It’s is worth remembering but perhaps not that important, that FPGA technology is used by the controller and DSP by some including Chord Electronics… whilst Naim use a separate controller and a SHARC DSP processor from Analog Devices as opposed to a FPGA device.
Chord Electrnics use their various incarnations of their bespoke Pulse Array DAC, (separate to the FPGA) whilst Naim use Texas Instruments off the shelf, albeit specifically assessed and matched, DACs. Naim bypass the TI filtering modules in the DAC and use the SHARC processor .filtering in a pre stage.
So it’s really a case of FPGA highly bespoke DSP, vs more standardised SHARC processor modularised DSP. Also Naim use the IIR mode filtering in the DSP… that is recursive procedural filtering with no concept of taps, whist Chord use FIR mode filtering which is filtering achieved through a filter kernel convolution with the source sample stream using taps or samples.
Both methods have pro and cons and different compromises in the non exact digital to analogue conversion process.
Probably yes, but I’m going to do some more protracted listening, then back to the EtherRegen and back to PN before finally making up my mind.
Audio-T and Innuos having been very good about not rushing me. Only a few more days to go.
I’m hoping Innuos Tech Support get back to me in time to have a proper listen to the Zenith 3 as well if we can manage to fish it out of the problems it slipped into during the update…
The advice from Innuos UK was to keep it as close to the ND555 as possible, but from today’s experiments I’d definitely advise against having it on the brawn rack and I’ve no intention of having it near the rather fussy ND555 and even fussier 552. At the moment it’s on the stack of Innuos and Chord boxes as far away as the cables will allow.
I’d noticed a little swings and roundabouts vs. The EtherRegen, with some aspects of separation and texture overblown, but this has now gone entirely, with a considerable lift in performance. If I’m satisfied that it shows the EtherRegen a clean pair of heels in every respect tomorrow (more than likely), I’ll try it on the desk where the EtherRegens are installed on the other side of the room.
My Phoenix net sits on a granite tile behind the fraim racks just below the nd555, i have a free shelf below my 552……but did not sound as good as on the floor/tile?
I can’t try another place, because my Ethernet cables are very short ( 0,75m).
It sits on the Fraimlite, under the Nds.
Vs the Etheregen/ Mcru, the sound is more authoritative , with better bass, and fuller. In a Naim kind of sound. But I didn’t observed a better prat vs the ER.
Well moving the PhoenixNet further away is even better. This is the same as I found with the EtherRegen and the Nucleus+ and QNAP NAS before it (which is what I bought the top Fraim shelf for).
This makes me wonder whether Innuos did themselves a disservice and I should have tried the Statement here, too. If I can find the time this week, I’ll see if it makes a difference. It could be that everything written above doesn’t do the Statement full justice.
As for Etheregen, I tried it on different places, 3 m from my rack and also on the Fraimlite.
It sounded best on the Fraimlite, with the linear ps on my hifi rack.
Different systems, mains, router….give different results.
I’ve just remembered I did try the Statement on the floor away from the rack and did not notice a signficant difference. The PN did sound a bit better on the floor in front of the rack, which is why I stuck it further away on the packed boxes and now on the desk. So, perhaps I’ve followed a clear path even if I can’t always remember it
Well, there’s been a bit of an earthquake here. I was talking my findings through with the very nice people at Innuos and here’s what happened:
The statement has two Ethernet ports, a LAN port which is design to be connected to your router and a Streamer port which is designed to be connected to your streamer, logically enough. Thus far I had assumed, according to the instructions, that this how it always has to be for the best sound quality. So, when experimenting with Statement and PhonenixNet I had either used it between the network and Statement, connected using the LAN port, or between the Statement and ND555 using the Streamer port.
What Innuos told me this morning is that with the PhoenixNet, which has more advanced reclocking etc, the Statement should only be connected to the PhoenixNet via the LAN port and then the ND555 also connected to the PhoenixNet.
Well, I thought, let’s give it a go and out came the boxes, to be installed no on the brawn stack this time but on the flight case they’re supplied in, close to the PhoenixNet on the desk.
So here the thing is, stony cold and connected up and I’m astonished. Things are immeasurably better. The ND555 has never sounded so good. Several choice expletives of wonderment later, I’m having a whale of a time. This is so much better - especially on complex piano - that there are tears in my eyes. Cello tones are fantastic too. I didn’t think it could get this good…
So it’s back to square one, but what a square! Peter @northpole you’ve got to give this a try!
At the moment I am using it in offline mode, using the Statement as a music server controlled by the Naim app. It’s very significantly better than the Nucleus+ playing the same stored tracks.
Interesting Michael. Nice too that you enjoy now the Statement and the PhoenixNet, both.
My Melco has also 2 lan ports , one for the streamer. I tried after 100 hours burn in of the PhoenixNet, to connect both the Melco and Nds to the PhoenixNet.
But still preferred the direct connection of Nds to the Melco.
Perhaps I should try again now?
Another quick update: with the Statement connected up as described the SQ is now also better for Roon using the Statement as Core instead of the Nucleus+. A good increase in clarity and texture, which is above all evident in how it opens out and articulates complex passages (e.g. opening of Chopin Etude No. 10 in B minor (Op. 25).
In addition, as reported in other threads here, Innuos are already working on an Ethernet solution for their Sense app and this was set up in a beta version for me. It’s a bit buggy, sometimes truncating the end of a track and jumping on to the next one, but it sounds very good. The Sense app is nice overall, closer to Roon in usability than it is to the Naim app, for example, and the sound quality is very good but I haven’t compared it to UPNP using the Statement as a server controlled by the Naim app. However, both sound better than Roon on the Statement, which is as stated now better than Roon on the Nucleus+.
One way or another, contrary to my initial impressions, there is clearly much to be gained in an Innuos+Naim pairing…
Thanks very much for the detailed updates which is most encouraging at a time when I have more or less parked the statement pending intro of the ethernet compatibility with Sense app. Strong impression given is that the PhoenixNet is worth checking out as a potential addition to the mix/ box count.
I’ll let you know how the beta Ethernet implementation with Sense compares with using the Statement as a UPNP server with the Naim app. At the moment I’m busy playing with the Statement as a Roon Core, which is not as good but still very fine - best I’ve heard so far.
I’ve been thinking about this and of course it means it’s not on top of a big transformer. The top power supply in my brawn rack is for the NAP500 (for interference and burndy routing considerations) and the Innuos stuff was directly above it….
‘I’ll let you know how the beta Ethernet implementation with Sense compares with using the Statement as a UPNP server with the Naim app. ‘
I will be interested to hear this @Michaelb .
I currently use Roon via UPnP Bridge from the Zen to NDS so the Ethernet implementation is piquing my curiosity!
