MAC Book Pro Computer vs Aurender N100h vs Aurender N10 Music Servers


I am considering replacing my MAC Book Pro Computer with the Aurender N100h music server. The N100h has received great reviews, has quality construction, provides Tidal support and offers the convenience of using an iPad. My local dealer "highly recommends" I consider the Aurender N10 music server OVER the Aurender N100h server. He feels the N10 would sound much better than my current MAC Book Pro Commuter or the N100h. He said the N100h would only be marginal better than my MAC Book Pro. To be honest, I was really considering the N100h because of its sound quality, construction and my budget.

However, based on the reviews, etc., I am sure the Aurender N10 sounds great but it costs $8,000 (expensive). I found one N100h review that said “ ….Not one single combination of Mac Mini & peripheral devices has so far bested the sound of Aurender’s N100H; a digital audio streamer/server that comes pre-loaded with: 1) audiophile-approved 120Gb solid state hard drive (for cached playback); 2) custom 35 Watt linear power supply; 3) low noise USB output. Check one, check two, check three”.

This is probably not a fair comparison since the N10 cost is $8k and the N100h cost is $3k. What are your comments about replacing my MAC Book Pro Computer with either the N10 or the N100h? Has anyone replaced their MAC Book Pro with one of these Aurender servers?

And, yes, I plan on visiting my local store shortly to hear both the N10 and the N100h. My current MAC Book Pro computer is connected to my Bricasti M1 DAC connected to my Hypex NCore NC400 Bridged mono blocks class D power amplifiers and my Sonus Faber Olympic II Speakers.   The 4 NC400 power amplifiers (2 amps per side) were modified (4 R141 chips removed) to match to the volume control in the Bricasti M1 DAC (running DAC direct to amp, no pre-amplifier).   Thanks.

hgeifman
Please see the answer below from Aurender Customer Suppor RE: Aurender MQA handling explained:

"MQA decoding is hardware dependent on the DAC being used and so while the file is encoded in MQA, it is in a standard PCM "wrapper" or container file. The file can be either 16 bit or 24 bit (depending on the provenance of the original master file) and is either a 44.1kHz or 48kHz sampling rate, dependent on the A/D conversion and mastering sampling rate of the the original file.

In order for an MQA file to be properly decoded, it needs to be used with appropriate DAC hardware that carries an MQA certification. Otherwise it will just play back as a standard PCM file (capable of supporting either of the specs mentioned above). A user with a non-MQA DAC will still receive some of the benefits of MQA encoding, namely reduction of temporal blur, but the MQA decoding process is tailored for the DAC architecture and is only supported by MQA certified DACs. Since your Ayre Codex does not have an MQA hardware decoder, it does NOT see the MQA encoder flags and therefore just plays back the file at whatever the native sampling rate is (44.1kHz or 48kHz).

Further, it is a common assumption that an MQA file with a base sample rate of 44.1kHz or 48kHz will always result in a higher sampling rate after MQA’s “unfolding”, or decoding process. However, a fully decoded, unfolded MQA file on an MQA certified DAC can and often is still at a max sampling rate of 44.1kHz/48kHz. The decoding process is actually (more importantly) correcting for how the DAC is converting the signal to analog, by correcting for errors in the time domain. The sampling rate is based on the provenance or source of the original file.

To illustrate this a bit, a source file from a recording using MQA encoding may have a master sampling rate of 352.8kHz (8x 44.1kHz), which would be contained in a 24-bit, 44.1kHz sampling rate “wrapper” so that it can be used with non-MQA DAC hardware. When the file is delivered to MQA DAC hardware, the DAC will detect the appropriate flags that the file is encoded in MQA, and “unfold” the file using MQA’s decoding process to the original maximum sampling rate of 352.8kHz.

On the other hand, a recording that has a source provenance of 24-bit, 44.1kHz will still be contained in the same 24-bit, 44.1kHz “wrapper”, and when MQA DAC hardware detects the MQA encoder flags, will still decode the file to the original max sampling rate of 44.1kHz.

In short, MQA is less about the sampling rate of the file, and more about having provenance for the original recording, and removing errors in the time domain in the DAC hardware. Unfortunately, when Tidal introduced Masters (MQA encoded files), some of this information has been made a bit murky by some of MQA’s own marketing lingo about “Core” decoding (an initial software decoding required for an MQA Renderer, or a non-MQA DAC, currently only available in Tidal’s App, and Audirvana music player software), which everyone thinks must result in a 2x unfold before the DAC.

In other words, people want to see a higher sampling rate. However, this is simply not the case in practice and even a Core decoded file may only have a sampling rate of 44.1kHz or 48kHz if that’s what the original master file’s maximum sampling rate is.

Actually you can find out more about Aurender and MQA playback at the link here: http://support.aurender.com/mqa-playback.html "

A special thanks to Aurender Customer Support for the above explanation answering our MQA related questions. 
If you haven't heard your MacBook Pro hooked up to a Music Linear Power Supply than you haven't heard what the MacBook Pro really has to offer.

Additional information for Aurender Music Server Users only:

Please see the link for information on the “Streaming” tab:  
http://support.aurender.com/streaming.html

Also please see the links below for information on the second row filter buttons and the user nameable folder row:

http://support.aurender.com/content-browse-buttons.html
http://support.aurender.com/user-nameable-folders.html

New Aurender Software Release Notes for System SW 4(5).10.16 / App 2.8.5 Released on August 4 2017:

http://www.aurender.com/blog/new-software-release-note-4/post/system-sw-4-5-10-16-app-2-8-5-148
FYI.  My Aurender IPad was losing its connection to  my Aurender N10 Music Server yesterday.

I re-booted the iPad App but still had the same problem.  Today, I re-started (hit the re-start tab in settings) my N10 and everything is working fine now.  I think the the connectivity technology gets mixed up over time.  
hgeifman,

this is a great thread and you provide a ton of great information.  Thank you.  I have a few questions, but before I get to them, please excuse my ignorance about computer stuff and MQA in general.  If my questions are stupid, I apologize in advance, and admit that I am somewhat of a newbie when it comes to the MQA  and streamers etc.   


 I don't understand why an MQA dac is needed to get MQA from Tidal.    Right now when I open my Tidal app on my windows laptop, I can play MQA to my DAC (a light harmonic dual dac) and my dac is not MQA, yet my dac plays the Tidal MQA songs at 48 hz (my dac tells me whether im playing 44.1, 48, 192, dsd etc).  So I am able to stream MQA to a non-MQA dac using the Tidal software on my computer.  How come Aurender can't do the same thing?  Or am I missing something.  According to Tidal, you don't need an MQA dac, just their app.  Here is a quote from the Tidal website:

"All you need is a TIDAL HiFi membership to get access to thousands of master-quality albums through the TIDAL desktop application. When you are in the TIDAL desktop app, go to What’s New and select Masters in the Albums section."

I understand if you play Tidal from a web browser, then your dac has to be MQA to decode it.  But the Tidal app seems to do the MQA decoding instead of the DAC.  Couldn't Aurender build something into their software to decode the MQA like the Tidal app? 



You have also pointed out that the Aurender customer support is fantastic, but it does seem that you have had a few problems with your Aurender and for those of us that are not as computer savvy as you appear to be, do you think the Aurender is still a good option?  

Again, I appreciate this post, and your well thought out explanations, and any comments you can provide. 

Thank you and again apologies if my post is wrong or my understanding is wrong or my questions show a level of ignorance.