of what was being sold to us, especially in the early days of dsd sold was just upsampled pcm.

Like you said, which server/streamer is best? The one that meets your goal.

@lalitk and @ghasley

Unquestionably you have respectively accomplished this goal .

Charles

@ghasley 

I still listen to Roon on my Innuos Zenith to compare with Sense.  Roon still sounds much less enjoyable.  Really not even close. I compared the most recent versions of Sense and Roon and simply find Roon is still far behind sonically. Keep in mind I do not use DSP and don’t tax my Zenith at all.  It has never locked up or needed to be cycled off/on.  It has run flawlessly at all times in my home even when I primarily used Roon a couple of years ago. 
 

I demoed the PhoenixUSB Reclocker in my system for two weeks and ended up returning it.  It simply did not offer a perceptible improvement in sound quality when used with the Mojo Audio Evo Pro dac I had at the time.  I actually preferred the Zenith on its own with the Mojo Audio dac. Just more at ease and natural sounding.   I was rather shocked at this outcome, but it just reinforces the important role various systems and preferences play in our choices.  
 

I must say your comments on the Grimm has me wanting to listen to one in my system. The problem is I spent so much on my Tron dac that another $11 grand on the server is not possible. I suppose I opted to spend much more on the dac vs the server. With the Grimm unit I sense one can spend less on the dac and get a great outcome.  Interesting. 

Totally agree with @adasdad. My experience is that investing in the best sounding DAC you can afford will give you the greatest listening pleasure.

@ghasley 

Thanks for your last post, very informative and helpful in understanding why you preferred MU1 over Innuos and Aurender. I don't mean to beat a dead horse but my stance on upsampling was based on my extended listening with four different DAC’s in the price range from $8K and $25K. To my ears, upsampled files did not sounded natural and often produced some level of distortion. As of now, ROON doesn’t support native DSD files. And since they are using ROON as OS so a sample rate conversion (both upsampling and downsampling) by way of “Pure Nyquist” decimation filter appears to be a smart choice. If anything, you achieve greater consistency across the board by listening in 2FS or 4FS mode. 

In any case, MU1 is not something I would not consider…I have a large library of DSD and analog files that I prefer to hear natively. In my system, Aurender serves my needs beautifully by allowing me to hear files without any post processing and not to mention unparalleled RAVENNA integration with my Merging DAC over Ethernet.

Like you said, which server/streamer is best? The one that meets your goal. 

@charles1dad 

Thanks for the question, the Muon streaming system is not necessary with the Grimm. It dramatically improves the Innuos, it seems the Grimm doesn’t need the “help”. The Muon system is also very effective if utilizing the inboard streamer on the Totaldac, less so when I also had a Maitner MA3. I think I briefly posted elsewhere that, since I already own the Muon system that I would just leave it in the chain…sortof like a belt and suspenders but I just dont hear any improvement to speak of when using the Muon with the Grimm. Thats another reason I enjoy the ownership experience with the Grimm. I find that it is agnostic to a degree with all the audiophile nervosa moves we all obsess over.  Power cable, ethernet cable, etc, etc. I have not tested. Many aes/ebu cables…just a Black diamond from Tellurium Q and the SHunyata Sigma V2.

@nyev Since I’m not a reviewer, my exercise was to determine what I preferred in my system. No controls, no real validity for others I guess. The ratings that I arbitrarily listed as well should have no bearing on the decisions of others as they may decide otherwise. With that said, the Innuos reclocker that you have elevates the Zenith to something more akin to “statement light” level. I did not discuss the effects of cables with the Zenith but I was using a Final Touch Audio Sinope USB cable, which I had chosen some time prior as my preference. I also want to point out that I had AQ Vodka ethernet cables (which I preferred to the Diamond) and I also have several Totaldac ethernet cables/filters. One VERY important factor that I didnt mention, which I believe provided material assistance to the Innuos, was that since I didnt find the Muon system to be necessary with the Grimm, I used it with the Zenith. That might explain the “base” Grimm and the “tweaked” Innuos Zenith performance gap being so close. Also, when writing the above I wanted to be careful when assigning some arbitrary score to the Grimm and the Zenith to intentionally not overstate some wide margin between them. The Grimm is better sounding without upsampling than the “tweaked” Zenith to my ears. The Grimm also accomplishes something you have as a stated goal; simplicity, fewer cables, etc.

I really do think the Grimm is a far better choice for many people than the vast majority of server/streamers out there anywhere near its pricepoint. The data into the Grimm is unfussy so a competent ethernet cable in is really all you need. All the gyrations of special switch this and fiber to copper to fiber to copper to external box BS..completely unecessary. So the Grimm must be dealing internally with a great deal of what we believe needs to be addressed with the ethernet stream. CHECK. Next up, the Grimm’s internal clocking IS superior to my ears and given that the AES/EBU is the output of choice from the Grimm, it will improve the clocking of virtually any reasonable consumer DAC. CHECK. I also find that the Grimm as a Roon core is a bit more equipped for the job that the Zenith. Anyone who has owned a Zenith knows that a periodic reboot is necessary be it to improve responsiveness or the rare but occasional lockup. No such issue with the Grimm. CHECK.

So, the summary…the Grimm is cable/filter agnostic, sounds great, it utilizes the superior Roon user interface seemingly without the perceived Roon sound challenges mentioned by some. I happen to believe that Roon has largely dealt with sound quality degradation in previous iterations, it just takes people a while to recognize that previous opinions have a shelf life of validity with a constantly updated software platform. I also believe the Grimm intercepts the stream before Roon owns the data, but that is a hypothesis on my part. Plug and play, rock solid operation and for those who still spin disks, the best part is you plug in your transport to the Grimm and you get all the upsampling and clocking benefits. The volume control is a joy to use audibly and physically. Now, if you happen to like the tweaky nature of setups we so often read about, then the Grimm may not be for you. I’m not saying there isnt some minute improvement to be had by those willing to go to the lengths and try everything imaginable when it comes to filters/cable/fiber coversion/reconversion/linear power supplies powering half a dozen different thingamajigs. Hey, Ive been there but that commenced at a time where we HAD to experiment to achieve a certain level of performance. With the Grimm, its just not necessary.

So, with the Grimm….imagine how much fun it is to plug it into your mains with a reasonably generic power cable, plug it in to your ethernet switch with a reasonably generic ethernet cable, plug it into your reasonably generic dac with a reasonably generic AES/EBU cable and you are done. This level of performance is all possible without all of the fussy, tweaky stuf of which we all grow so tired. Good luck on your journey @nyev as there are so many good products available today from which we may all choose.

As a fly by comment, I have spent time with the Diablo with the inboard dac. It is a solid dac and the Grimm clocking will take it to another level you didnt think was possible. What is possible today with USB is terrific and it has come a long, long way…but the logical side of your brain would have to conclude that the clocking on your dac is an absolute bottleneck and places a hard ceiling on what is possible with your sound quality potential. The Aurender and the Grimm either one would address that by enabling you to use the AES input. If that is your present path, alot of goodness awaits.

@ghasley 

Do you find the Network Acoustics Muon beneficial with your MU1? Hans Beekhuyzen really likes the Muon but said/suggested not as impactful with the MU1. Maybe due to sufficient internal filtering within the MU1?

Charles

@ghasley

I really appreciate your last post as it is very insightful. Based upon my various listening experiences over a period of time I have found that digital components relying on signal manipulation/math/algorithms as a rule didn’t particularly impress. Have I heard every incarnation of such? No.

Yet I do not doubt that the Grimm MU1 sounds as excellent as “many” have attested to. If I heard it and it was as good as advertised, I would easily accept  that. You have to listen to audio products and judge  them accordingly. Signal manipulation or not if it sounds good, end of the story.

BTW given the make up of your audio system I can imagine that it sounds truly splendid! I always enjoy reading posts from you and @lalitk . Keep them coming.

Charles

@ghasley I’ve been wondering about this exact comparison - how the MU1 compares to others without its upsampling “advantage” engaged. So thank you for this!!!

I find it surprising that the MU1 without upsampling isn’t more ahead of the Zenith. The reason why is that I find that my PhoenixUSB Reclocker very noticeably improves my Zenith. The MU1 includes a high precision clock under the hood, so I would have expected it to have a bigger advantage over the Zenith on it’s own.

If the Zenith is a 7/10 when rated against any streamer / server regardless of price, which seems a reasonable score to me that I think I’d agree with, I’d say that the PhoenixUSB raises performance to a 7.5 / 10, or possibly even 7.7. Of note, had you used Sense with the Zenith vs the MU1 with Roon with no upsampling, the results may have been tied.

Maybe your DAC doesn’t care as much about whether it’s input has an ultra-precise clock? Or maybe the Zenith has other advantages, like it’s power management, that the MU1 doesn’t have. Either way I find your comparison very interesting.

One thing I do wonder with my current Zenith Mk3 + PhoenixUSB setup is whether having the signal go through not one but two Audioquest Diamond USB cables negatively impacts the sound. I’m a strong believer that all cables impact sound (due to blind comparisons I’ve done), and that having a cable add it’s characteristics to the signal more than once could be too much of a good thing. I actually notice in my system that using one Diamond USB and one generic Innuos USB cable actually sounds more appealing in some respects and may be a tie vs using two Diamond USB cables. Another reason I’m interested in moving to a 1 box solution.

As an aside, when I first tried one Diamond USB cable at 1.6m length with the second cable being 0.6m, things sounded downright broken. The stock Innuos cable sounded vastly better in place of the 0.6M Diamond USB cable. It was at that point I tried a demo of two Nordost Valhalla 2 USB cables, where the dealer sent me two cables of different lengths, 1m and 2m. Comparing both lengths, and both lengths of the Diamond USB as well, with just the Zenith in the system and no reclocker, the shorter length version of each model of cable sounded broken compared to the longer version. Broken is too strong a word but the difference was really large. After researching what I heard with my ears, I found that some people, and some companies including Nordost, recommend 1.8M as being the optimal sounding length of USB cable. They cite something about shorter cables impacting “reflections” adversely, whatever that means. Not sure if AES/EBU is sensitive to cable lengths.

In case anyone is wondering, yes the 2m Nordost Valhalla 2 cable was better than the 1.6m Audioquest Diamond. But my thought was that the difference wasn’t that large and you could get further upgrading your system in other areas for a lower cost. The Valhalla 2 USB also had less (but more refined) bass energy than the Diamond which I would have missed. The midrange was rather sublime though.

I agree, its been quite civil but the posters on this thread are gentlemen…Charles, Lalitk, Nyev, Jerry, metal, abasdad…all gentlemen. I hope my earlier comments weren’t mistaken for defensive or being curt…I was on the fly.

So, software..to Roon or not to Roon? Personal preference…for the most part. Streaming has gotten so good thaat even impressions formed 24 months ago may no longer be valid. Listen, then have an open mind when listening again in a few years. My opinions on software were formed early inm my career. The short version: I built a software company beginning in the mid ‘80’s and sold it to a big 6 (now big 4 LOL) acccounting firm. It is today, many revisions lateer, still a core part of their consulting practice. In those early days, IBM was the 500 pound gorilla and their hardware ran primarily with their software…their OS only with ther big boxes. I chose a different path and worked my niche. Moral to the story, no hardware where there is a captive OS so I may be biased against Aurender UNLESS it is vastly superior. The W20 was exceptional…it should make anyone happy. Im not in love with their software.

The Innuos? It sounds great with Roon and slightly better with their own Sense software. I loved my Zenith, never a bad experience, rock solid. Im always trying things and when I change it is because I prefer it. So here is how I tested…I also have a Nucleus + server at my office, so I brought it home and tested the Zenith running Roon core, streaming local files to my dac versus having the Nucleus running core and utilize the Zenith as an endpoint. Sounded great both ways. Next, I hung the Grimm off the same switch as the Zenith and I connected the Grimm as an endpoint, no upsampling and connected to the aes/xlr input on my dac and the Zenith via USB. I then queued up the same local file reference tracks on both zones and would listen to one and the other. I believe the Grimm via xlr (not upsampling) was barely, and I mean barely better than the Zenith via usb. In fact, I would not consider the Grimm and upgrade, just slightly different, perhaps a little better but certainly debateable.

Then I repeated the above at 2FS on the Grimm and it was a component level upgrade. At 4fs its a marked improvement. So if the Zenith is a 7 out of 10 sound quality the Grimm not upsampling was a 7.1 and the Grimm at 2FS was a 8 and at 4FS it would be a 8.2. I imagine there is no such thing as a 10, lets say a Taiko is a 9 and the W20 would probably be a 8.5. I heard what I heard and without a true brand bias and I kept the Grimm. The W20 Aurender was slightly better but the captive OS was a bummer and while money isn’t really a factor, double the price for a barely perceptable difference only in rapid fire back to back listening…and the Grimm has some other really nice features that are barely mentioned. The volume is as good as any Ive experienced. It is truly a digital preamp, allowing for analog input and it just absolutely works with no fussiness.

Now then….which server streamer is best? The one that meets your goals…not the one that meets mine…or Joe’s…or Tom’s.

Amp: Audio Note Jinro OR Backert Pre/First Watt SIT3

Digital: Grimm MU1-Totaldac D1-Tube-Mk3

Ethernet: Amplifi router-Network Acoustics Rubicon switch-NA Muon ethernet cable-Muon filter to Grimm

Cables: Audio Note Isis interconnects or Audience AU24 SX IC’s with the FW/Backert, A23 speaker cables, Shunyata Sigma V2 AES/EBU

Speakers: Devore Orangutans

Despite the title of my thread I have enough experience in this hobby to know that any “conclusion” I think I’ve reached may later be proven totally wrong!

Amen Brother!  I think any audiophile worth his/her salt has a thirst to keep learning.  After all, it’s only after some valuable experience of being proven wrong at some level do our systems truly improve.  Keep fighting the good fight!

@jerryg123 

This has been a real good thread and civil.

Agreed. 
The Grimm MU1 makes a very interesting point of discussion. Caught my attention last year after reading Christiaan Punter’s thorough comparison of it and the Antipodes K50.Easy to understand how either can be an ideal choice for a discerning listener.

Charles

This has been a real good thread and civil. 

@lalitk 

I completely understand the argument about ‘real world SQ’. I know atleast two very highly regarded DAC manufacturers (AudioNote and Abendrot) that doesn’t do DSD (an important consideration for me) but I wouldn’t hesitate to jump on the first opportunity to own them as a sidekick to my amazing Merging DAC.  

This expresses a degree of flexibility it seems.

Anyway perhaps he’ll chime in with further thoughts.

Charles

@nyev 

I get it, Aurender is not for everyone. Whatever path you choose, just have fun. 

@charles1dad …I appreciate your support. 

@charles1dad 

Where is the “absolute position “?

Here

Upsampling or Downsampling is a non-starter for me.

@nyev 

I sincerely hope that you are able to arrange in home auditions for your short list of music servers. I believe with some effort and perseverance you can make this happen. Anything less is simply speculation.

Charles

Interesting philosophical discussion on merits of upsampling…. Despite the title of my thread I have enough experience in this hobby to know that any “conclusion” I think I’ve reached may later be proven totally wrong! It’s so easy to reach incorrect assumptions in HiFi. That’s why “the best” was in quotations!

@lalitk I am not married to Roon, and if I can test an Aurender at home I would. Love the Roon interface and radio but I will use whatever sounds best. I currently use Innuos Sense which does sound better than Roon with Squeeze - something that only recently became evident in my system.

A dream would be to test a MU1 against an Innuos Statement (not the Next-gen; too pricey), an Aurender N20, and an Antipodes K50 - but not likely.

Of that list the two that seem to me to be maybe a bit more unique and special vs the others are the MU1 (with its optional 4X upsampling setting and “window into the recording studio” effect that users describe - or “I listen with tears in my eyes” I know, over the top comment, commence eye rolling/gagging) and the K50 (in general people speak about it’s richness, musical “flow”, character vs other options, and even greater depth of soundstage vs the MU1 when using AES).

Nothing at all against Innuos (I really, really like their company and products) and I’m certain Aurender is great as well based on what many say about their products. But to me, they seem like my Audioquest Dragon power cords - they are absolutely fantastic and perform at an extremely high level, but they are devoid of any character or personality that makes them special or unique, beyond their high performance that checks all the boxes - and for many that’s what is desired from a streamer / server. From how people talk about their respective sound characteristics, the MU1 and K50 don’t seem like they are simply another top-tier streamer that checks all the boxes. Dunno, may just be my incorrect perception. My Diablo set the standard for how I want to feel about components in my system, beyond just sounding great (which always comes first).

As a new wrinkle, my system has now become revealing enough (with upgrades) that the advantage of music files over streaming is for the first time obviously apparent (as opposed to before when the difference was subtly apparent). So while I said previously that the new Innuos Pulsar (streamer only) was of interest, now I’m not so sure…. Sigh, my digital music approach will become a bit more complicated.  This is even with the benefit of the Innuos PhoenixNET which is superb (I describe it to friends as a device that cleans the filthy internet).