So switching to something that might be useful to the OP
IMHO asking a computer (Mac or Windows ) to be a streamer direct to the DAC is asking for sub par performance. If you ever look at all that is going on in the background (My Windows Pc is running 66 background processes at the moment) it makes sense that a device dedicated to the task might outperform it.
On the flip side, any DAC today is pulling info from the USB port as it needs it, so if it is processing that data optimally perhaps it makes no difference. All I can speak to is my experience, which is that the high end DACs I've used in my system (DCS, Mojo, EMM, and others) that had digital inputs, particularly AES, they sounded better by using that rather than USB. I attribute that to more stable, less jitter, less noisy clocks in the reclocker, but that is just a guess. In any case, it sounds better to me.
So how do you get an AES signal. One way is a DCS or EMM bridge that takes an Ethernet in with an AES out. My current method is a Mutec MC3+ USB that takes USB in from an HQplayer NAA and converts it to AES, reclocking it in the process. It sounds more organic and natural into my Mojo DAC and as I recall that was true with the EMM I had too. Again, that is my experience.
it is logical but I have no proof of this, that as long as the USB data coming from the NAA is not corrupted, once the Mutec re-clocks it then it shouldn't matter where it came from. Others will disagree but that's about as much effort and $$ as I want to put into it since I'm more a vinyl than digital guy anyway.
I also have the Mutec 10MHz as a reference for the MC3 but the jury is still out on whether or not that is a step up. I think it is but it is one of those deals it may take a while to soak in what all is happening to the sound.
so back to what I said in my initial response.. the only way for YOU to know is to try it in your system. One thing I will say is if you have a large % of your total $$ tied up in a streamer, you could probably get more improvement by spending it elsewhere (better speakers, better DAC, etc) and saving the streamer upgrade for the latter stages of your journey.
Soix, peace
|
|
That is what the search function is for.
I guess I was hoping to learn more about the types of components that make up your fiber chain, like end points, interfaces and such. If that was explained in previous threads then by all means please point to them. Thank you!
|
Guess you have not owned one in the last 20 years....
Win on Sunday sell on Tuesday. Ducati owns WSB and Moto GP.
like the old motorcyclist adage :
"Ducati , making mechanics out of motorcyclist for a 100 years"
|
@yyzsantabarbara I guess I was hoping to learn more about the types of components that make up your fiber chain, like end points, interfaces and such. If that was explained in previous threads then by all means please point to them. Thank you!
|
@devinplombier I have commented on my Fibre based approach to streaming for about 8 years on this site. There are a couple of posts on this thread that gets into a bit of detail.
One thing to consider about my statements is that some genius level digital audio designers are also advocating the same approach as me. That is to use Fibre Optic cable, which is not the same as Toslink cable, as a moat before the DAC. A moat keeps intruders away, and in this case, it is the NETWORK noise from the upstream components, a computer, a printer, a security system, ethernet, etc ....
One thing to remember is that with the Fibre approach there is not much money to be made by the venders.
WiFi could also be great because the air could be the moat, but the solutions are not good at all at present. I have not used Aurelic gear, and they are pro WiFi. That gear is supposed to be very good.
|
@herman Here’s part of your prior response and the possible source of our disconnect…
The DAC is doing the exact same amount of processing whether the incoming signal has jitter or it doesn't. The DAC operates exactly the same either way. The DAC doesn't have a circuit that detects jitter or noise and then "does more work" when it detects it.
No it does not do the same amount of processing if it has to deal with a signal that has more jitter. By definition if a DAC receives a more poorly clocked signal it must work harder to clean up the signal than if it received a better signal. That is the DAC having to work harder. A DAC receiving a better signal by definition has less work to do to clean it up and can do it more effectively. Maybe it’s the term “work harder” that you’re having a hard time with, but if a DAC has a clock that can manage 98% of the jitter that comes into it and the incoming signal contains less jitter then the jitter left after it re-clocks that signal has less remaining jitter and the DAC sounds better for it. So maybe it’s just a matter of semantics and we can just agree that the less noise/jitter a DAC has to deal with the better it will sound, otherwise a DAC would sound the same regardless of the quality of the signal it receives, which you and I both have found is not the case. Frankly I’m just happy you and I had the openness to even try a DDC and that we were honest about that the thing actually did provide worthwhile improvements as opposed to some others who’d just rather bury their head in the sand in total denial/ignorance…
As for the dude saying adding a DDC is just adding another box so can’t possibly help and is just a way for a manufacturer to make more profit, well that’s just stupid and not even worthy of a response. Many, many people here have added a DDC and/or external clock and realized substantial sonic improvements, and while all else being equal I’d also prefer to have fewer boxes in the chain, all else is not always equal so sometimes the additional hardware and cables are well worth it. I’ll say again, anyone who has a DAC should at least try a DDC and external clock because IME they can be relatively speaking a very cost-effective way to realize significant improvements. Ok, I think this dead horse has been beat enough, so peace out.
|
@yyzsantabarbara Interesting. Can you comment on your fiber setup? Toslink is fiber too, just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.
|
STREAMING 101. Do not stream directly from your computer into your DAC it is the worst way to stream and you can easily hear the grunge of that setup in the DACs output.
I use a $500 DELL PC to stream and it is nowhere close to my audio gear (different room different floor). I am not advocating an expensive solution. Use fibre optic cable ($40) before the DAC. This type of setup can be done for $1500 or less. I have one fibre setup for $700 (used gear)
BTW - the more expensive solutions mentioned here work well as does my Fibre based solution.
|
I run Ubuntu Linux on a $125 PC I got from Amazon. My music library is on a USB drive I hang off of it. Of course it can stream. Linux is free. The Clementine music player looks a lot like iTunes, but I run JRiver for about $30.
I always laugh at all of the people with their $5000 streamers and such. More money than sense.
I do not have a $5k streamer anymore and use a cheap computer however, if you have a USB connection directly into your DAC and that USB is connected directly to your Linux computer, then the joke is on you. Same applies to Toslink, SPDIF, and AES connections.
I used to run JRiver and it works well. I have been running ROON for "free" for the past decade.
|
Ok, well fine then. If it’s not the better clocking and noise reduction that makes a DDC make a DAC sound better as both you and I agree that it does, then what exactly is it? Magic fairy dust??? C’mon man
so now a different story.. our back and forth has never been about the what ( better clocking and noise reduction) but about the why it works.
people like you are the main reason I rarely participate in these forums. You say something, then when you are called on it, you change your story. You ignore what you said before and act like you never said it.
Fact: You said the "processor doesn’t have to work as hard" and "has to do less processing."
Fact: I said I agree the DDC is effective, it is just that your "work less hard" explanation makes no sense..I said you can’t say what "work" the processor is doing or say what "less processing" means so your WHY it works makes no sense. Not that it doesn’t work.
Fact: Now, since you can’t defend your why, you change your story and focus on the what instead of the why throwing in "better clocking" and "noise reduction"
Now that you have thrown it it into the mix, I agree it is completely logical that better clocks and noise reduction may play a part. But you changed your story. It still doesn’t validate your statement about less processing or less work for the DAC.
I never offered an explanation why because I don’t have one. I just agree that it works and know that your explanation made no sense.
So again, people like you are the main reason I rarely participate in these forums. You are incapable of saying "I was wrong" so you keep changing your story in an endless quest to avoid doing so.
Apologies to the rest of the group 
It has been fun but you keep changing your story so......
Good Day
|
I stream from my PC to a DAC and then my amp. I looked at posts from this site saying how great streamers were and bought an Aurender N20 with a T+A DAC 200. I had each of these set up on different inputs into my amp and was able to switch quickly between the two. I heard no appreciable difference between the two set ups much less anything that justified the $11k the streamer/dac cost. I've gone to other audiophiles' houses to listen to their set ups and been to an audio show and I still favor what I've got. |
If the usb in DDC is superior to the usb in your streamer you have a pretty poor streamer. As for I2S in general, many of the best streamers don't even offer it, they concentrate on usb and in some cases AES/EBU.
I agree with deep_333 in that downside of ddc is separate box, more cables, more parts to travel through which may have their own sound signatures, greater probability of noise being introduced, this goes along with the straight wire philosophy. The solution is to have both streamer and dac with optimized matching input and outputs.
I also previously owned Singxer SU6, it was not superior via usb or I2S to the extremely modded Mac Mini I was using at the time, this via usb.
As for I2S being the defacto scheme or output I've seen countless reviews in which people found usb, aes/ebu superior. Certainly it is understandable why in theory I2S should be superior (no extra conversion step, dedicated clock line), in practice this doesn't hold. I find it interesting that Linear Tube Audio Aero dac, an R2R dac getting great reviews doesn't even offer i2s, and you'd think this to be even more important with a ladder dac, the idea being timing extremely important to these relatively massive banks of resistors.
|
It is a poor idea to have the equivalent of DDC function in a separate box with a cable in between. Such function should be packaged as close as possible inside a dac directly before the conversion occurs (negligibly short signal path). In fact, a couple of dac manufacturers do just that.
It is the Denafrips marketing wanting to sell another box (ddc) that started this goofery.
When you have 15 different boxes wired together to play a song (separates extravaganza), it will sound more and more magical, right audiophiles? NOT.
|
@herman
so all you all can just move along, nothing new to see here. There is NOTHING anybody can add to this conversation that isn’t posted in 1000 other threads here and elsewhere
You will never find the answer here or on any forum. The ONLY way to determine the answer for YOU is for YOU to try it.
Agreed, but I am not sure the OP knows what to try.
I don’t have a clue when it comes to digital, but here is a good writeup where the CEO explains some of the measures a top-notch streamer manufacturer takes in order to produce good sound: That is the procedures/steps taken to ensure signal integrity before it is fed to the DAC, so the DAC in turn can seem to do a better job. I think I am right in stating with a quality server/streamer and a quality DAC a DDC is redundant.
Oladra
|
I completely agree with the first part, I said several times that I agree a DAC can sound better fed from a DDC. What I said was .... your conclusion that it does so because it doesn’t have to work as hard or has to do less processing has no factual basis so stating that these are the reasons has no basis in fact…I never had any problem with the conclusion that it sounds better. My problem is your statement about WHY it sounds better.
@herman Ok, well fine then. If it’s not the better clocking and noise reduction that makes a DDC make a DAC sound better as both you and I agree that it does, then what exactly is it? Magic fairy dust??? C’mon man. You’re running outta logical options here. It’s either clocking, noise reduction, or magic fairy dust. And as to @sns contention that it’s mainly the i2S connection that’s absolutely bogus. Many people here have experienced significant sonic improvements using a DDC without using i2S, so that argument holds no water whatsoever. Your turn, and please add something tangible rather than it just has to be something magical and as yet unidentified that makes a DDC work other than clocking and noise reduction cause I’m all ears if you got it. Where is your magic WHY if better clocking and better noise reduction isn’t enough for you? Occam’s razor — the simplest (and most logical I’d offer) explanation is usually the best one, unless you have something else. I mean, what the hell else could it possibly be???
|
I run Ubuntu Linux on a $125 PC I got from Amazon. My music library is on a USB drive I hang off of it. Of course it can stream. Linux is free. The Clementine music player looks a lot like iTunes, but I run JRiver for about $30.
I always laugh at all of the people with their $5000 streamers and such. More money than sense.
|
@dcmnto - Paul Allen had absolutely zero to do with modern (or old) Windows. He left company (or, rather, was pushed out) long time ago. Never had any influence on OS design. Besides, since 25 years ago OS changed quite a bit.
|
I primarily use Windows desktop as a source, but occasionally Macbook as well. Streamer is just a computer. And I am pretty sure Apple gear is much better designed than some ARM Linux box.
|
DDC effectiveness generally with I2S, I2S input on many dacs allows local or host clocking, host or DDC clock may be superior to dac clock. I don't see the point of adding DDC for usb unless streamer usb really poor.
I agree with prior poster in regard to diy builds, many levels of performance depending on build.
How can you argue with people who claim to hear no difference with dedicated streamers vs multi purpose computers, they get to be happy without any extra expenditure. For those who've not heard a dedicated streamer in their system speak from experience rather than rehashing other's experiences.
|
there are plenty of references out there that will show DACs sound better when fed a higher quality signal with lower noise/jitter, which is largely what a DDC does. Just because you (or I) don’t understand exactly why that is the case doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and the fact that both you and I (and scores of others here) have experienced positive benefits from adding a DDC is pretty darn good evidence that feeding a DAC a better signal has material benefits. If it’s not because the DAC works/sounds better with a lower noise/jitter signal from the DDC they why else would that possibly be?
I completely agree with the first part, I said several times that I agree a DAC can sound better fed from a DDC
What I said was .... your conclusion that it does so because it doesn't have to work as hard or has to do less processing has no factual basis so stating that these are the reasons has no basis in fact.
I never had any problem with the conclusion that it sounds better. My problem is your statement about WHY it sounds better.
As you alluded to, it really doesn't matter why as long as it does, so why do you keep defending the reasons you stated when they are indefensible especially when you agree you don't know why?
the end.
|
You have to wonder why so many seemingly reliable and reasonable folks report that strictly digital components (streamers, DDCs, etc.) make a sonic difference when logically they should not. What if the differencse were built in by the designer?
@devinplombier Well, if they reduce noise and jitter, both of which are the well-known and proven enemies of good digital sound, why wouldn’t they sound different/better? What in the world is not logical about that??? IMO it’s completely illogical to think otherwise, so maybe — just maybe — there’s a good reason why so many “reasonable and reliable folks” find significant sonic differences. Hmmm. If you wanna call jitter/noise reduction “voicing” I guess that’s your prerogative, but I’d call that a misnomer.
|
Whaa? One could plug his hifi streamer into his big TV or projector, sit back with a wireless keyboard/mouse and watch Netflix too??? HBO Max too??? Watch music videos and concerts with hifi audio on a streamer??? Play games??? Send emails??? The streamer (pc) can do that??? Whaaa???
I’ve been doing just that for the better part of, oh, 20 years and I honestly cannot fathom why anyone would set up their home cinema otherwise. In the past I would fish CAT cables through the walls to my media room, but nowadays you can easily stream perfectly steady 4K video over a garden-variety wifi connection. I am not using this setup for 2-channel audio listening though. One small caveat is that HTPCs often don’t play well with ARC / eARC. Mine sure doesn’t. But that’s a minor nit.
@deep_333 One thing I would add to your PC list is cooling fans. You don’t want them, and that can be a little tricky. CPUs and GPUs run hot. Liquid cooling works but will rule out most ITX-class enclosures because it's bulky. The good news is that audio processing is not CPU-intensive so you can run any number of low-power chipsets yet have power to spare. Seems like manyaudiophile streamers run ARM processors.
|
Some would argue that some DDCs are "voiced", or that they add a little bit of gain to the signal. Either or both would produce audible differences.
You have to wonder why so many seemingly reliable and reasonable folks report that strictly digital components (streamers, DDCs, etc.) make a sonic difference when logically they should not. What if the differencse were built in by the designer?
|
The DAC is doing the exact same amount of processing whether the incoming signal has jitter or it doesn't. The DAC operates exactly the same either way. The DAC doesn't have a circuit that detects jitter or noise and then "does more work" when it detects it.
@herman I’m not going to go track down sources for this here and maybe someone else will chime in, but there are plenty of references out there that will show DACs sound better when fed a higher quality signal with lower noise/jitter, which is largely what a DDC does. Just because you (or I) don’t understand exactly why that is the case doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and the fact that both you and I (and scores of others here) have experienced positive benefits from adding a DDC is pretty darn good evidence that feeding a DAC a better signal has material benefits. If it’s not because the DAC works/sounds better with a lower noise/jitter signal from the DDC they why else would that possibly be?
|
I use a fanless windows mini-pc (MS-6) designed for streaming from Hollis Audio Labs (I think i paid around $600 for it). Not sure how much was done with it, but it is leaps and bounds better than the (highly rated on ASR) raspberry pi design (with the reccomended "better" power source) that I replaced my Linn Majik dedicated streamer with.
I was very surprised at how good it sounded. The story I was told is that Paul Allen was a serious audiophile and besides money, one of his major contributions to the windows OS was demanding they got the sound right. My ears tell me there is some serious truth to that story.
The dac I am using is part of a dsp processor based (Danville dspNexus 2x8) on the AKM AK4493 DAC chip set, which until recently was considered the top of the line. This replaced my topping D90, which in it's own right is a pretty solid performer.
I agree that the DAC is very important if not the most important part of the equation, but how you stream counts as well. My experience/ears tells me that as far as computer streaming goes, Microsoft is the better performer over Linux and Apple.
Toss Roon in the mix with some room correction and there are many options for squeezing every last drop of performance out of whatever pc based or dedicated streaming device you landed on before moving on to the next level.
My$.02
|
I stream from a $180 Windows laptop using MusicBee through a Paradigm preamp using PlayFi on one system and through an SMSL DAC on another. However, I stream through an Amazon Echo to those same devices 90% of the time. Bits are bits. I don't worry about how they get there and as far as the jitter argument, the data is buffered and any jitter measures far below the capability of the human ear to notice it.
|
When a DDC sends a signal to a DAC that has reduced jitter and noise from the USB signal the DAC has much less processing to do.
.. "much less processing to do" is just like "do less work to clean up the incoming signal"
The DAC is doing the exact same amount of processing whether the incoming signal has jitter or it doesn't. The DAC operates exactly the same either way. The DAC doesn't have a circuit that detects jitter or noise and then "does more work" when it detects it.
Again, I use a DDC so I'm not pushing back on the idea that they can improve the outcome, I'm just saying your explanations about how that happens make no sense.
At the end of the day I realize my concerns don't really matter, how it sounds matters, but as someone with a background in electronics, it just bothers me when people offer explanations about how electronic circuits work when they really don't understand them.
so I'll let it be
|
Streamers are computers. Some brands, such as marque du jour Aurender, make a convincing effort to conceal that basic fact. And they’re right, because who wants a $14K piece of kit with a $69 motherboard at its heart? Others, like Bryston, don’t seem especially concerned.
Admittedly, most - if not all - off-the-shelf computers are unfit to stream digital music. They don’t have a place in a proper audiophile system.
But a purpose-built computer absolutely does. Usually this means a machine you build yourself of thoughtfully selected components, and properly set up and configured OS and software.
A computer lets you run any software you want, and that alone makes a decisive case for using them. You’re not stuck with software cobbled together by a small electronics-focused business that has zero expertise in software development. Someone recently posted about a wyred4sound unit whose driver’s supported-OS list topped out at Windows 8 if I remember correctly.
Or maybe you own tens of thousands of files of rare recordings that you carefully organized on your NAS, but the crappy software in your new dedicated streamer is unimpressed by your librarian skills and refuses to display or play a good number of them.
Speaking of NAS, I was glad to see the same Synology NAS I own in the virtual system of a member who is apparently rather revered in elevated audiophile circles. Yet a NAS is just a computer, right?
On the flip side a computer will output to USB, therefore a person will need a USB DAC with, preferably, a very good clock.
A lot of misconceptions and unchallenged groupthink are floating around computers in the context of high-end audio. If I had a say, I would encourage folks to keep an open mind and take the time to inform themselves on the subject and develop enough knowledge to at least discuss them intelligently. Beyond that, everyone is free to welcome in their systems whatever component they feel works best for them.
+1000, the same group think continues to prevail no matter how many different ways you try to explain it.
A audio optimized PC is actually quite easy to build....
a) Ya look up tomshardware for the different power supply (PSU) reviews/measurements and it is fairly easy to downselect one optimized for audio.
b) A high quality itx motherboard
c) Any Ryzen APU/integrated graphics chip
d) Drop them in a case...there are several htpc cases that are literally made with the form factor of a stereo component.
All of it for less than a 1000 bucks easily...(instead of dropping 10k for a goofy streamer). Load up the OS and sky’s the limit with free reign on any kind of software one could use, user friendliness, multitasking, etc. There is an enormous amt of nformation from the PC nerds out there about how to drop the noise to nothing (which I am sure is what the 20k streamer manufacturers read religiously as well)
Whaa? One could plug his hifi streamer into his big TV or projector, sit back with a wireless keyboard/mouse and watch Netflix too??? HBO Max too??? Watch music videos and concerts with hifi audio on a streamer??? Play games??? Send emails??? The streamer (pc) can do that??? Whaaa???
I need to start "manufacturing" high end streamers in my garage and sell them for 20k a piece to our beloved audiophiles!
|
What does "do less work to clean up the incoming signal" even mean? What work is being done? The statement actually makes no sense.
@herman When a DDC sends a signal to a DAC that has reduced jitter and noise from the USB signal the DAC has much less processing to do. That’s the whole point of a DDC (along with providing more connection options) and what makes a DAC sound better. What about that doesn’t make sense to you?
|
Adding a DDC can provide a better signal to a DAC, and even a DAC with a good clock benefits and sounds better by having to do less work to clean up the incoming signal.
I do use a DDC (Mutec MC3 + clock) and I do hear a small improvement, but the second part about why is purely a guess. You have no way to know why it sounds better.
What does "do less work to clean up the incoming signal" even mean? What work is being done? The statement actually makes no sense.
|
@soix Thank you for your post and your point is well taken. I'm against extra boxes on principle, but maybe further investigation is warranted here.
|
I use a Mac mini, with Audirvana, USB-out into a Gold Note DS-10. Everything sounds good. I haven't noticed any ground loops, noise or any other intrusions, but then again my current noisefloor on my amps isn't 100% silent and may be drowning out some tiny digital interference.
I wouldn't mind experimnenting with throwing a DDC into the chain but I haven't yet.
|
If you already own a DAC that has a good clock, galvanic isolation and all the I/O ports you want, you don’t really need a DDC.
@devinplombier My experience along with many others here is a bit different. Adding a DDC can provide a better signal to a DAC, and even a DAC with a good clock benefits and sounds better by having to do less work to clean up the incoming signal. Further, if your DAC accepts i2S and the DDC allows you to take advantage of that input the DAC is also freed from having to separate the clock from the data signal that can also provide significant sonic benefits. I’d bet there are very few DACs that wouldn’t benefit in one way or another from a good DDC and is likely even more true if you’re feeding a DAC from a non-optimized, multi-use computer. I’d encourage anyone with a DAC to at least try a DDC as it can be a relatively cost-effective way to provide very meaningful improvements. That was very much my experience anyway.
|
I use Audirvāna to play files up to 256 DSD on a recent model Mac Mini with SSD drive and 8 GB memory, stripped down just for music. It feeds a PS Audio Directstream DAC via usb thru an I2S unit. I have tried the Pro-Ject Stream Box, which gets rave reviews, and returned it pronto. I auditioned a Bluesound Node, and was not impressed. I do use the Bridge II card in the DAC to stream Qobuz and can’t hear a difference from CDs or Redbook files on my Magnepan .7s fed by a Rogue Sphinx. While a member of my local audio club says he thinks streamers can make as much difference as DACs, I have to think you need to get into a $$$ range streamer to get an appreciable difference.
|
And here we go....... again
If you search the internet you will find at least 1000 threads discussing this exact same question. You will find that they all contain the exact same information, in fact, some of the same people here are posting the same things over there.
One side side says there is a night and day difference in streamers. The other side says it makes absolutely no difference. A few people are in the middle
If you go to Audiophile Style you will find a group that has invested near $100,000 (yes one hundred thousand american dollars) in streaming computers, 10’s of $1000’s in cables, power supplies, clocks, reclockers for USB and ethernet and multiples of those. They also upsample everything to 16-32 X the base rate They swear it is all necessary to achieve the best.
others use a $100 Raspberry Pi and claim the same results
so here is the answer to your question... read it carefully
You will never find the answer here or on any forum. The ONLY way to determine the answer for YOU is for YOU to try it.
so all you all can just move along, nothing new to see here. There is NOTHING anybody can add to this conversation that isn't posted in 1000 other threads here and elsewhere
|
Why ask this to a group that uses usb to the dac? The sound is already compromised by using usb.
What do you think your streamer is? It’s a computer running probably a tainted Linux version. You think Linux is better than OS X? Try again. Some manufacturers think by eliminating all diagnostics from the OS it will run better. This might have been true 40 years ago but with today’s arm processors running trillions of operations a second (15.8 trillion operations for an older Apple M2 processor), you won’t see any difference.
If you use the computer in a different room from your audio, you will not hear any difference. You would be better off getting a better dac that doesn’t use usb.
The software you run on the computer makes the biggest difference after you stop using usb. Download Roon or audirvana and run it on a computer running a flavor of OS to your liking and you will hear differences between the software. Audirvana was better than Roon but Roon has caught up but I just can’t accept going backwards using the gui of Audirvana over Roon
|
If you already own a DAC that has a good clock, galvanic isolation and all the I/O ports you want, you don’t really need a DDC. On the other hand a good DDC can mean a new lease on life to a vintage DAC you love. If your DAC is just old or middling, upgrading to a good newer one might cost less than adding a DDC.
I kind of feel like the less boxes, the less interconnects, the better off I am, generally speaking at least.
|
Streamers or computers absolutely benefit from a DDC or reclocker USB to DDC input., for even with a small LPS power supply from a streamer ,it’s not as good as even a basic $550 DDC , the better ones even have Oven clocks ,which are better then in most dacs and if possible run I2S cable for the best signal input .
|
|
@milpai The T+A DAC200 is essentially two DACs (PCM and DSD) in one, so a very good choice in this scenario. Plus, it looks great!
|
And yet, one of audio's long-time reviewers (Srajan Ebaen with 6moons) uses an iMac as his source in his main system. Of course he has add-ons, such as an outboard SSD, Singxer SU-6 DDC, and LHY Audio switch, but still. He recently used that source when reviewing the 20,000 euro Cube Audio Lotus 10 speakers.
To the OP, I suggest you try Holo Audio's Red DDC/Streamer for $800. You can first try it as a DDC between your MacBook and DAC, and then maybe as a stand-alone streamer. If you use Roon, you could try running Roon core on your MacBook and Roon Ready player on the Red, as a streamer. Later, if you choose to add a server, you could try one of the SGC models or one from Roon, run it on your network, and use the Red as your streamer. Even if you eventually upgrade to a better streamer, or a server/streamer, the Red is one of the better measuring DDCs that offers both galvanic isolation and reclocking prior to your DAC. It also outputs I2S in the event you purchase a DAC with that type of input. The Singxer SU-6 DDC is also good but the ability to use the Red as a streamer also may make that a better deal for you. Lots of versatility and something that could make an immediate positive improvement, without changing out your MacBook, for only $800.
|
@soix ,
but how many people here who are audiophiles and not computer techs are qualified or are willing to undertake such a project
When I posted a response last night, I wanted to indicate that without being disrespectful to others or hurting people’s egos. I think you put it perfectly. In my case, I would rather take my car to a shop to get an oil change and brakes done. But some of my friends do it themselves.
@devinplombier , you are right - a purpose built PC can be upgraded as needed and will either equal or surpass a dedicated streamer. I have reached out to multiple folks on audiophile style and there are a quite a few who switched to making their own server and running HQPlayer up-sampling everything to DSD 256 and higher. These folks are extremely pleased with the results. I want to try HQPlayer myself and hear what is the difference between DSD512 coming our of Foobar Vs HQPlayer. I am eyeing a used T+A DAC200, since new ones are beyond my budget :-(. But will do this in a couple of months.
|
Sounds like pretty much everyone reporting sonic improvements from switching to a dedicated streamer so far had a macbook or macmini before.
Personally I wouldn’t use apple for a door stop, but I’m biased that way :)
In any event, it’s not surprising because no computer puts out great audio in factory configuration, notwithstanding the belief that apple "sounds" better, and apple supposedly uses / used a slightly better audio / DAC chip in at least some of their products. That may help a little if you plug desktop speakers in your macbook, but in a more serious listening configuration the PC’s onboard audio circuitry is bypassed.
A dedicated PC can cost more than some used streamers, but the main point of a PC is its almost limitless configurability, giving users the peace of mind that they will never be locked into inadequate, subpar or obsolete proprietary software.
|
I use an old MBAir as a media server. I do have a usb to a DAC if I want to listen to my digital (lossless) crap through my analog system, but I rarely bother.
|
@devinplombier That’s probably true, but how many people here who are audiophiles and not computer techs are qualified or are willing to undertake such a project?!? C’mon man, be real. Sometimes things are just worth paying for.
like the old motorcyclist adage :
"Ducati , making mechanics out of motorcyclist for a 100 years"
|
I used to use a MacBook as my streaming source; changed to an Eversolo A6 about a year ago, which was far superior; I'll upgrade that eventually, too.
|
Here’s another voice in the dark that at first used a MacBook, then a Bluesound .....great place to start .. hint hint) and then a better streamer and DAC. My wife who could give a rat’s behind care about all of this also noticed the improvements. Cabling and a clean ethernet matter too. In other words far better SQ can be had away from ye old lappy. You will get what you pay for.
|
But a purpose-built computer absolutely does. Usually this means a machine you build yourself of thoughtfully selected components, and properly set up and configured OS and software.
@devinplombier That’s probably true, but how many people here who are audiophiles and not computer techs are qualified or are willing to undertake such a project?!? C’mon man, be real. Sometimes things are just worth paying for.
|
Admittedly, most - if not all - off-the-shelf computers are unfit to stream digital music. They don’t have a place in a proper audiophile system.
But a purpose-built computer absolutely does. Usually this means a machine you build yourself of thoughtfully selected components, and properly set up and configured OS and software.
Or, get a Bluesound Node, LPS and nice cables, feed it to a good tube DAC (with really good NOS tubes) and be done and happy for ~$3K (+ $11 a month for Qobuz and SXM for free if you have SXM in your car) - and a nice app to control it all from every phone and tablet in the house.
|
