Sonore Rendu experience & comparaisons
82.3.109.141 |
||
| Posted on April 7, 2014 at 15:50:11 | ||
|
Posts: 66
Location: Hampshire, UK Joined: November 16, 2002 |
Hi Just returned to Audio Asylum after several months and found an old post requesting info on this Renderer. I've had a Sonore Rendu for 2 months. I bought it after auditioning other renderers that were available locally. In summary: the Cyrus Stream X2 was good, in the same sound-quality class as my disc source (PS Audio Perfect Wave Transport), the Krell Connect was much better at making music - all seemed more natural and relaxing to listen to but also more transparent and dynamic than the PWT. I also listened to a Naim ND5 XS which was similar in some respects to the Krell perhaps 'faster' and slightly less transparent. I decided against the Krell because of the high price, and the Naim because I did not need another DAC, and bought the Rendu unheard on the basis of the Computer Audiophile review. I initially thought the Rendu was in the same class as the Cyrus but now it has run in I think it is similar or better in sound quality to the Krell (and better than my PWT). This strikes me as a very good result, as my network includes a wireless bridge as opposed to the direct connection of the PWT (via a transparent reference AES/EBU digital cable). The sound quality of the 75% of my music that is on the NAS now exceeds that of the remainder on CD, so I'm going to start ripping the latter! The Rendu required no setting up: it just appeared on my network and picked up the music library on the NAS. The only active 'processor' in the system when I play music now is that in the Synology NAS. I had some minor problems trying to play 24/192 ALAC files, as I did with the Krell Connect. This was quickly sorted by having a screen-share session with Sonore. (I have received excellent service from Sonore.) A simple fix was to enable transcoding in the MinimServer software running on the NAS. This converts the ALAC to WAV which plays without any problem. Only once have I managed to get the music to hiccup - I was using iPlayer on the TV at the same time as playing 24/192 music! A totally unrealistic situation. So I'd recommend the Sonore Rendu strongly.
|
|
| MusiChi and JRiver, posted on April 11, 2014 at 01:48:19 | |
|
Posts: 1846
Joined: March 31, 2008 |
I have both JRiver and MusiChi If it is about the interface, MusiChi is no match, likewise in the DSP department. If it is about tagging classical, the MusiChi tagger is very powerful. I tag all my classical with this tagger. I have tags for Opus/Catalog, Composition, Year and movement. Compared with JRiver a real time saver. CHI also support GD3 for lookup, much better than the very limited YADB JRiver is using. A bit more about the tagger can be found in the link below. The Well Tempered Computer
|
| RE: MusiChi and JRiver, posted on April 11, 2014 at 06:26:41 | |
|
Posts: 1846
Joined: March 31, 2008 |
This is about tagging only. One can define custom tags both in JRiver and MusiCHI. E.g. MusiCHI has a tag Composition, so I define it in JRiver as well. http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Players/MC14/Custom_tags.htm http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Players/CHI/CHI_CustomTags.htm MusiCHI also allows for tag mapping. I do the tagging on the files with the CHI tagger, JRiver reads them (most of the time by its self as it scans the file system for changes) In the past I used JRiver and its expression language to extract information like Opus, Composition. CHI has these expression build in, much faster. Another stronghold is the Cleaner. Almost all composers are in the database, hence you have them spelled uniformly. Compositions by major composers are in this database as well. Gives you all the information like name, nickname, key, opus, catalog, year, instruments. I use this to make views in JRiver like Composer > Opus Composer > Work Etc http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Players/JRiver/Classical_Opus.htm The Well Tempered Computer
|
