There are many good options ; I was impressed with the pink faun... strange name... for a one box solution. I still think the best solution is to keep core and render separate as per Roon...
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 posts total
I have finally setup my system to 95% of the way I want it. Won’t go into details but I can say now with confidence that I literally feel like I’m in the studio with the artists like they are there beside me and I think that’s what a lot of us want but never can quite attain to. It’s taken a lot of money time effort, knowledge gathering but there’s that 5% still but going to give my wallet a little rest for now and enjoy what I have in audio bliss. Hoping the rest of you can attain this regardless of what system you end up buying as you all know I’ve done it with my preferred Antipodes CX/EX setup... I can speak only for myself in that I prefer a nice listening session over a fine wine, delicious meal, dessert ; that’s how good things are now... if your not there yet... well... keep eating fine meals till you do.... later ! |
Its been a while since anyone posted here. I was at a local dealer today and I can proudly say that I steered someone way from the Statement to the CX/EX combo. He's a rich guy so money isn't going to be a factor to him. I didn't knock that statement but did tell him that Antipodes product sound signature is more liquid and relaxed. He knows I spend a lot of time listening. The dealer also agreed and while the statement is more expensive it wasn't about money more the sound signature preference. |
RE: Dave/Troy Reply: BANG on ! (D/T: You were rather polite not to draw attention to the seriously flawed spdif specification; it was, and remains a poor digital transmission scheme -recovering clock data/syncing being particularly probelematic. Its time has mercifully, come to a near end. That a few manufacturer's (of modern Streamers/Player's) use BNC/AES-EBU I suspect is simply for their familiarity with the specification, and NOT on any of its perceived superiority. With that said, Wrd. Clk integration and dual AES/or BNC) may is another story altogether -as is i2S (over HDMi/RJ-45). Manufacturer's reluctance tto adopt the i2S 'spec' -20 years ago,if not longer- raises questions regarding their own understanding of clock-recovery precision on performance capability.) pj audiotroy2,514 posts07-04-2019 10:14amTo Lalik and a few others lets frame this discussion, that for 99.9% of the market that is looking for a Statement or other serious state of the art music servers, most people are going to be actually using either USB or Ethernet connections. The other interesting point we would differ on from Lalik is his viewpoint that most dacs are optomized for 16/44k really? Most of the worlds top digital manufacutures are all producing dacs that can handle very high data rates, other than older dacs with chipsets or inputs that can't handle the higher resolution files this is the case. Look at DCS, Esoteric, EMM Labs, Light Harmonic, T+A, Rokna, Aqua Hifi. MSB, and many others, they all have access to be able to play high resolution files. Does that mean that an older dac that can't play those files isn't good of course not, but we live in a world of 4k TV doesn't it make sense if you are purchasing a brand new state of the art TV to purchase one which can access those files even if true 4k content is limited? Then you have the ability for many TV's or projectors to upconvert an image to a 4k standard even when feeding the TV or projector a 2k image, if it looks better to you do you care that the image isn't native? The reason that many modern dacs only offer ethernet or usb is really simple: asyncronous data transmission and ethernet packeted data are the best ways of miminimizing jitter going from a server to a dac. Spdif, Aes/Ebu and Toslink are really not up to the task beyond conventional data rates. With Ethernet and Usb you have the advantages: You have the option of accessing: Naitve DSD files, MQA files Also you have the additonal option of being able to upconvert 16bit 44k pcm to higher data rates 24bit 192k, 384k and above depending on the server and dac. Many Dacs that we sell actually do seem to sound better with upconverted data files even if the standard files started out in 16/44. If you consider that Innous specifically built the Statement to provide the best sounding data from Ethernet and USB and they spent considerable money on making sure those pathways are the best sounding and optomized it makes sense. We sell multiple brands of severs, and dacs because one size does not fit all. If you are adament about having more or different digital outputs then USB and Ethernet then you are free to purchase a unit which has those features. Dave and Troy Audio Doctor NJ Innous dealers |
“audiotroy2,514 posts07-04-2019 10:14amTo Lalik and a few others lets frame this discussion, that for 99.9% of the market that is looking for a Statement or other serious state of the art music servers, most people are going to be actually using either USB or Ethernet connections. The other interesting point we would differ on from Lalik is his viewpoint that most dacs are optomized for 16/44k really?.” @allhifi, You must be really bored! Not sure why you felt like digging a year old post...lol! If one thing I can agree with you is your point on, “Manufacturer's reluctance tto adopt the i2S 'spec' -20 years ago,if not longer- raises questions regarding their own understanding of clock-recovery precision on performance capability.” As of today, there is no collective standard agreement among manufacturers to implement i2s protocol. We are continuing to see HDMI and Ethernet ports denoted as i2s thus causing incompatibility issues between components. And flawed as may be, SPDIF / AES legacy protocol still remains a universal standard among many manufacturers. |
- 158 posts total