2. digital
  3. 188181-21

What makes One Music Server Sound Better than Another?

So this week my Mojo Audio DejaVu music server that I have used for the past 2-3 years crapped out. Benjamin at Mojo was more than helpful and the DejaVu is on its way to Mojo Audio where it will make a full recovery.

Thankfully, I still have my Antipodes DX2 Gen 3 (their former flagship) music server so I hooked it up. After wrestling with Roon protocols, transfers, and set-up menus, I was able to get it going so I have music. The DX and my Sonore Sig Rendu SE opt. are both connected to my network so the DX (like the DejaVu), is only being used as a Roon core and the Sig Rendu SE serves as the Roon endpoint for streaming Tidal and Qobuz, with a direct USB connection to my DAC.

The point of this thread is to ask, how come I perceive the the DejaVu server as sounding better than the Antipdes DX? In fairness, the differences I perceive are not great but it seems the DejaVu is fuller sounding, more tonally rich, and bolder. Is this why some here spend $10K+ on a Grimm, Taiko or something else?

If a server is basically a computer, sending digital information to a streamer/endpoint and, assuming that digital information is transmitted asynchronously and reclocked by the DAC’s master clock, and assuming noise is not the issue (i.e., both units are quiet and there is an optical break between the network and both the server and endpoint) then what are the technical reasons one should sound better than the other? It is not that I want to spend $10K+ on a music server with a lifespan of maybe 5 years before becoming obsolete, but I would like to understand what more you are getting for your money. So far, the best I can come up with is lower internal noise as the major factor.

As a side note to the above, when I thought things looked hopeless for getting set up, I scheduled a support session with Antipodes and, although I lucked into the solution before the meeting time, Mark Cole responded ready to help. Setting up the session was super easy and reminded me of the superior level of support I had come to enjoy from Antipodes during the time that the DX was my primary server, including multiple updates and 2 or 3 hardware upgrades, which prolonged the service life of the DX. Good products and good company.

 

mitch2

Showing 2 responses by ddafoe

ddafoe
259 posts
 

I have not tried converting to fiber.  I trust many members who report a a negative impact  I also strive to avoid additional power supplies associated with the fiber conversion. I feel a good switch resolves the noise.

@fastfreight, there are also many members who report a significant improvement by adding fiber, myself included.  Depending on your network components and your streamer/dac, you may end up not adding any additional (or just one) extra power supply to use fiber for instance.   e.g. your primary switch already supports fiber and you use an an EtherREGEN or something similar at your streamer (best case streamer supports fiber...) to convert back just before your DAC.   That is how I initially added fiber for the last run into my equipment rack and differences were not subtle for my system/environment.

Since so many folks report different things making differences with digital audio (or not), and so many of them being system specific, I wouldn't personally rule out fiber just because it didn't improve the sonics for everyone.   I think you have to try it for yourself to decide if it makes a difference...

@mitch2 , unfortunately I think this thread is going to cost me $ and work.   I've been running a Roon ROCK server in my office two stories away from my listening room connected via a MoCA 2.0 connection with the assumption it is first of all quieter than powerline, and secondly that my last run of fiber and audiophile gadgets would remove any noise from that type of connection.  I'm not worried about the reliability of the data path.    After reading this thread, just for fun I moved it down into my listening room with the switch that runs fiber to my streamer/dac and I think it sounds better, more fleshed out, less thin, etc.   Now I think I'm going to need to keep my server in my room but it currently uses a fan, so I'll likely build a passively cooled NUC based system to use Roon and keep it in my listening room.  Not what I was expecting, but like I mentioned above, it just isn't clear to me what changes make what difference (if any) when playing with digital audio (and why).

ddafoe
259 posts
 

Buy mass market gear and it will get you about 50% there. Seeking quantity over quality go for the $300 turntables and hit the used record stores. Your raspberry NUC streamer and an $800 DAC with Amazon music should get you the same sound quality. Enjoy

 

@tonywinga, lots of assumptions or maybe implications that I don’t see as necessarily true. One does not have to spend a fortune on digital audio to get great sound; nor do I buy one has to spend a fortune to get 50% there either, wherever there is.

Many years ago when Roon released their Raspberry Pi bridge image I added a good quality SPDIF board to the Pi and (after market power supply) fed it into my 25x expensive Berkeley Alpha Dac 2 and it sounded great. I eventually replaced the Pi bridge with a Bricasti M5 once they came out and it certainly sounded better. I bet an $$$$ streamer will beat my M5, but how much better will it be?

The NUC by the way can offer very good performance (i.e. it’s not a raspberry pi by the way) when used as a Roon Server. Take a look inside many $$ audiophile products, and your might see one there too...   I’ve enjoyed my NUC running Roon Rock feeding a Meitner MA3.  Maybe this is budget system compared to yours, but it is still very musically satisfying and the law of diminishing returns is there for us bottom feeders :)

 

More to discover