Grimm MU1 Streamer - Really "The Best"?

@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.

@ghasley 

Very insightful comments!!!

Charles

@grannyring 

I hear you and your sharing of your expeiences has influenced many of my decisions in the past. Thank you! You are always so kind to share what you learn…and to do so over the telephone as well. You are a real asset to all of us.

Your experience with the Phoenix reclocker doesn’t surprise me…but not because it isnt a terrific product, it is. It further reinforces that all products are not additive just because they are sometimes effective in certain situations. A simple example is if product A lowers the noise floor of something by 20% in a noisy system, what that product does well may make no audible difference in another system with a lower noise floor. I think we all to often suspend our decades of well earned logic with some of what we experience in hifi. For instance the reclocker may make a hige difference with average dacs with average clocking on their usb input whereas your dac likely has superior clocking. In short, the Phoenix is addressing something that you dac addresses more effectively. Thats my working theory as to why the Network Acoustics Muon system can be so absolutely transformative when I dropped it into my Innuos Zenith based setup while the Muon setup doesnt enhance the Grimm based setup in the least. In short, there are alot of products that address different things so when someone says its system dependent, what many of us are saying is “we dont know what needs addressing in your system, but in my system I made this change and it enhanced performance”. I read comments alot here on Audiogon that Reviewer A said it did this and I bought the power conditioner and it didnt do squat. Maybe the reviewer is in Brooklyn with bad power and the user who says it did nothing has phenominal power at their home. These subtlties in a system don’t stack like coupons on Amazon. For something to enhance a listening experience, there needs to be something to fix.

Be well Bill.

@grannyring , as I’ve mentioned in past threads For a long time I didn’t hear the benefit of Innuos Sense over Roon that you and pretty much everyone else hears, until fairly recently. Not sure if it was due to a version change in either’s software or another tweak in my system, but I now hear far more detail and better imaging with Sense. Roon still sounds a little “bigger” to me in terms of scale, and also fuller, but Sense is just better.

@ghasley , thanks again for your input. One concern I had was not knowing how decent the AES implementation is on my Diablo 300 DAC, vs USB which I currently use. Sounds like it will work well. I suppose the Diablo DAC’s supercapacitor it uses to provide isolated voltage for USB would not be utilized when using AES? I like that flashing blue light on the front of the Diablo that indicates the super cap is charging, when you haven’t powered the unit in a while!  But it makes me think that Gryphon went the extra mile to make it’s USB interface on the DAC really good.

@nyev

I agree with you that the Diablo is a very well engineered piece. I dont know in what way Gryphon built their board, where or what was optimized for the dac board in general nor their usb implementation in particular. With that said, I cant imagine that the usb to spdif handoff is revolutionary, more likely it was optimized. Therefore, and this is a WAG, the usb to spdif handoff as well as the clocking is more than likely very, very good but its unlikely the clocking is a world beater. The Grimm or the better Aurenders via AES will likely make a material difference.

One of the advantages of a high end company like Gryphon designing their own dac (or phono) board is they can build it to their standards based on the optimal traits to complement the Diablo. No interconnects needed, perfect integration, etc, etc. They dont have to overbuild it, they just build it to a high enough standard and thats where they should logically stop. Its a tremendous value but thats from a long ago, multi day audtition. If you like your Diablo and dont plan on moving up the Gryphon foodchain, you are set. If you are content, then dont overbuy on the server/streamer front.We all get caught up with bringing a howitzer to a pillow fight bu the analogy absolutely applies to hifi.

In your case, assuming you are happy with your Diablo and you just want to enhance/maximize what you have, I believe that the less you ask a dac board to do (even a dac board developed by an exceptional manufacturer like Gryphon) the better off you will be. The aes input will be an upgrade from companies the likes of Aurender, Grimm, Antipodes, et al.