Aurender

@lalitk I hear you on the chassis overload. Compared to everything else in high end audio, streaming and serving are still relatively new innovations, and management of noise and signal integrity are still in its formative stages. While some folks get turned on by the multiple chassis, many are looking for smaller form factors. Think about computing when it first became mass in the late 70s to early 80s.

In a different forum online, I mentioned where I felt the value of the MC10 clock lies - not only in its isolated chassis, but also in its large, very high quality linear power supply. Putting a the 10MHz clock in as a module into the N50 would likely allow for an improvement over stock, but it wouldn’t deliver the Sonic performance of the standalone MC10. And there is value in using the MC10 even if one ends up selling all their Aurender gear, as it can be used with both 75 and 50 Ohm digital components.

It might be interesting if Aurender were to release something alternative to their flagship like an updated W20SE with the Rubidium clock for those who did not want the 3-4 chassis approach. Perhaps one that sits around the same price point as the N30SA. 

“Putting a the 10MHz clock in as a module into the N50 would likely allow for an improvement over stock, but it wouldn’t deliver the Sonic performance of the standalone MC10”

@blisshifi 

You may have missed my point. I wasn’t merely hinting at shoving a Rubidium clock module onto the back of the chassis. A high-precision clock requires meticulous implementation to be truly effective. You’d expect the same level of thoughtful integration that Aurender has clearly given to the rest of the modules and circuitry in the N50. From an end-user perspective, the current clock implementation in N50 (which is same as in N20, N30) feels like it’s what’s holding the N50 back from being a truly reference-level music server. You’re going all out on everything else—so why leave the clock implementation at such a basic level?

I guess Aurender assumes that anyone investing $40K in the N50 wouldn’t hesitate to follow dealer advice and add the MC10, completing what they position as the “masterpiece” of digital refinement in their music server lineup 😊

I really like your suggestion of an updated W20SE outfitted with a Rubidium clock for those who don’t want to deal with the 3–4 chassis approach. I know I’d pick one up in a heartbeat.

@lalitk I don’t think I was misinterpreting, and we are both on the same page. I just don’t think, in Aurender’s product strategy, it makes sense to build on the internal clock, as we know that the power supply demands for it to perform like the MC10 would result in a compromise of performance if implemented into the existing chassis space for the N50. Maybe future innovations will allow for that in future models. I think from a market perspective, you also hit it on the head with your second to last paragraph.

DCS as well is keeping clocks separate. Unfortunately, their flagship Varese is a five chassis digital front end that takes more space than the N50 plus clock, but it does include mono DACs at a total of… get ready for it… $267K! 🤦‍♂️ 
 

That said, I do WISH it were an option in the N50, like you do. :)

“five chassis digital front end”

@blisshifi 

A five-chassis digital front end demands some serious real estate, and unfortunately most people just don’t have that kind of space. I own a three-chassis Merging Technologies digital front end, and even that feels like a challenge whenever I think about adding more pieces to the system. At one point I actually ran a five-chassis (Merging + N30SA) digital setup… lol!

To this day, I have yet to find a server + DAC two-chassis combo that can handily beat Merging’s performance. A high-performance clock paired with a state-of-the-art power supply + optically isolated LAN signal really makes all the difference when it comes to digital streaming.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and indulging me in my little rant 😊 Always enjoy our conversation and exchange of ideas on digital front ends.