Grimm MU1 Streamer - Really "The Best"?


I've recently become interested in the Grimm MU1.  While reviews of top end players from Innuos, Aurender and Antipodes and others are typically all very positive, the tone of the many pro reviews of the Grimm MU1 go far, far beyond, with some reviews resorting to using superlatives and gushing of positive system transformation and not being able to stop listening to material, etc..  HiFi Advice and Steve Huff (actually calls it "magic") have such reviews.

Given the delay in availability of the Innuos Pulsar which I'm told will be better than my current Zenith Mk3 + PhoenixUSB reclocker, I am interested in replacing my streaming setup with a one-box solution that includes a high-precision clock.  The new streamer will continue to feed my Gryphon Diablo 300's DAC module, which I have no interest in replacing.

I'm actually a fan of Innuos, after they improved the sound of my Zenith with firmware updates and after I added their PhoenixUSB reclocker. I appreciate this commitment to improving sound quality which is why I was so interested in the Pulsar.

The trigger for considering an upgrade is not for improved sound, but rather, to solve some issues I have with too many Audioquest power cords coiled and clumped together. I will get to lose one of them and one of my USB cords with a one-box streamer. I've noticed my sound is very sensitive to positioning of my AC cords and find I often need to re-adjust the PC feeding my amp to get proper sounding vocals at center stage.  One of my subs also seems to be picking up AC noise when the crossover is set above 60Hz. The second trigger is simply system simplification, removing one box.  All that said I don't really have any complaints regarding sound, and the PhoenixUSB reclocker truly did improve the sound of my Zenith.

While the Grimm MU1 has it's 4X upsampling up it's sleeve with reviewers absolutely glowing over this feature and it's extreme ability to separate tones to the left, right, front, and back far better than the rest, I don't see that Grimm has gone to any lengths with regard to power supply management in the way other brands do including Innuos. The MU1's ultra-simplistic interior doesn't bug me, but the lack of transformers and power management makes me wonder....

Are there any updates from folks who have directly compared the MU1 vs similarly classed streamers from the competition?  Did you find it to be as revelatory as the pro reviewers found it? And, how does it compare to other streamers with it's 4X upsampling disabled?  Does it sound like it suffers from it's lack of power management?  I do see that the clock should be very good...

 

 

nyev

One thing no one has mentioned is that the MU1 has its own iteration of ROON built into it. This was done to optimize communications and improve SQ. This was with knowledge and approval of ROON (it's ROON certified). This may address some of those critical of ROON SQ. 

 

I'm using the Grimm MU1 in front of a Mola Tambaqui, which has it's own streamer built-in, and the difference is incredible. With the Mola's selectable output voltage I can run my amps directly, but I still prefer running thru my ARC Ref 6 which provides a superior stage experience to my ears. 

BTW, having ROON built in saves many people the cost of a $1500. ROON Nucleus.

 

@ghasley , great rationale; makes perfect sense.  As an aside, I wonder why Innuos does not support AES as the others do.

@davespencer thanks for posting. Is the above info sourced from Grimm/Roon?

 

If so, the superior Roon user experience is separated from all of the audio functions/stream, which are now handled by the Grimm? That would seem to validate the listening impressions of alot of us out here who are hearing something special via Roon through the Grimm even though our Innuos - "Roon" experience prior to Grimm ownership was better through Sense than through Roon. Thanks again.

@nyev

As an aside, I wonder why Innuos does not support AES as the others do.

I’m going to put on my business hat and remove my hifi hobbyist hat and say its a combination of they are probably playing to their perceived strengths. If they believe they know more about usb or that they believe it is an easier interface to monetize, then that makes sense. With one type of output to try to optimize, they are probably better at focusing development resources in one direction. Support and the resources necessary to do it well is also optimized...

 

Since the reclocker came up in earlier posts, monetizing the usb as a business trying to make money is far easier. If your product puts out a fantastic aes signal and your clocking is optimized...how many $4k ADD ON boxes can you build and sell to hifi enthusiasts?

 

Anyone ever seen an AES/EBU optimizer? Linear power supplies that take said optimizers to amazing new heights? Neither have I. There is an established standard with aes that no one evidently disputes. Additionally, Innuos is smart to focus on the interface most likely to be fragmented...so its easier to gain market share and penetrate it. USB presents that opportunity. DSD 1024? yep. PCM 24/3072? Yep!

 

Its easier to sell a product with a moving target, where you can OBJECTIVELY differentiate yourself from the competition. If someone says box A sounds better than box B, that can be debated. If some says "we are capable of 24/3072 resolution and our competition isn’t"...thats quantifiable, printable and repeatable but the secondary question rarely gets posed...does it matter?