2. digital
  3. 149414-6280

Innuos Statement Review

I first heard the Innuos Statement music server at AXPONA 2019. I listened to a demonstration directly comparing the Statement to the Innuos' Zen MkII. After the demonstration, it was clear to me that the Statement was a large step forward in the Innuos product line. I recently purchased the Innuos Statement and took delivery (after a six week wait). I immediately plugged it in, set it up, (super easy) and downloaded .5 TB of WAV files overnight. After burning in the Statement for approximately 100 hours, I compared the Statement's performance to the Antipodes DX3 music server. In order to have as close a comparison as possible (in relative real time) I connected both servers to my Jeff Rowland (JR)  Aeris DAC+PSU using the same brand of cables (Stealth). However, because the Aeris DAC has only one USB input and both the Statement and the Antipodes DX 3 only have USB output, I first ran the Statement through a Berkeley USB Alpha converter and connected the Alpha converter to the Aeris DAC using Stealth's Vardig Sextet V16-T BNC/BNC cable. The Stealth USB Select-T cable connected the Statement to the Aeris DAC. The rest of the system consisted of a JR Corus Preamp (connected to the aforementioned PSU), JR M925 mono amplifiers, Joseph Audio Pearl 3 speakers and a three REL subwoofer "swarm" configuration. Cardas Clear Beyond power cords, balanced ICs, and speaker cables were used throughout the system. Both servers were used as Roon Cores for the comparison/review. I own all the equipment; I don't work for any audio company. (I also don't pump my stuff to dump it later.)
I focused on music selections I know well across the genres of rock/pop, jazz, classical, soul/R&B, and classical. I used a "non-blind" method playing a 1 minute 30 second to 2 minute section of a recording before switching from one server to the other and then repeating the same recording for an immediate comparison. I did the comparison over a two hour period, taking periodic listening breaks. Before providing my overall impressions of the Antipodes Statement, I note that I immediately compared the Statement to the Antipodes DX3 without burning the Statement in. The Antipodes DX3 had been thoroughly burned in before the comparison (more than 500 hours of use). Without burn in, the Statement and the Antipodes DX 3 sounded very similar to one another. I'm confident that I would have been guessing which was which if I was blindfolded and had to name the server I was hearing on any given recording. I repeated this exercise after the Statement had burned in for one hour. At this point it seemed the Statement's soundstage had gotten a little wider and only slightly deeper. It also seemed the vocals on the Statement had become slightly clearer than on the Antipodes DX3. I did no further comparisons until now. The following are my subjective impressions of the Statement after four days of burn in compared to the Antipodes DX 3 server in my system.
The Statement threw a slightly wider soundstage than the Antipodes DX3.
The Statement had a significantly deeper soundstage than the Antipodes DX3. 
The Statement and the Antipodes DX3 had the same soundstage height.
The Statement resolved moderately more than the Antipodes DX3. By this I mean it provided more recording details than the Antipodes DX 3. It was not a night and day difference. It was apparent on most, but not all, recordings I considered.
Vocals presented clearer/crisper (better "enunciation" if you will) via the Statement than the Antipodes DX3.
The Statement provided superior bass differentiation in the lowest and mid bass regions. With the Statement, the bass drum performance did not cloud either a stand up bass or electric bass performance--provided the recording/mastering engineers sufficiently separated the performances on the recording. The Antipodes DX3 is a very good bass performer. But it slightly trailed the Statement.
The Statement placed more air between the instruments and performers than the Antipodes DX3.
The Statement excelled at acoustical instrument presentation. A reeded instrument sounded convincingly "real." The Antipodes DX3 does this well too...just not as well. Percussion instruments also benefit from this attribute. The Statement allowed me to hear more definition in the wood block, the guiro, shakers, all cymbals I heard, chimes, a gong. Again, the Antipodes DX3 was very good at percussive instrument representation. The Statement was simply better.
Both the Statement and the Antipodes DX3 provided high quality believable piano reproduction in all genres. The only significant difference I heard between the two servers on piano performance was found in Alfredo Rodriguez's rendition of "Chan Chan." There, the Statement seemed to handle the quick staccato notes and the unique decay issues of this piece more believably than the Antipodes DX3. But the difference was not night and day.
My overall impression of the Statement is that it provided superior high quality, believable digital music reproduction regardless of genre. I consider it an across the board upgrade in musical reproduction in my system over the Antipodes DX3. My impression of the Antipodes DX3 is that it is a high value product that held up very well in comparison to the Statement. The Statement retails for twice as much as the DX3's retail price when it was in production. If the Statement's performance after four days of burn in was rated as a 100 I would rate the Antipodes DX3 completely burned in as a 75. I will be keeping both these music servers. Hopefully this review helps those in the market for a music server.     
astewart8944
lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,637 posts
 
@audiotroy,

“The reality is that more digital inputs create the possibility of more noise flowing into the product” - Please STOP peddling the BS.

Please tell us how many DAC’s currently have Ethernet (i2s) digital input? 

The point I was trying to make is why limit the end user to modern (as you say) digital outputs? Do you expect everyone to buy new DAC that’s optimized for USB and Ethernet type outputs? 

The legacy outputs (SPDIF / AES) can handle high resolution upto 24bit/192kHz, including MQA. Pretty much every DAC currently available is more than adept to handle signal carried out via legacy digital inputs (case in point, OP’s Aeris DAC). 

Unless you’re buying DSD downloads (I can’t imagine why anyone would still pay $25-$30 bucks for DSD downloads) when high resolution streaming from Qobuz is so superlative, no one really cares about streamers that is optimized for USB or Ethernet outputs only.  Its certainly a nice plus to have if industry is headed that way. Last time I checked, we still don’t have a standard i2S protocol in place, there are still handshake issues with components sporting Ethernet / HDMI digital I/O. 

Here is the reality my friend,

- most DAC’s currently available are not optimized for USB / Ethernet input. 
- most people are quite satisfied with 16bit/44.1kHz streaming quality from Tidal/Qobuz.  They can’t hear or appreciate the difference between 44.1kHz and 192kHz resolution. 

Cheers! 
mmeeks100
9 posts
 
Regarding:

- most DAC’s currently available are not optimized for USB / Ethernet input.
- most people are quite satisfied with 16bit/44.1kHz streaming quality from Tidal/Qobuz.  They can’t hear or appreciate the difference between 44.1kHz and 192kHz resolution.

Maybe most folks are - the point could be debated.  But there is definitely a group that is not.  Count me in that group - on my system, there is often quite a difference between a 44Khz song and the same one in either MQA or 192Khz.  I don't know if its due to more information being present or some other factor like remastering, but there is definitely an improvement with the higher resolution formats (on my system, at least).
lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,637 posts
 
@mmeeks100,

I am not trying to debate, just stating that most people are happy with 16bit/44.1kHz or even low resolution (Spotify) streaming.

I just dumped Tidal in favor of Qobuz and also own few DSD files (purchased prior to Qobuz launch) and large number of SACD’s. Fortunately, my system is resolving enough to appreciate the high quality streaming and DSD files.

My concern is with these so called state of the art components with high $$$$ price tags that limits the end user options. I cannot imagine sticking a $1500 USB/AES converter between components that retails for $37K (i.e. Innuos Statement and Berkeley Reference 3) 😉
astewart8944 OP
499 posts
 
@mmeeks100 and @lalitk I actually think you are both right. Presently many current high end component manufacturers seem to have coalesced around the following ideas: (1) USB and/or ethernet connections are the future and will be supported; and (2) SPDIF/AES/BNC is the past and will not be supported. I have read many posts by audio enthusiasts that enjoy "higher resolution" than 16/44 and will pay for it. Additionally, I have read comments from others that prefer the MQA experience and are willing to pay for it too. Time will tell whether digital downloading and MQA have long term viability. I suspect that consumer demand will win out in the end. If lots of folks feel like @lalitk  and keep their wallets closed unless a high end audio component is SPDIF compatible, then we will see lots more (not less) SPDIF functionality. FWIW I listen to ripped CDs (WAV) on music servers almost exclusively and do not use any upsampling. My DAC handles higher resolutions (24/192) and I performed some tests to see if I could objectively discern a difference with the system I had at the time. I honestly could not consistently distinguish between 16/44, 24/96 or 24/192. I could hear differences in some instances but it was not a given that I would prefer the higher resolution material or could even say which was which. However, I'm confident that others probably can do so with greater consistency than me.
hgeifman
2,307 posts
 

As posted above, the Innuos Statement only has USB and Ethernet outputs. Based on my listening experiments, going back and forth between an USB and an AES/EBU connections, I prefer the AES/EBU connection for the best sound quality in my "audio system".

I am currently using an Aurender N10 music server and the SimAudio 380D DSD DAC. This means if I purchase the Innuos Statement, I CANNOT use my “preferred” AES/EBU connection using my current DAC. As @Lalit states above, I am surprised the expensive Statement does not support an AES/EBU connection. As posted, it may be an older legacy connection, but I like the way it sounds (in my system).

As everyone knows on Audiogon, we have many equipment choices to select from.  It is unfortunate, in this case, the high-end Innuos Statement does not support an AES/EBU connection. Most DAC’s that I am aware of do not support an Ethernet input Connection.

AudioTroy reports that “Innuous Statement has two high performance digital outputs" consisting of USB or Ethernet. This means, I guess, that the older legacy inputs are not useful and are being phased out as least by the Innuos Statement.

In addition, I know that the Berkeley DAC’s does NOT have USB or Ethernet input connections. This DAC requires the use of an additional Alpha USB Unit that is an asynchronous High-Speed USB to digital audio interface that extracts the highest possible audio quality from computer audio sources. Berkeley Audio Design ONLY supports coaxial SPDIF using a BNC input connector, an AES/EBU connections and not Ethernet. They elected to export their USB conversion to another box to further isolate the noise (I guess). As of now, Berkeley Audio Design DAC’s do not support an Ethernet connection.

So, based on the Innuos Statement features, does it mean that Ethernet is the new preferred server output moving forward? Are more newer servers and DAC’s implementing an Ethernet connection? Is Ethernet becoming the new connection standard? How does an Ethernet connection sound quality compare to using an USB or an AES/EBU connection?

What other Music Servers and DAC’s support the using of an Ethernet connection? Have other audio companies adopted the Ethernet format for both outputs and inputs?

The Audio Industry to making it very difficult to purchase new equipment if the output and input connections do not match other equipment used in one’s system.



More to discover