2. digital
  3. 172823-1590

750$ Intel NUC vs $6000 Aurender N200: I don't hear the difference

I finally plunged into the source is as important as the DAC belief that is quite prevalent here and decided to test out Aurender N200. And given I have a very highend DAC, thought if the N200 pans out I would go for the N20 or N30.

 

I was expecting the N200 to blow away my Intel NUC which is 10th gen, core i7, 8GB and running Roon Rock BUT I am switching back and forth between USB playing the Roon Rock, and Co-axial playing Aurender N200, and I don't hear much of a difference maybe a hair, or not even that.

 

A few caveats: 1) Roon Rock is playing Quboz, N200 is playing Tidal (I am unable to get Qobuz login to the N200 for reason I don't understand).

2) I am comparing Coaxial on N200, USB on Roon Rock.

Caveat #2 can be ignored because I don't hear a difference between Coaxial and USB output of N200.

 

So either this is an "Emperor has no clothes" moment or I am missing something big. Any thoughts on what I might be missing before I send this N200 back to the dealer on Monday.

 

Rest of my system: Nagra TUBE DAC -> Accuphase E-650 -> Devore O96 and all Acoustic Revive wiring. 

essrand
peter_s
1,348 posts
 

I am probably listing my NUC I7 with LPS if anyone is interested. Feel free to PM me. 

willywonka
269 posts
 

I've heard HUGE differences between coaxial and USB on my Aurender N200. Remember this unit doesn't have OCXO like the N20 does and this will impact the performance on the coaxial. The USB sounded way better for me, but my DAC is at its best with its excellent USB interface! If you can't tell a difference between the N200 and an Intel NUC then something is seriously wrong. Also, you should be comparing them using the same interface.

audphile1's avatar
audphile1
5,305 posts
 

I didn’t read the entire thread but I saw this post and it didn’t stop me from trying the N200. The test conducted by the OP is flawed in several ways. 
1. As already mentioned above the N200 is optimized for USB. The spdif out sounds fine but it’s very audible how much better the USB is. (see the posts above talking about the N200 clock)

2. Tidal sound significantly worse than Qobuz with the N200, and I think with Aurender in general.

So for the comparison the N200 was set up in a worst possible way. But even in this configuration I would expect it to beat the nuc. I tried streaming with my mac mini and it doesn’t hold a candle yo the n200. 

essrand OP
297 posts
 

It’s always YMMV.

 

Firstly, please try a Roon rock on nuc not a Mac mini.

Secondly, The delta between an Aurender and a NUC with Roon rock  and Quboz should be far greater than delta between tidal and Quboz.

Third, it really depends on the DAC, that’s my conclusion. Perhaps the Nagra DAC does 95% of heavy lifting that typically streamers do with other perhaps lesser DACs? Who knows? 
 

by all means spend the 6k on the Aurender, but my humble suggestion would be to try a Roon rock on an nuc first. It cost as much as an audiophile usb cable for gods sake :)

 

 

 

audphile1's avatar
audphile1
5,305 posts
 

@essrand 

Figured out why Tidal sounded significantly worse than Qobuz. I incidentally compared MQA version on Tidal to Qobuz hi-res. None of my digital front end components unfold MQA so it was coming across similar to what the mp3 would sound. There’s still a difference between Tidal 16/44 and Qobuz 16/44 but it isn’t that great. 

And I agree, DAC will matter as well as the rest of your system. But the way you had tested using two different services and two different interface types still remains sub optimal. 

More to discover