@biketony Congratulations on your purchase. When it comes in and after you burn it in, please let us know how it sounds.
Innuos Statement Review
I first heard the Innuos Statement music server at AXPONA 2019. I listened to a demonstration directly comparing the Statement to the Innuos' Zen MkII. After the demonstration, it was clear to me that the Statement was a large step forward in the Innuos product line. I recently purchased the Innuos Statement and took delivery (after a six week wait). I immediately plugged it in, set it up, (super easy) and downloaded .5 TB of WAV files overnight. After burning in the Statement for approximately 100 hours, I compared the Statement's performance to the Antipodes DX3 music server. In order to have as close a comparison as possible (in relative real time) I connected both servers to my Jeff Rowland (JR) Aeris DAC+PSU using the same brand of cables (Stealth). However, because the Aeris DAC has only one USB input and both the Statement and the Antipodes DX 3 only have USB output, I first ran the Statement through a Berkeley USB Alpha converter and connected the Alpha converter to the Aeris DAC using Stealth's Vardig Sextet V16-T BNC/BNC cable. The Stealth USB Select-T cable connected the Statement to the Aeris DAC. The rest of the system consisted of a JR Corus Preamp (connected to the aforementioned PSU), JR M925 mono amplifiers, Joseph Audio Pearl 3 speakers and a three REL subwoofer "swarm" configuration. Cardas Clear Beyond power cords, balanced ICs, and speaker cables were used throughout the system. Both servers were used as Roon Cores for the comparison/review. I own all the equipment; I don't work for any audio company. (I also don't pump my stuff to dump it later.)
I focused on music selections I know well across the genres of rock/pop, jazz, classical, soul/R&B, and classical. I used a "non-blind" method playing a 1 minute 30 second to 2 minute section of a recording before switching from one server to the other and then repeating the same recording for an immediate comparison. I did the comparison over a two hour period, taking periodic listening breaks. Before providing my overall impressions of the Antipodes Statement, I note that I immediately compared the Statement to the Antipodes DX3 without burning the Statement in. The Antipodes DX3 had been thoroughly burned in before the comparison (more than 500 hours of use). Without burn in, the Statement and the Antipodes DX 3 sounded very similar to one another. I'm confident that I would have been guessing which was which if I was blindfolded and had to name the server I was hearing on any given recording. I repeated this exercise after the Statement had burned in for one hour. At this point it seemed the Statement's soundstage had gotten a little wider and only slightly deeper. It also seemed the vocals on the Statement had become slightly clearer than on the Antipodes DX3. I did no further comparisons until now. The following are my subjective impressions of the Statement after four days of burn in compared to the Antipodes DX 3 server in my system.
The Statement threw a slightly wider soundstage than the Antipodes DX3.
The Statement had a significantly deeper soundstage than the Antipodes DX3.
The Statement and the Antipodes DX3 had the same soundstage height.
The Statement resolved moderately more than the Antipodes DX3. By this I mean it provided more recording details than the Antipodes DX 3. It was not a night and day difference. It was apparent on most, but not all, recordings I considered.
Vocals presented clearer/crisper (better "enunciation" if you will) via the Statement than the Antipodes DX3.
The Statement provided superior bass differentiation in the lowest and mid bass regions. With the Statement, the bass drum performance did not cloud either a stand up bass or electric bass performance--provided the recording/mastering engineers sufficiently separated the performances on the recording. The Antipodes DX3 is a very good bass performer. But it slightly trailed the Statement.
The Statement placed more air between the instruments and performers than the Antipodes DX3.
The Statement excelled at acoustical instrument presentation. A reeded instrument sounded convincingly "real." The Antipodes DX3 does this well too...just not as well. Percussion instruments also benefit from this attribute. The Statement allowed me to hear more definition in the wood block, the guiro, shakers, all cymbals I heard, chimes, a gong. Again, the Antipodes DX3 was very good at percussive instrument representation. The Statement was simply better.
Both the Statement and the Antipodes DX3 provided high quality believable piano reproduction in all genres. The only significant difference I heard between the two servers on piano performance was found in Alfredo Rodriguez's rendition of "Chan Chan." There, the Statement seemed to handle the quick staccato notes and the unique decay issues of this piece more believably than the Antipodes DX3. But the difference was not night and day.
My overall impression of the Statement is that it provided superior high quality, believable digital music reproduction regardless of genre. I consider it an across the board upgrade in musical reproduction in my system over the Antipodes DX3. My impression of the Antipodes DX3 is that it is a high value product that held up very well in comparison to the Statement. The Statement retails for twice as much as the DX3's retail price when it was in production. If the Statement's performance after four days of burn in was rated as a 100 I would rate the Antipodes DX3 completely burned in as a 75. I will be keeping both these music servers. Hopefully this review helps those in the market for a music server.
I focused on music selections I know well across the genres of rock/pop, jazz, classical, soul/R&B, and classical. I used a "non-blind" method playing a 1 minute 30 second to 2 minute section of a recording before switching from one server to the other and then repeating the same recording for an immediate comparison. I did the comparison over a two hour period, taking periodic listening breaks. Before providing my overall impressions of the Antipodes Statement, I note that I immediately compared the Statement to the Antipodes DX3 without burning the Statement in. The Antipodes DX3 had been thoroughly burned in before the comparison (more than 500 hours of use). Without burn in, the Statement and the Antipodes DX 3 sounded very similar to one another. I'm confident that I would have been guessing which was which if I was blindfolded and had to name the server I was hearing on any given recording. I repeated this exercise after the Statement had burned in for one hour. At this point it seemed the Statement's soundstage had gotten a little wider and only slightly deeper. It also seemed the vocals on the Statement had become slightly clearer than on the Antipodes DX3. I did no further comparisons until now. The following are my subjective impressions of the Statement after four days of burn in compared to the Antipodes DX 3 server in my system.
The Statement threw a slightly wider soundstage than the Antipodes DX3.
The Statement had a significantly deeper soundstage than the Antipodes DX3.
The Statement and the Antipodes DX3 had the same soundstage height.
The Statement resolved moderately more than the Antipodes DX3. By this I mean it provided more recording details than the Antipodes DX 3. It was not a night and day difference. It was apparent on most, but not all, recordings I considered.
Vocals presented clearer/crisper (better "enunciation" if you will) via the Statement than the Antipodes DX3.
The Statement provided superior bass differentiation in the lowest and mid bass regions. With the Statement, the bass drum performance did not cloud either a stand up bass or electric bass performance--provided the recording/mastering engineers sufficiently separated the performances on the recording. The Antipodes DX3 is a very good bass performer. But it slightly trailed the Statement.
The Statement placed more air between the instruments and performers than the Antipodes DX3.
The Statement excelled at acoustical instrument presentation. A reeded instrument sounded convincingly "real." The Antipodes DX3 does this well too...just not as well. Percussion instruments also benefit from this attribute. The Statement allowed me to hear more definition in the wood block, the guiro, shakers, all cymbals I heard, chimes, a gong. Again, the Antipodes DX3 was very good at percussive instrument representation. The Statement was simply better.
Both the Statement and the Antipodes DX3 provided high quality believable piano reproduction in all genres. The only significant difference I heard between the two servers on piano performance was found in Alfredo Rodriguez's rendition of "Chan Chan." There, the Statement seemed to handle the quick staccato notes and the unique decay issues of this piece more believably than the Antipodes DX3. But the difference was not night and day.
My overall impression of the Statement is that it provided superior high quality, believable digital music reproduction regardless of genre. I consider it an across the board upgrade in musical reproduction in my system over the Antipodes DX3. My impression of the Antipodes DX3 is that it is a high value product that held up very well in comparison to the Statement. The Statement retails for twice as much as the DX3's retail price when it was in production. If the Statement's performance after four days of burn in was rated as a 100 I would rate the Antipodes DX3 completely burned in as a 75. I will be keeping both these music servers. Hopefully this review helps those in the market for a music server.
158 responses Add your response
I was viewing Innous top model in the Zen series at $4000.00 with the ultra inexpensive sheet metal case, The Statement starting at $10,000.00 more with a CNC aluminum case is the chassis the Zen series should have . the second I clicked on the rear view of $4000.00 Zen model I couldn’t believe anyone would even consider for a second buying it . |
@in_shore Thanks for the clarification. Clearly, all buyers are not alike. People make buying decisions based on different parameters. This is what makes the world of product differentiation go round. The product characteristic that may keep you from making a purchase doesn't necessarily mean that feature (or lack thereof) will affect the buying decisions of others. |
Inshore, you sound like you base your observations on looking at a unit or breakdowns of the guts as seen on line. The fact that the Innous Zenith is a remarkable sounding digital server that is extremely well designed. The case is heavy and well shielded The Motherboard is a custom built unit The Zenith use a very expensive extremely well regulated power supply chock full of Mundorf caps The Zenith has an incomming noise filter The Zenith has an outgoing noise filter The Zenith's hard drive is ultra low noise SSD and is shock mounted Innous use custom software We have compared Innous products to other servers, modified Mac Minis, Laptops etc the sonic difference is very audible. Dave and Troy Audio Doctor NJ Innous dealers |
No just that particular model for $4000.00 ,.Viewing the rear of the case was my first clue . Lol this sheet metal case is found on $200.00 Best Buy components , sure it’s special alright. I don’t believe for a second any of the internals are proprietary designs we both know this model is among a parade of high dealer profit items ,......its a computer with off the shelf parts in the cheapest made case that could be sourced out of China for $4000.00, who are you trying to kid ? |
Inshore then you should go into business and make one. We are sure you have the same opinïons on cables right? A $800 tire for a Porsche 911 probably has a $100 worth of materials. Try makïng your own. In the case of the innous products many owners have came forward to debunk the over priced i can build my own disscussion. We had an Sotm computer Sotm sound card external power supply the difference was very audibile. The Zenith was vastly audibily superior. Dave and Troy Audio Doctor NJ Innous dealers |
| Post removed |
Gee Lalik, aren’t you Mr. Aurender? Seems like you are constantly shilling that brand. No In shore, many of the people here such as Grannyring, David Ten and many many others are not our clients they are very happy with both the build quality and sound quality of the brand, so independent verification means that they are all coming to the same conclusion. They came to the same conclusions after testing Innous against the competition as well as standard and modified PC’s. In terms of the case it is extremely well made and based on the sound quality provided one of the best sounding products in the world of digital streamers. We have tested many devices against the Innous servers that is the reason we work with them, we have yet to find server line which outperforms them. Dave and Troy Audio Doctor NJ Innnous dealers |
Mr Stewart look we totally agree, the issue with this poster is like Mike Powell he bashes a product that he has only seen in pictures, without ever testing ,or listening to the product, or makes ridiculous claims about costs and pricing. Look we all have opinions but most people will have the good taste to only talk negatively about a product if they have direct personal experience directly with said product, that is the point we are trying to make. The other thing is this exact same bit has been done before, and it sickens us that a product that we sell, we own, and know to be excellent is besmirched by such foolish comments by the DIY crowd who haven’t had one of these to listen to. This is our last word on the subject in regards to in shore. We are delighted with the performance of the Statement and are really happy that you are enjoying yours. We just did a shootout against a mythic $20k server with some very unique digital processing software, and the Statement was totally different sounding, the fascinating thing is how different digital can sound through different servers. To quote Stan Lee, nuff said. Dave and Troy Audio Doctor NJ |
I would like to apologize to the OP Astewart and especially to AudioTroy for being so ignorant and rude , I am sorry . We can all be wrong and pig headed at times and here I certainly was a glowing example of that . The Innous Zenith MK3 is nothing how I described it and if anything should be praised how it performs. |
Thanks for the interesting review and discussion. I have a Zenith Mk 2, all that was available when I bought it. I agree there is a clear improvement in performance to the Zenith SE and then to the Statement, when I compared at a show. I won't be changing, being very pleased with the Zenith and I can't afford the Statement, now I'm retired, anyway. To emphasise the ease of use, that's partly why I bought it. A child of 5 could rip CDs with a few minutes of instruction. I will mention again, the soon to be available plug in Re Clocker from the Statement, which can be used with the Zenith, to bring it nearer to the former's performance. It has been promised for over two years by the company and I have been nagging them about it. I understand it is ready, when it will be for sale, should be later this year. It won't be cheap, about £2000, only a little less than the Zenith Mk 2 purchase price, but I will be giving it a home audition. |
Guys, was there any comparisons made with a fairly high end transport, i guess it should be at least in the 5 figure bracket if compared with a $10k to 20k server? A comparision if the Innous Statement or any any other server and how does it fair against a cd. How different does the USB fair compared to tranditional spdif or Aes spinning a cd? Does it or not, trump cd's before stating how great a server setup sounds, ultimately. A reference might be good as a baseline between the different brand servers and connections before we say say which is best or great. Can the Innous play cd's or just rip them? |
Biketony, congratulations, on your digital journey and welcome to the Innous family. We did a fascinating demo the other day of the Innous Statement via USB playing the same file vs a $20k server that perfers to use AES/EBU. So it was titan vs titan with each playing the same file and the only thing needed to demo each was to turn the input on the dac. The two presentations were quite different it was easy to discern just how much a difference there was between the two machines. For those people who doubt the sonic difference between two really fantastic servers would have been totally shocked that there can be such a discernable difference in how each server brings out different things. Server A was warm with a big soundstage, Server B through a much more defined soundstage, with greater front to back depth, greater dynamic attack and a more focused soundstage. Just as you witnessed there is a marked difference between the Zenith and the Statement. We have been testing computers vs servers, servers vs servers for quite a number of years now. So there is much more going on then just bits is bits mentality that many people here expouse. Personally we cringe when we see at shows a Laptop with a generic usb cable going to dac at a show and wonder why the sound wasn’t as good as it could be. For the other gentleman’s questions: 1: The server won’t play a disc only, the second you put a disc into the loader, the machine rips it and then ejects the disc. 2: The USB vs any other input is a dac specific thing, certain companies pefer USB others prefer SPDIF, other dacs ethernet input and for others is it USB. Only ethernet and USB allow for DSD and higher resolutions of both PCM and DSD files, most AES and SPDIF inputs will only do a maximum 24 bit 192k vs USB and Ethenet which may allow up to PCM 768 and DSD up to 512k the new T+A SD 3100 dac allows for native DSD 1024 files which don’t exisit but which can be created via a fast server and HQ player. 3: As per optical disc spinning via reading the same disc via a high end server, in our tests the server is picked over the spinning disc in almost every demo. The only difference can be the input board which sometimes isn’t as good as it can be leading to the spinning disc to still sounding better but it depends on the machine. Dave and Troy Audio Doctor NJ Innous dealers |
Audiotroy, thank you for sharing the comparative outcomes. Which dacs or cd players have a great usb inputs, would the Esoteric's USB inputs be capable of realizing a clear preference over AES or Coax. Many a times, we see USB input cards the size slightly larger than a matchbox, most possibly a textbook designed board based on the Usb input chip would probably would not rank high in perference sonically over the tried and tested digital inputs. |
It really depends on the player, and or dac. We had the T+A PDP 3000 which is one of the most remarkable disc players ever made, the sound on both SACD and Redbook is postitively captivating, giagantic soundstage, tonally smooth with great detail, in all of our years of digital testing the best sound ever from CDs. The PDP 3000 is also an excellent dac, but the sound out of the USB input was very good, just not equal to the magnificent, jaw dropping optical playback. The PDP 3000 was replaced with the newer MP 3100 so that player might have an even better USB input. The Aqua Hifi Dacs have excellent USB input cards, so they sound marvelous via USB. DCS and MSB should also have excellent USB inputs. In our expereince most of the more modern dac designs absolutuly favor usb and perhaps ethernet, for many of today’s dacs the highest samping rates are still only USB based inputs. Older Dacs that favor AES or Spdif are like the Jeff Rowland Aeris which was designed by Holm audio of Denmark close to 10 years ago.which was designed long before USB really took off. Other holdouts from the infancy of USB are pro companies like Bekley audio, (Pacific Macrosonics, the HD audio disc guys,) there products were designed by engineers for recording studios where AES/EBU is the standard. USB is really a consumer audio connection, due to the flimseyness of the conection, however, the USB cable can carry a ton of data fast. The issues with USB cables have a lot to do with the 5V power that rides on some of the cables as well as noise intrusion from the computer. Hence the evolution of galvanic isolation, separate 5v power lines, power distruptors, very high resolution USB cards with extensive noise filtering, better power supplies and lower noise chips, better audio designed mother boards, and isolation of the components to filter out EMI and RFI couple these devices innovations and you have Innous and Aurender Servers to name a few. Most dac companies use some sort of commercially available USB input chip from XMOS or a few others companies, sometimes with a lot of custom tweeks and sometimes not. What is fascinating is how the USB input card issues are being addressed, our new T+A SDV 3100 HV is one of the world’s best dacs, and the product uses a 100% in house designed ultra high speed USB card. designed to allow a massive amount of data to flow into the machine up to DSD 1024 from an external source. USB and Ethernet in our opinion are really the only ways to get to true high resolution digital and many of today’s best dacs may sound way better to you via upsampled PCM or transcoded DSD. Dave and Troy’ Audio Doctor NJ Innous dealers |
@justubes2 A general rule of thumb is that DAC architecture beginning in about 2012-2013 made substantial gains over the DACs before that period of time. Part of those gains included the advancement/refinement of USB and ethernet interfaces. Since I own the Rowland Aeris DAC that @audiotroy mentions above, I will note that I believe it came on the market in 2012. Rowland specifically states that the Aeris is built to favor SPDIF. The Aeris USB input is no slouch--I have used both--but I agree with Dave above that the future currently is trending toward USB and ethernet as the preferred pathways on newer DACs and servers, especially as the high resolution market grows. For example, MSB currently has a module to optimize USB with their Pro ISL input--here is what they say: "A Better USB Solution The Pro USB was developed to offer a multi part USB solution that features complete electrical isolation and all the performance of MSB’s proprietary Pro ISL input. The Pro USB is offered as a stand alone module for users who already have an MSB DAC that is equipped with a Pro ISL input as well as a starter kit with a Pro ISL input and everything you need to get up and running." |
I recently received my Innous Statement. The DAC I am using with it is the T+A MP 3100HV. Playing an SACD or CD on the T+A is outstanding, almost, but not quite as good as the T+A PDP 3000HV which I had for a couple of weeks in the past. The inputs sound better with the MP 3100HV than the PDP 3000HV. Playing a CD on the T+A MP 3100HV sounds slightly better than ripping a CD onto the Innous Statement and then playing it through the T+A MP 3100HV. So far, I am finding using USB from the Statement to the MP 31000HV to be more dynamic and detailed than using Ethernet from the Statement to the MP 3100. So far I’ve tried two different USB cables and they each sound different but both sound better than using Ethernet. Using Ethernet is slightly more musical, smooth & a bit less analytical, very enjoyable. Plus all the metadata shows up on the MP 3100 screen when using an Ethernet connection. I will try different Ethernet cables next since I am currently using a Transparent Ethernet to the Innous and a standard blue CAT6 from the Innous to the MP 3100. Possibly upgrading this Ethernet cable will help. Using QoBuz and Tidal sound great through the Statement (as the ROON core & streamer) to the MP 3100 (as the DAC) and also sound great with a direct Ethernet cable to the MP 3100 using the MP 3100 as the streamer & DAC. The Statement and the MP 3100 are both phenomenal units. |
Innuos Statement Update: Power Cord Swapping--I recommend trying different power cords with the Statement. I recently swapped out the Cardas Clear Beyond PC I had been using on it for the Shunyata Sigma NR PC. While both sound excellent, the Sigma NR emphasized the lower registers and provided a bit more detail than the Cardas Clear Beyond. |
I am currently using a Transparent Ethernet to the Innous and a standard blue CAT6 from the Innous to the MP 3100. Possibly upgrading this Ethernet cable will help... @musicfx Thanks for your post. Being a PA 3100 HV owner, your findings and comments are really helpful to me. Copied the above (from your post) to highlight how critical it is to use an ’equivalent’ LAN cable in your comparisons with USB cable (Output from Innuos > Input into MP 3100 HV). I’m sure a high quality LAN cable from the Innuos to the MP 3100 will surprise you vs. the standard CAT6 cable you used. Looking forward to future updates. All the best. |
Thanks Astewart8944 for your review and discussion on the Innuos Statement. Your review was the information I needed to push me over the edge to order the Statement ten days ago. I currently own and love the Antipodes DX3 Server but was intrigued by the Statement with the separate power supply. I am very familiar with Innuos products as a former owner of the highly regarded ZENith MkII SE. The Innuos servers have a great user interface, very easy to setup and sound great. I did prefer the sound of the DX3 over the MkII SE but not by much. With your review of the Statement and comparison against the DX3, plus input from Innuos’ distributor and my dealer, who represented both products at one time, convinced me the Statement is the next logical step to improving my sound. Thanks again and will let you know what I think of the Statement in a few weeks. |
I own and innuos mk2 server and antipodes ex. If you are comparing the innuos statement to an EX there is a huge price difference. You might as well get the cx ex combo which will sound better than the innuos statement. I'm not knocking innuos but the work and technology Antipodes puts into their servers is just better. Do the research and see for yourselves. In fact Antipodes older gen products sound better than the innous mk2. I don't have an mk3 and would not spend the money on innuos products anymore. I just find Antipodes signature smooth, articulate, accurate, detailed without any harshness and the noise tech they use is superior to what innuos does. |
Hehhaw, we have to comment on your statement as some of what you posted needs clarification. First the Innuous Zenith MK II is a vastly inferior product to the current MK III version, sonically the MK III is much more liquid and sounds way better in every way. In what way is Antipodes work and technology better? Over the last five years Innuous has continued to grow with products which use all bespoke parts, the Statement uses a custom designed USB reclocker, as well as an Ethernet reclocker, all units use custom motherboards, custom cases, sophisticated power supplies, vibration reduction, incoming Ethernet noise filters, and outgoing Ethernet filters. Add to that a great custom built setup software that makes the entire out of the box to a fully running product a five min chore. Innuous is even working on their own Roon like operating software. For all of these reasons we see Innuous continuing to grow. In looking at verifying that claim Antipodes own website is very mum on what they actually put in their boxes, there is no mention of custom motherboards, power supply design, how the USB and Ethernet outputs are derived, clocking is accomplished,or how noise is eliminated. Even the pictures of the current Ex in Positive Feedback doesn't show much other than a copper heat pipe on the processor. and an Rcore transformer with a few smoothing filtering caps. VS Innuous Zenith which you can see an incoming ethernet filter, a large sophisticated mutli rail power supply with Mundorf caps and a huge amount of voltage regulators https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/antipodes-cx/https: compare this to the entry level Zen model https://hifi-ifas.de/test-innuos-zen-mk-iii-high-end-musikserver-highlight-sylvesterknaller The higher end Zenith ups the anti with a three rail power supply, adds Mundorf capacitors, an SSD drive. Then to the Statement http://www.the-ear.net/how-to/power-supply-design-innuos-statement Dave and TroyAudio Doctor NJ Innuous dealers |
Hi there Dave. The Mk3 is better but its not vastly superior to the MK2 as you state above. It is better but ho hum... Now to be honest I’m somewhat surprised your not aware of Antipodes technology you just can’t be so focused on one product. Eg.. bias because you sell innuos product etc.. I actually convinced my dealer to bring in the Antipodes product ; he’s currently carrying innuos products. I let him know Antipodes is better and it is..... Antipodes is well known for "high end" innuos is more mass market smart on their part. You know I bet I could take old Antipodes products and they would best the MK 3 that’s how confident I am about how much better there products are. In respect to their technology you could always contact support@antipodes.audio and they can explain it better than I can but I’ll give it a shot. oh before I get into that the parts they use are also not cheap off market products everything they do is custom. You can google Antipodes CX or EX and you’ll see reviews. Which will go indepth and the CEO himself explaining what they do. I won’t do the homework for you. Now my meager attempt for their tech. They use frequency offsetting so they have one part of the board which will use a certain frequency and another part of the board which uses another and these 2 frequencies offset each other so noise is eliminated. I think it genius and they have been doing that for a while. Innuos they do some custom work on the boards get rid of unnecessary chips to assist with noise etc.. but not like what Antipodes does. I’ve heard the statement and its nice... mk3 is nice.. but ... I throw down the gauntlet to you since your a dealer bring in a CX /EX combo set it up and the musicality will be better than the statement. oh to your comments about seeing inside the Antipodes boxes.. how about you google Antipodes EX, CX etc.. and you'll see in depth reviews and "inside the boxes" lots of picts... |
The picture with copper heat pipe in Positive Feedback is for CX, not EX. EX uses Celeron quad core with fanless heatsink. You can get the pictures of both CX + EX in 6moons: https://6moons.com/audioreview_articles/antipodes/ I don’t own Antipodes but want to correct the obvious error by @audiotroy |
| Post removed |
Hey Anwar that's one review there are others... the below has a number of picts and is fairly indpeth in their review https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/review/digital-reviews/network-player-reviews/antipodes-cx-ex-part1... |
No Hehaw, the MK II and the MK III products are vastly different. As per your comment on technology, using one part of the board vs another part of the board does not seem like anything unique in terms of reducing noise. The Statement uses 100% all custom parts and removes noise due to a state of the art USB and Ethernet reclockers, and a massive custom designed eight rail power supply, custom software, a custom casework, and anti vibration feet. As per sound quality, the Statement has been considered to be the best sounding server on the market along with the Sound Galleries of Monaco and the Laufer Technik Memory player both of these players are way more expensive than the Statement. As per the sound quality of the Innuous products all of their products are extremely highly rated. As per sound quality, the Antipodes are very fine products which sounds better will depend on how you are using the product and the matching dac. We have a trade in Laufer Technik Memory player and the sound is vastly softer than the Statement, we could see that someone with a very digital sounding dac could prefer the warmer sound of the Laufer product which by the way also uses a noise reduction technique that actually works with the packeted data which is processed in memory to reorient the data to eliminate distortions which occur in the reading process of the bit packet. Dave and TroyAudio Doctor NJ Innous dealer |
Vastly hmm.. different... wouldn't go that far. ... again I challenge you to carry the antipodes product line compare it to what you have the sound signature is better. I'm very familiar with the statement I was thinking of ordering it at one point but not overly impressed with the sound signature for what you pay... you really sound like an innuos sales person... that's because you are... you can order the Antipodes and compare anything unique...?? Innous doesn't do that they just use bread and butter techniques... ho hum.... To say its the best sounding is strictly your opinion.... I definitely do not agree... the signature of the Antipodes is very smooth, liquidity detailed, accurate , fast without the harshness of others, and creamy to the ears... and I hear things I don't hear with other players... If you have ever drank untreated water that is pure (not filtered) its very smooth almost creamy when you drink its just a pleasure... you want to drink more of it... the Antipodes products do that to the ears... Never experienced that listening to the statement or the innuos product line... ... hmm I almost sound like an Antipodes sales person but I'm not.... I actually know the Innuos guys well... Nuno and team good guys... Take up my challenge I dare you... CX (server) EX (render) combo and see for yourself...... that's something innuos isn't doing... everything is one box... with them..... |
Interesting banter and I will be able to provide my two cents in two weeks when I do an a-b comparison between the Innuos Statement and Antipodes’ EX+CX two-box configuration. I have owned Innuos (MKII SE and now the Statement) and Antipodes (DX3) products and they both have excellent sounding servers, just different. I will say listening to both Antipodes DX3 and Innuos Statement through a USB connection to my dCS Vivaldi Upsampler and DAC, the Statement showed its superiority. The Innuos provides a higher-level of detail, transparency, dimensionality and the musicians are better defined in their space. However running the DX3 via an Ethernet connection vs the Innuos Statement through a USB connection, the difference was not as great and the DX3 stood up to be noticed. Please note I have not listened to the Statement through an ethernet connection to see how it compares but will do so this weekend. I will agree with hehaw77 that the Antipodes has a smooth liquidity sound and look forward to the CX+EX vs Statement comparison to see if the Antipodes new combo can best the Statement. The challenge is on. |
dx3 is an old product and your comparing it to innuos's top of the line. dx3 definitely sounds better than any of innuos's new products....Lol... I think we know how the results will go.... also when you hook up the cx ex combo make sure you use a cat7 cable preferably you should use Sotm cat7 with a filter. In that setup the ethernet cable makes a huge difference..... eg.. sotm cat7 filter then sotm cat7 if you can otherwise 1 sotm cat7 will do... imho they make the best cat7's on the market... |
@jonaiken Rather than "best," I’m looking forward to your impressions and feedback on the differences. Both are great combinations and should do very well in your system. @hehaw77 Agreed on the value of a great LAN cable for the comparison. I use SOtM’s dCBL-CAT7 > iso-CAT6 Filter > dCBL CAT7 for my Router to Server leg. |
@jonaiken A few things to know about the SOtM dCBL-CAT7 cable. They are unwieldy and stiff. Using the Filter between makes for a very long and even more unwieldy and stiff run. The connector clips are ’cheap’ and prone to snapping off...BE CAREFUL when you connect and disconnect and you will be fine. In other words, don’t pull or twist. Audio Bacon has a good write-up on these SOtM cables (including filter) as well as other LAN cables. Likely one of the best comparisons across a wide range of LAN cable options. For your comparison purposes, initially, there isn’t a need (in my opinion) to go all out with an LAN cable. There are many very good options. Once you choose the Innuos or the Antipodes combo I recommend choosing your cables based on budget, need, goals and system synergy. Having said the above, I am very happy with the dCBL-CAT 7 > iso-CAT6 Filter > dCBL-CAT 7 combination for my first LAN run. My priority was and is neutrality from the Router to my Server. However, I chose SR’s Galileo LAN cable for the second run (between the Server and Player). |
hmm they have different sizes... .75 to 4-5 meters or more .. I don't find them that stiff and I'm winding them all over the place. @david_ten your aware of how the cx ex combo works right? Well you do need to go all out ! Especially if he's going to compare two different servers and the cat7 between the cx and ex makes a "huge" difference. Using cheapo cables will give you cheapo results... period. The more filtering the better especially if he's going to have a noisy cable going into the cx from his router... bye the way they also sell a audiophile switch which makes even more of a difference..... How do I know... I've demoed the items and I would say the cat7's are great the cat's with the switch spectacular..... however for this comparison... the cx ex with the cat7's should oust the statement... |
hmm they have different sizes... .75 to 4-5 meters or more .. I don't find them that stiff and I'm winding them all over the place. Then you don't have the dCBL-CAT7. In the U.S. market the shortest length is 1.5M and NO, the 1.5M length can't be "[wound] all over the place." I'm well aware of the CX and EX. As well as Innuos. |
Using cheapo cables will give you cheapo results... period. The combination of two dCBL-CAT7 cables plus the filter in between comes to USD $1350 (assuming 1.5M for each cable). There are other options within and below this price point that are very good and don't require the additional filter. Certainly something approaching 1K or above is not "cheapo." Advising that SOtM is the only route forward is not helpful. Remember, this is coming from someone who has embraced SOtM and loves the SOtM combination he is using. |
“There are other options within and below this price point that are very good and don’t require the additional filter“. One may consider JCAT Signature LAN Cable. I currently own this and SoTM dCBL CAT7 and can say unequivocally that I like them both. To my ears, JCAT is slightly more natural and organic sounding as compare to dCBL which is very honest to the source. And JCAT is very flexible and available in 1.0M length. |
Yes I do have them (unless your calling me al liar) Please do.. I'd love to prove you wrong.... .75 is available don't know who your getting your parts from. Yes it can be wound but not like snake. I'm using them now as I type this. 1 meter is also available so no need for 1.5M if your spending 10 to 15K on a music server 1350 is not expensive. Sotm is the BEST option and this setup requires the best. There are lots of options ; but this setup is not to explore that its Antipodes top of line vs. Innuos statement |
@anwar That’s a worthwhile comparison to make, though I believe you would use the CX for storage purposes. In the case of the CX and EX combo, going with separate units for Roon Core and Roon Endpoint function is superior and is recommended by Antipodes. The CX has the Renderer functionality disabled and the EX has the ’Server/Core’ functionality turned off. |