Grimm MU1 Streamer - Really "The Best"?

@ghasley 

Thanks for your last post, very informative and helpful in understanding why you preferred MU1 over Innuos and Aurender. I don't mean to beat a dead horse but my stance on upsampling was based on my extended listening with four different DAC’s in the price range from $8K and $25K. To my ears, upsampled files did not sounded natural and often produced some level of distortion. As of now, ROON doesn’t support native DSD files. And since they are using ROON as OS so a sample rate conversion (both upsampling and downsampling) by way of “Pure Nyquist” decimation filter appears to be a smart choice. If anything, you achieve greater consistency across the board by listening in 2FS or 4FS mode. 

In any case, MU1 is not something I would not consider…I have a large library of DSD and analog files that I prefer to hear natively. In my system, Aurender serves my needs beautifully by allowing me to hear files without any post processing and not to mention unparalleled RAVENNA integration with my Merging DAC over Ethernet.

Like you said, which server/streamer is best? The one that meets your goal. 

Totally agree with @adasdad. My experience is that investing in the best sounding DAC you can afford will give you the greatest listening pleasure.

@ghasley 

I still listen to Roon on my Innuos Zenith to compare with Sense.  Roon still sounds much less enjoyable.  Really not even close. I compared the most recent versions of Sense and Roon and simply find Roon is still far behind sonically. Keep in mind I do not use DSP and don’t tax my Zenith at all.  It has never locked up or needed to be cycled off/on.  It has run flawlessly at all times in my home even when I primarily used Roon a couple of years ago. 
 

I demoed the PhoenixUSB Reclocker in my system for two weeks and ended up returning it.  It simply did not offer a perceptible improvement in sound quality when used with the Mojo Audio Evo Pro dac I had at the time.  I actually preferred the Zenith on its own with the Mojo Audio dac. Just more at ease and natural sounding.   I was rather shocked at this outcome, but it just reinforces the important role various systems and preferences play in our choices.  
 

I must say your comments on the Grimm has me wanting to listen to one in my system. The problem is I spent so much on my Tron dac that another $11 grand on the server is not possible. I suppose I opted to spend much more on the dac vs the server. With the Grimm unit I sense one can spend less on the dac and get a great outcome.  Interesting. 

Like you said, which server/streamer is best? The one that meets your goal.

@lalitk and @ghasley

Unquestionably you have respectively accomplished this goal .

Charles

@lalitk I agree with you regarding upsampling in the typical dac, even in the price range you describe. That even goes for the Chord method…I still cant figure what people are hearing when they say they love the Dave…I couldnt sell my fast enough when I had it. The Grimm decidedly does it differently. Sometimes a new take on an old idea bears a different fruit.

I was an early adopter with DSD and have a ton of files so I get where you are coming from. In fact, I spent a considerable sum and amount of time converting all of my vinyl to dsd. There really arent that many titles originally recorded in DSD, which is where the real opportunity exists. Its a shame the adoption isnt gaining any momentum…tough to edit in dsd I guess.

Another test I did, which again, is far from scientific or proof of anything other than concept. I played back the same tracks from several of my High Definition Tape Transfer titles I own. On the Innuos I played the dsd, 24/192, 24/96, 24/44.1 versions of the same tracks. Sounded great on both my Totaldac and the Meitner MA3. As we went down the resolution scale, the Meitner/Totaldac each sounded equally terrific on dsd and the sound quality of the the Meitner differed more than the Totaldac as we went down in resolution. I surmise since the meitner upsamples everything was the root cause. I preferred the totaldac with lower resolution tracks. Fast forward…on those same tracks, I played the dsd version through the Zenith into the usb of my totaldac and then the lower resolution through the Grimm via AES. I preferred the Grimm 4fs version of the playback. Once again, it proves nothing other than with the Totaldac the Grimm provided a higher level of enjoyment.

I dont mean to burst anyone’s bubble but their is simply no consistentcy of data, software or hardware out there. Well over 90% of the dsd material out there was upsampled by someone using whatever they used to do it to varying degrees of success. A GREAT may of the top studios actually use Grimm clocks in their mastering/recording chains so Grimm probably does have a but more experience in that regard and thus, a great deal of confidence/knowledge in how they can maximize results.

Another test I did one time…I had just received my Studer R2R deck back from receiving a perfect calibration and cleaning from a studio guy in LA. I had a dsd recording I had purchased of an album, I had a perfect original pressing on vinyl and decided to do a little test. I offloaded one well known track of dsd file to a thumb drive, I recorded the same track from vinyl to tape and then recorded the dsd track playback to tape. I then went to LA with the tape and the thumb drive. I didnt tell the guys at the studio what I had done, I just asked them to listen to the three tracks and independently tell me their impressions. They had, IIRC, a Playback Designs dac and a studer very similar to the one I had. I recognize that bias probably played a significant role…but they rated the dsd file third….the needle drop second and the r2r recording of the dsd file as the best sounding. This happened 10-12 years ago so I recognize technology on the dsd/digital side of the equation has come a long way. My takeaway? I thought the dsd file sounded best, the needle drop second and the dsd to r2r transfer third. Vinyl and tape sound rolled off to me and they are used to that sound. Fast forward to today, what we can achieve in the home is so vastly superior to what was even possible 20 years ago. I believe a really good 24/192 recording of a large swath of available music beats the dsd version of the same file (which was probably upsampled to dsd from that same file). I have owned Playback Designs, Chord, DCS, several Totaldacs, Meitner and MSB Discrete as far as my dsd capable dacs. I just havent been able to digest the cool aid that dsd is the answer when so much of our available music was recorded in either analog or 16/44.1. For me, for my listening taste, in my system and the eras of music I enjoy I have consistently preferred my music in the original format/sampling rate, not upsampled….until the Grimm. Everyone’s mileage may vary but we simply cant insist we are purists and one method is always better. The music we enjoy has likely been recorded in analog to tape. Then several copies were made of the original master and several copies were maded from the copies and by the time the tape arrives to the person who will lovingly transfer it to dsd, they are quite often dealing with a third or fourth generation tape at best. They do their thing and then presto, we have a dsd or pcm snapshot of that tape. So when I see/hear the conversation shift to discussions about “original format” I tend to look away and resume what I was doing. There are darn few recordings that meet that criteria…I just judge it by enjoyment and choose not to obsess about it. Much of what was being sold to us, especially in the early days of dsd sold was just upsampled pcm.