2. digital
  3. 188181-21

What makes One Music Server Sound Better than Another?

So this week my Mojo Audio DejaVu music server that I have used for the past 2-3 years crapped out. Benjamin at Mojo was more than helpful and the DejaVu is on its way to Mojo Audio where it will make a full recovery.

Thankfully, I still have my Antipodes DX2 Gen 3 (their former flagship) music server so I hooked it up. After wrestling with Roon protocols, transfers, and set-up menus, I was able to get it going so I have music. The DX and my Sonore Sig Rendu SE opt. are both connected to my network so the DX (like the DejaVu), is only being used as a Roon core and the Sig Rendu SE serves as the Roon endpoint for streaming Tidal and Qobuz, with a direct USB connection to my DAC.

The point of this thread is to ask, how come I perceive the the DejaVu server as sounding better than the Antipdes DX? In fairness, the differences I perceive are not great but it seems the DejaVu is fuller sounding, more tonally rich, and bolder. Is this why some here spend $10K+ on a Grimm, Taiko or something else?

If a server is basically a computer, sending digital information to a streamer/endpoint and, assuming that digital information is transmitted asynchronously and reclocked by the DAC’s master clock, and assuming noise is not the issue (i.e., both units are quiet and there is an optical break between the network and both the server and endpoint) then what are the technical reasons one should sound better than the other? It is not that I want to spend $10K+ on a music server with a lifespan of maybe 5 years before becoming obsolete, but I would like to understand what more you are getting for your money. So far, the best I can come up with is lower internal noise as the major factor.

As a side note to the above, when I thought things looked hopeless for getting set up, I scheduled a support session with Antipodes and, although I lucked into the solution before the meeting time, Mark Cole responded ready to help. Setting up the session was super easy and reminded me of the superior level of support I had come to enjoy from Antipodes during the time that the DX was my primary server, including multiple updates and 2 or 3 hardware upgrades, which prolonged the service life of the DX. Good products and good company.

 

mitch2
mclinnguy's avatar
mclinnguy
662 posts
 

Benjamin at Mojo is big on the small details.

That is what it is- breaking down every single part of the process and determining the best approach for each one. Dozens of small details add up a significant change.

The power supply is the biggest factor, from what I have read. Some of the current best (Grimm, Antipodes) have gone away from linear power supplies and have developed their own switch mode power supplies. When you consider in one Antipodes box there are 3 of these, 4 processors, one high powered one for the server, a lower powered one for less noise for renderer, each one designed from the ground up for one singular purpose- higher quality audio, it is easy to understand the 10k+ prices.

This is a good read if you want more on the process from Antipodes: Antipodes

click on "our approach" on the left after landing on that page

mapman's avatar
mapman
22,454 posts
 

Power supply on a server alone could only impact sound quality if it is noisier and that noise leaks into teh network connection and makes its way all the way to a DAC with poor jitter rejection. So it is possible but also avoidable in various ways if so, some more cost effective than others. If you have other computers on teh same network, chances are those in sum are introducing more noise into the network connection than any single device, including teh music server, unless teh music server has some issue or is just poorly designed. A good quality jitter resistant DAC is probably the first best defence/solution, not a new music server.   I'd address that with the DAC if needed first, then see what happens.

mapman's avatar
mapman
22,454 posts
 

BTW, I use Wifi/wireless connections with all my streamers mainly out of convenience but sound quality is top notch I’d say as long as all wifi connections are strong, even with high res files streamed from Qobuz. If streamer wifi connection is weak, Roon will simply just give up and move on to the next track in the queue, but not a problem I find again with a strong wifi connection.  

mitch2 OP
4,084 posts
 

@mapman - Your points are valid and I agree but they mostly do not seem applicable to my specific situation.

  • the server and streamer are independently connected to the network through a wired Ethernet connection, and each of those two wired Ethernet connections have an in-line fiber optic cable between the component and the network connection
  • all network and peripheral components are powered by LPSs that are connected to their own dedicated 20A circuit
  • in the case of the streamer, there is only a very short Ethernet cable at the router end and then an optical converter and fiber optic cable extending the entire distance to my system room and directly into the streamer (i.e., the streamer itself has a fiber optic input)
  • All connections to my main system are wired and do not use wi-fi, however, my auxiliary (living room and outdoor) systems are connected by Roon endpoints directly wired to Orbi mesh satellites, but those systems are not the topic here
  • there are no noise issues that I discern
  • the DAC is a $10K (when new) model with a fairly high quality JLSounds USB input used by other high end manufacturers

The issue is not that my system doesn't sound good, but that it sounds better with one server than with the other and I am curious why that is.

mapman's avatar
mapman
22,454 posts
 

Is the DAC jitter resistant?

More to discover