Any audiophile use computer (MacBook) as your audio streaming source?
I rarely see any audiophile talking about streaming audio digital sources from a computer. I understand MacBook can accept native lossless formats form all the various platforms, and it can store unlimited music files in any format, so supposedly it’s the best source, and the digital file is the most purest before it’s fed to the dac. Anyone compared the sound quality of computer vs other audio streamer?
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.
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
Comprehension of the technical nitty gritty has historically never been your strong suit, but, it's ok. What i said was that DDC function is better incorporated inside the damn dac box. Carry on, string together your 15 boxes with wires and hit the play button. Enjoy the music (which is all that matters)...
I use a $150 Ubiquiti switch that has multiple RJ45 and 2 fibre optic input slots for my office system. This system is now essentially a reference level headphone system. Last time I looked my Ubiquiti switch was about $500 on Amazon. I think a lot of audiophiles started chasing it and the price went up.
I have a different brand $75 Fibre switch in my Livingroom that connect to a great 2-channel system. So, I have 2 Fibre network endpoints just before the DACs. I connect the Fibre and the USB input of my DACs together with the Sonore OpticalRendu. It is a very good sounding streamer though I think there is an improved new version from Sonore.
I posted many times of my listening tests with the opticalRendu, Lumin X1, and the Playback Designs STREAM-IF. I had all 3 in the house at the same time (owned them) and did a lot of comparisons. One clarification, the X1 did not use USB, I went directly into the Fibre input on the Lumin X1 DAC, the ultimate solution.
They all sound different and all were great in their own way. I kept the OpticalRendu because I traded my Lumin X1 for speakers, the Yamaha NS5000. I decided the Schitt Yggi+ OG DAC (at $3k) was incredible, and I did not need to spend $24k on the PBD Dream DAC for which I previously bought the STREAM-IF.
All 3 of these streaming solutions supported Fibre optic cables and I did not need to change anything upstream of the Fibre switch. I do not care what is upstream of my Fibre moat.
I went back and read the OP’s original post from 10-2, as well as their one follow-up post from 10-3. I don’t believe the responses have addressed the OP’s actual questions.
It seems the OP already owns an EVERSOLO DMP-A8 combination network streamer/DAC/preamplifier that you can read about here, and also a McIntosh C53 preamp, which also includes an onboard DA2 DAC. The OP is apparently using the DMP-A8 as a streamer only (presumably connected to their network via Ethernet LAN), and then to output a digital signal via coax to the C53, which is performing DAC and preamp duties.
The OP’s questions, as I understand them are:
Original question from 10-2: Should I purchase a MacBook to replace the DMP-A8 streamer. Answer: Probably not. Based on what I have read of the DMP-A8, it should be competent as a streamer and, since it can output a digital signal, you can use it as a streamer only, and bypass the DAC and preamp sections of the DMP-A8 in favor of the presumably superior (in your words) DAC and preamp sections of your McIntosh C53 DA2.
Second question from 10-3 post: Should I change the digital coax cable I am using to feed the C53 to a giga lan or usb cable? Answer: The C53 does not appear to have a LAN input, so no to that option. Regarding coax vs. USB, my experience is that with all but the most optimized DACs, I like the sound of the coax input better than USB. However, every situation is unique and it would be very easy for you to A/B compare your coax cable input into the C53 against using a USB input, since the C53 takes either. Therefore, try both and choose whichever connection sounds best to you.
I can see where using a general purpose computer in bridged mode could make sense. In this case the computer is used as a server, this means something like Roon core only on computer, this connected to a streamer, various companies make these, in my case I use Sonore OpticalRendu, this becomes Roon endpoint. This segregates or isolates dac from noisy and inferior clocks in general purpose computers. Still, I've compared my custom build server/steamer as both Roon core and endpoint (unbridged mode) to the bridged mode with the Sonore, bridged mode easily betters the unbridged setup. Keep in mind, my custom build sever/streamer uses Enterprise level RAM and hard drive, passive cooling, high speed processor, Euphony OS, $6K linear power supply. Bottom line, IME segregating a general purpose computer from dac with a basic streamer only gets you part way there, YMMV.
@yyzsantabarbaraThank you for the additional info, however on a conceptual level I am still confused. I may just be missing something obvious.
How can fiber constitute a "moat" when it is merely a conduit without filtering abilities of its own? If a noisy signal enters a fiber run, isn't it delivered identically at the other end, noise and all?
And if SFP fiber does in fact erect a "moat" protecting a system from noise, why wouldn't coaxial and toslink do the same?
Fiber won't pick up noise along the way like copper might, but what about the noise that entered the signal upstream of the first endpoint?.
Fiber audio networking is new to me, so these may be stupid questions. If so I do apologize.
@devinplombierFibre optical cables are made of glass and can be very long; cheap too.Fibre is used to transmit data across large distances reliably,
Glass cannot carry analog noise that is in the network, a network is likely ethernet cable based for the most part, like my home network. I use fibre cable as the last bit before the DAC.
I think jitter is another matter to be concerned with, but most competent DACs (low cost) can handle jitter these days. I do not know how that relates to streaming. I do not care since the DACs can deal with it.
Toslink is likely also made of glass, but it is a different type of cable and cannot travel long distances. Toslink also has some issue related to digital transmission that I do not know enough to explain.
I do use Toslink in my office system for 1 DAC input and SPDIF for another DAC input. The Toslink is for my noisy computer (YouTube and sports) and the SPDIF is for CD/SACD's. The SPDIF sounds great, as good as the streaming. The Toslink is not that great, nor is the source.
I am just some person spewing an opinion here however, there are some heavy-duty DAC designers that are stating the same thing. PlayBack Designs Andreas Koch for one.
BTW - Lumin were the first DAC company to support fibre natively, they actually did this after reading posts on an online forum years ago about the advantages of fibre.
@yyzsantabarbara - the problem with Toslink is that a) it is limited to 24/96 and b) there is no error detection or correction like with USB. USB is way more modern, I am running 15 ft USB just fine, it is not worse than a twisted pair.
I think jitter is another matter to be concerned with, but most competent DACs (low cost) can handle jitter these days. I do not know how that relates to streaming. I do not care since the DACs can deal with it.
@yyzsantabarbara No! Most DACs can somewhat handle jitter, but most if not all DACs can significantly benefit from a DDC and/or external clock. Michael Lavorgna has written here recently how adding an external clock, even to a very accomplished DAC, can greatly improve performance. Most DACs do not even have an OCXO clock much less completely deal with jitter, so to say most low-cost DACs can just somehow “handle” jitter is just nonsensical and incorrect. You’re inappropriately minimizing a significant issue here that should not be minimized.
@soixI believe it depends on the DAC and some designers say their DACs do not need a clock, such as PlayBack Designs. Now this is not a cheap DAC, $6k -$24k.
I use the low-cost, Schitt Yggi+ OG and LIM (soon converted to MIB) DACs. I consider the Yggi a very competent DAC, one of the best. I have not contacted Mike Moffet via Head-fi web site to ask why he does not use a clock, but I do not have any concerns about Schitt DACs supporting a clock.
A lot of nonsensical and incorrect information abound. I know what works for me and who is blowing a bit of hot air.
For anyone who is not sure what I am using. I have a separate streamer that uses fibre at one end and converts to USB at the other end. The USB end goes into my Yggi+ DACs. The newer Yggi's have a good USB support.
A MacBook has many computing processes going on in the back ground
where a streamer just has 1 process your music ,
also it has no fan even streamers though in more then 65% the power supplies are not that good meaning not high quality linear power supplies. Both can be improved better still . I have found that’s DDC or Digital to Digital Converter better known as a Reclocker takes the incoming Digital signal puts it in a FIFO buffer then totally cleans- filters and processes the data to either a Temp controlled ⏰ clock, or even better Oven Clocks ⏰ that then go out to your dac with a much more pristine Digital signal .if your dac has a I2S input then you can connect That from the DDC to the dac I2S which looks like a HDMI cable , which is the best sounding audio type cable connection ,he Wireworld I use has 48 Separate wires . This will for sure give you computer or streamer a more musically engaging experience . I just stack on top of dac using Iso acoustic feet on both.
@devinplombier- There are no stupid questions, so no need to apologize for asking. One significant advantage that a fiber connection has is that it avoids an electrical ground connection. A lot of the noise in digital signal transmission is passed over the ground connection, often referred to as ground plane noise. Using a fiber connection prevents related noise from being passed into the connected device, allowing it to perform at a higher level. John Swenson is a renowned digital engineer who has written extensively about this issue and its impact. Hope that helps.
A lot of nonsensical and incorrect information abound. I know what works for me and who is blowing a bit of hot air.
@yyzsantabarbara Well, believing that most DACs just magically 100% “handle” jitter is ignorant and minimizing its impact on digital sound is blowing hot air in my book. Most people here who’ve added a DDC with superior clocks or better external clocks have experienced significant improvements, and if most DACs just simply “handled” jitter as you state that would not be the case. Period. So you can “believe” whatever you want, but that’s a fact born out by many people’s real-world experiences here, and minimizing the effect of jitter is just peddling misinformation.
A DDC is superfluous if streamer has quality clocks, low noise, optimized outputs.
Jitter has long been understood to affect sound quality mostly in the sense of what is described as 'digititus'. Even extremely minute levels can be heard, much of the what we hear as a more analog like presentation comes from attending to jitter in both streamer and dac.
Streaming setups have to be treated holistically, this means from internet provider all the way through input on dac, this is in actuality a system. Consider the provider as source, dac as the output or to make an analogy, the loudspeaker. Any weak link, I don't care where it is will away from the whole, you are simply not hearing the full potential of your streaming setup. Why anyone would have a great dac with a lousy streaming chain prior is beyond me, just like having great loudspeakers with lousy source or amp components. Losses can exist at any point in chain, you CANNOT make up for those losses by providing excellence elsewhere. I'd actually go with the Linn philosophy for streaming chains, the idea being the source is the most important component in chain.
I don't get it, Audiogon generally a gathering of subjectivists, yet it seems many streaming arguments come from objectivist perspectives on data being packets of zero and ones that can't possibly be affected by noise, jitter, this is ASR nonsense.
For those seeking enlightenment of at least consideration of other perspectives go to audiophilestyle forum.
I'm currently using an i9 MBP as my Roon Server/streaming source.
I spent a few days this summer ripping 600 CDs to Apple Lossless.
The Roon Server is also connected to Qobuz.
The laptop is connected through USB to my MCD85 2-channel SACD/CD Player from McIntosh.
8-channel, 32-bit PCM/DSD Quad Balanced DAC
USB Audio input supports up to DSD256
Coax and Optical digital inputs
The CD player is then connected using balanced cables to my MA352.
I listen through a pair of bookshelf Sonus Faber speakers with an additional sub.
I'm happy with the results, and the screen on the laptop is used for lyrics, etc. and the Roon Signal path is lossless.
For comparisons, I also have a Sonos Port connected to the MA253 through RCA and to the MCD85 using coax. I'm sticking with the USB input directly from the i9 MBP because I think I get the best signal path that way and for convenience.
I just need Amazon Alexa to control the Roon Server/Player so I can scream at Alexa to play any of my 7,500+ tracks or anything from Qobuz.
If the new Mac Mini comes out with the Apple TV form factor I might switch to that or maybe the Roon Nucleus One.
Either option, I don't think, matters until I put a pair of $10K+ speakers on the system.
On a final note, you can argue if I'm an Audiophile or not, which may or may not disqualify my answer! :)
It is important to have clarity when posters discuss a "streamer" or a "server" in these threads. I believe there is sometimes confusion over a poster’s intent without clarifying whether they are talking about a server, a streamer, or a combined server/streamer unit.
If Roon is involved there can be a separate core/server and a separate "audio device" (sometimes called a streamer, endpoint, renderer, or network music player) playing Roon Ready. These two functions can also be located within the same device as with the Antipodes K50 or Oladra, Grimm Audio MU1, or Roon’s own Nucleus. Other devices like the Grimm MU2 might add a DAC and sometimes a preamp for a complete one-box digital source solution.
There are also pure streamers (some with file storage) that can run Tidal and Qobuz through their manufacturer’s own streaming platform, without using Roon. Examples would include Innuos Pulsar and Auralic ARIES G2.2, just to name two.
At the lower price end, Roon’s own Nucleus One offers a one-box solution that outputs directly to a DAC via USB or, you can connect it to your network and control an outboard streamer, which should arguably improve sound quality. The Nucleus One is basically a computer, as are all of these streamers/servers, it has an internal fan, and it costs only $500.
Amazing to me is the contrast between the detailed discussions on these threads (and folks spending $10K+ on server/streamers) vs. how esteemed reviewers such as John Atkinson and others at Stereophile are conducting reviews of expensive DACs connected directly to the USB output of their Roon Nucleus+, which is basically a computer with an i7 processor. Reviewer Srajan Ebaen at 6moons uses his iMac as a server in his main system, but at least he routes the output into the Singxer SU-6 prior to the DAC.
I have had multiple music servers, and a couple that were one-box server/streamers (from Antipodes and Mojo Audio) and I have yet to hear a difference between any of them. When I did start to hear differences was when I separated the "server" from the "streamer" by connecting the server to my network in a separate room away from my system, and then connecting the network to a streamer (currently via optical fiber) in the same room as my music system. My first ah-ha moment was when I started using Sonore’s Signature Rendu SE Optical flagship streamer. I was surprised at the level of difference/improvement that provided over the Metrum Acoustics Ambre streamer that I was previously using. The Ambre is based on a Raspberry Pi board and should be no slouch because of its onboard linear power supply and femto clocking, but the Sonore was clearly a step up to my ears.
I am currently using SGC’s sonicTransporter i9 (Gen 4), which is a computer, as a networked server and cannot hear any difference between that and the Antipodes or Mojo Audio servers that preceded it. The sonic improvement comes from routing that signal through an outboard networked streamer (Sonore) prior to my DAC. The next even bigger difference I hear is between different DACs, but that is a different topic.
Regarding DDCs, I have had the Gaia here previously, and I currently use a Singxer SU-6. I power the SU-6’s 7.5 million uf supercapacitor using a linear power supply and not the wall wart it came with. I began using the DDC solely for the flexibility of connecting multiple DACs via something other than the USB output out of the Sonore Sig Rendu SE O. However, the Singxer also provides galvanic isolation as well as reducing jitter to a low level. It certainly cannot hurt to send a lower jitter level signal into your DAC. In addition, optimized USB inputs can be pricy and not all DACs do a great job with their USB inputs. By having the ability to try multiple input connections to your DAC, you can select the input method that best optimizes the sound of the DAC.
IME, anybody expecting a significant sonic breakthrough by adding a DDC will probably be disappointed. But adding a good quality DDC certainly shouldn’t hurt the sound quality of a digital front end and might make a marginal improvement by isolation, lowering jitter, and optimizing the connection to the DAC.
@mitch2Thank you for helping recenter and focus this thread with your excellent post, thorough and thoughtful like your ongoing DAC review series which I also follow.
Digital audio nomenclature is understood and used pretty loosely, resulting in reasonable people talking past each other when in fact they're talking about different things. Sometimes what's left out of an exchange matters as much as what's being said. Imagine two people arguing online about, I don't know, the fit of a pair of jeans. One says they're great, the other says they're horrible. One weighs 140 lbs, the other 280 lbs but neither ever says so.
Unfortunately, when it's like that, observers don't gain anything from the exchange besides confusion.
There really shouldn't be any confusion about these devices, every computer or purpose built audiophile computer I'm aware of is in fact a streamer or at least has streamer capabilities. Coupling these devices to a dedicated streamer ONLY device is what makes them servers. Streamer only devices also go by the name of endpoints, sometimes also called renderers . These devices don't have the capability of acting as servers since they don't have the computing power to process complex music player apps. Streamer only devices are also in fact computers, just optimized and simplified to run a simpler task of acting as endpoints.
There is a lot of confusion about streamers on this thread. The post by @mitch2 is one of the best at clearing the confusion. He is doing the same streaming thing as me except he has a DDC in the chain. I was considering adding one myself solely to have 2 DACs connected from the same endpoint, however, that need is now gone with my next office setup. I will be using Toslink directly out of the computer for my computer audio needs in my office. I just want to hear sound in the Toslink case not care too much about the quality.
My ROON core is still far away in another room on another computer.
BTW - my friend, for whom, I setup the same fiber based streaming setup as mine but using 100 feet of fibre cable for his shop/warehouse, is coming out with an open baffle speaker around December. It will be my new office desktop speaker (I will use stands). Photos at 11.
I have not contacted Mike Moffet via Head-fi web site to ask why he does not use a clock, but I do not have any concerns about Schitt DACs supporting a clock.
"In a dCS system, the DAC can act as the system master clock, but listening tests have shown that there is no substitute for a dedicated high quality master clock. dCS pioneered the use of external clocks in digital audio systems and this clocking technology has been continually refined so that our latest multi-stage Phase-Locked-Loop (PLL) system sets world-beating standards for accuracy and control of troublesome jitter from the incoming audio stream.
MSB:
"Why are external clocks sub-optimal for digital audio?
A clock signal is a fast moving precision electrical signal and is extremely sensitive to added noise or distortion. Each time it’s buffered or transmitted, a portion of its precision is lost. Even if a small amount of noise couples into the clocks, jitter will increase dramatically. It might still be an accurate clock, but accuracy is of little performance benefit to digital audio. A clock sent over an ultra-high quality cable will still increase its jitter considerably. The best solution is to create the lowest jitter clock as close to the DAC as possible.
You could figure out who’s telling the truth and who’s trying to sell more goofboxes and wires...
M. Moffat + J. Stoddard know their stuff and happen to make honest things. No goofboxes and wires will be peddled by them.
For the record, i have a hermes + venus catching dust in one rig...waiting for a good believer's home. What tad and technics are able to achieve with 1 box (how about throwing a top notch sacd player in it too, if you like)....some others need 15 different boxes and wires to screw things up, it seems.
@yyzsantabarbaraYou put a bug in my ear with that fiber stuff. Turns out Supermicro makes fanless mini-PCs with dual built-in SFPs, and probably other brands do too.
One of those PCs and a SFP-equipped DAC would make a great backbone for an all-fiber digital system.
Inexpensive OM3 fiber can carry 10 gigabit Ethernet over 1 km (about 1,100 yards), which is handy if you have a large property, and short distance it can carry 100 gigabit, though the SFP may be limited to 25.
The need for a DDC is very system-dependent. Making blanket statements (like some folks) about its necessity often overlooks the specific characteristics of one’s setup. If a system already has a clean digital source, like the iFi Zen Stream, which excels in minimizing jitter and electrical noise (see below) as compared to the state-of-the-art DDC like Singxer SU-6 and Holo Red, adding a DDC could indeed be redundant or overkill.
In such cases, the additional conversion step could introduce unnecessary complexity or even compromise sound quality due to the increased signal path. As with any audio component, the key is knowing your system's strengths and weaknesses before deciding whether to introduce something like a DDC.
If a system already has a clean digital source, like the iFi Zen Stream, which excels in minimizing jitter and electrical noise (see below) as compared to the state-of-the-art DDC like Singxer SU-6 and Holo Red, adding a DDC could indeed be redundant or overkill.
@lanx0003 Well, I use a Denafrips Iris Fed from my iFi Zen Stream (with iPowerX power supply) and the improvement is significant. I bought the Iris used so I could just re-sell it if I didn’t notice a difference, but it’s not going anywhere. So much for measurements being the end all be all. And BTW, an SU6 or Holo Red is far from SOTA as DDCs go.
My M1 Mac Mini streams for me, and also receives streams from other devices, and can output 24 bit 192 kHz over 8 channels simultaneously. My Denon receiver has dacs that can handle that signal. I've seen the measurements of the receiver and they're not state of the art by any means, but good enough that it doesn't surprise me that I don't hear any noticeable issues. I regularly have to tear myself away from the system, forcing myself to turn it off just to get necessities of life done, so it's already "too good" for my own good. On Sundays when I don't have any other responsibilities I often find my butt is getting sore from sitting all day listening to that thing. I suppose I have a more tolerant ear than the average audiophile, but interestingly I'm very aware of room and speaker issues with every system I've ever heard, the biggest most obvious issue for me being interaural crosstalk and its tonal effect on the phantom center. The fact that this obvious problem (to me) is so little discussed just goes to show that we don't all prioritize the same things when we're listening. How can you be bothered by jitter at -90 dB or more with that horrible crosstalk going on? OK, I'm exaggerating. It's a subtle but easy enough problem to hear, and one that I find annoying. We learn to mentally filter out what we can, and if we can't, we have to do something or buy something to fix it.
@yyzsantabarbaraHere is a PC streamer that, in addition to supporting SFP, checks every audiophile box. Barebones price is 3900 € but I quickly customized it to 9660 €. It's a useful template for state of the art PC streaming though.
@devinplombier I actually have a PC from a company called SilentPC. I have a liquid cooled fanless PC that I use in my office. I cost about $6k but my client bought it for me. That machine is very solid with 6 monitors running off it. It also only supports RJ45 network connections.
I ran my ROON Core off this silent machine and compared it to my cheap $500 Dell that is under my guest bed. Both sounded the same using my Sonore OpticalRendu as the fibre moat before the USB connection to the DAC. I expected them to sound the same.
The idea of using SFP in the PC is interesting. I am not sure if it would make a difference in my situation. However, once my $500 Dell machine dies, I will look into getting another PC but this time with an SFP network connection.
Well, I use a Denafrips Iris Fed from my iFi Zen Stream (with iPowerX power supply) and the improvement is significant.
Well, that’s your individual anecdotal opinion, but I’m not sure how credible that statement really is. If I recall correctly, you perceived a SIGNIFICANT improvement when you added a low-noise power supply. Then, you perceived another SIGNIFICANT improvement when you added an entry-level DF DDC. What’s next?
For the iFi Zen Stream to require two significant upgrades to become a "good" streamer, it would have to be quite poor to begin with. And yet, you still consider it inferior to the Innuos Pulse Mini. Unfortunately, your overly exaggerated opinion seems far from reality. I suggest you seriously consider other, more credible reviews. Please don’t spread anecdotal opinions that are largely untrue.
As for the SU-6 and Red, they are considered state-of-the-art DDCs, backed by excellent jitter measurements published by several reputable sources. Before questioning their quality, it would be wise to do your homework. These two products even outperform many digital processors with much higher price tags, including the DF Gaia.
Well, that’s your individual anecdotal opinion, but I’m not sure how credible that statement really is.
@lanx0003 I never said anything about the improvement the power supply made to my Zen Stream because I never used the stock power supply so you’re making that up. I have no idea if the Pulse Mini is better than my Zen because I haven’t heard it. And many others have experienced significant improvements adding an Iris so it’s not just me, and frankly I don’t give a damn whether you believe my actual experience or not. Maybe you should try one yourself rather than just spouting measurements.
In such cases, the additional conversion step could introduce unnecessary complexity or even compromise sound quality due to the increased signal path.
Do you have a graph showing the evidence of the compromised sound quality?
Here is a PC streamer that, in addition to supporting SFP, checks every audiophile box. Barebones price is 3900 € but I quickly customized it to 9660 €. It's a useful template for state of the art PC streaming though.
@mclinnguyIf you challenge this common sense, the burden of proof is on you. Even if the degradation in sound quality isn't audible, why would anyone bother adding something unnecessary or unbeneficial?
And BTW, an SU6 or Holo Red is far from SOTA as DDCs go.
The benefits I appreciate from a DDC are galvanic isolation, multiple output choices to my DACs, and lower jitter. I have owned the Hermes and now the SU-6, and I am curious what criteria you believe makes one DDC SOTA and others not? Not arguing, just curious.
Well, if you are going to make a claim without backing it up with any scientific data or proof, then this is purely anecdotal, and should be dismissed as uncredible.
why would anyone bother adding something unnecessary or unbeneficial?
Exactly. Thank you for stating this. I just wanted to hear you say it.
And people are concerned about the high price for dedicated "audiophile" streamers? Geez.
@mclinnguy I don’t disagree with your point. This PC example was meant to be anecdotal and not a recommendation. In fact, you could build a very similar machine around a HD Plex case for probably $3-4K.
At the upper end of the price spectrum, according to this exhaustive review, the revered Taiko Extreme streamer is built around a Asus WS C621E server board and a pair of Intel Xeons running Windows. Taiko’s website does not try to hide the fact that the Extreme is a PC, so thumbs up to them for showing an honesty and openness that are often too rare in this industry.
The Extreme is an exquisitely well crafted machine (unlike many sub-$15K streamers that look like low-cost Chinese power supplies with front panels inscribed in goofy fonts). I certainly would not criticize an audiophile for spending $30,000 on a Taiko Extreme; I would probably own one myself if I were at a stage of my audio journey where it makes sense to spend that kind of money on a component.
Artistry, design and craftsmanship usually come a distant second, if at all, in Hi-Fi discussions, but sometimes they serve to make a price that would otherwise seem absurd, palatable.
The benefits I appreciate from a DDC are galvanic isolation, multiple output choices to my DACs, and lower jitter. I have owned the Hermes and now the SU-6, and I am curious what criteria you believe makes one DDC SOTA and others not? Not arguing, just curious.
@mitch2 Yeah, I agree as to the benefits of a good DDC. Frankly I’m surprised you prefer the SU-6 to the Hermes as the latter uses an OCXO clock that I’m not sure the Singxer does, but I could be wrong and there’s also the Gaia that ups parts quality even further, hence my assumption that the SU-6 isn’t SOTA but I could be wrong. BTW, I own a Singxer SA-1 headphone amp and love it so I’m a pretty big Singxer fan outta the box. Regardless, @lanx0003 trying to tell me I don’t hear the benefits I clearly hear with my Iris because he has some measurements is totally bogus to me. I trust my ears, as I believe you do too with your excellent DAC reviews, so the measurements-above-all crowd doesn’t compute with me (pun intended) and I feel sorry for them that they need numbers to tell them what apparently their ears can’t. But that’s me.
The best and better performing dedicated streamers outperform any known consumer over the counter computer including cost-no-object Mac. Search results on this subject including appropriate AB tests supports this opinion and I've never seen any reliable information to contradict it.
Under my definition for best and better streamers I include a custom DIY based on Amazon's Mele computer (about $1k,) the Resonessence Fluvius (RIP, last SRP about $1700,) the current Infigo IS-1 ($5k and $7k versions,) the $20k Antipodes K50 and $30k Taiko Extreme. I own the first 3 streamers listed; a person I know well in Europ AB tested the Mele/Antipodes/Extreme. The Mele takes considerable knowledge to assemble and run. The Fluvius is Android based with let's just say not-ideal library function (one of the main reasons it sounds so good is because it's not Mac nor Windows.) I'd exclude Aurender models @ $12k and below.
Correction: As I posted above, I changed my mind about using the MAC Laptop for streaming.
A $5,000 SRP Infigo Audio IS-1 Signature streamer replaced my MAC Book Pro dedicated for music streaming only. Both streamers have Audirvana Studio music player installed. Audirvana Remote is installed on my Apple iPad.
Audirvana Studio enhances audio quality on computers by optimizing the operating system for audio playback and disabling non-essential services. It functions as a third-party player, scanning local music libraries and integrating streaming services like Tidal and Qobuz, but not Spotify or Apple Music. Audirvana offers both subscription and lifetime license models.
The Infigo Audio IS-1 streamer has substantially improved my sound quality. I immediately noticed my system sounds much better. The music is clearer, bass is more powerful, and imaging has improved. My Signature model lists for $5,000 and the Cryogen model is $7,000. The INFIGO IS-1 Streamer is highly recommended.
I am using a laptop via high-b/w USB into Cambridge DAC/Pre directly into my monoblocks, and I am unsure if this can get any better than listening to 24/196 lossless music. The limitation is the resolution availability of music across Tidal, Apple, and Amazon, which can only provide up to 24/196 lossless files (max for 99% of the music). Maybe they will get to 392 in the future.
I think it may have more to do with how good the output stage of your DAC and the DAC converters are vs. the stream source. It is going 1’s and 0s from the machine to the DAC, and then the DAC converts it to analog, so I would think the DAC’s output stage, along with the DAC itself, is 99% of the sound.
I am running a laptop with an SSD drive and nothing running but the Apple Music app, feeding Cambridge DAC/PRE with full TaraOne interconnects balanced into the amps with TarOne into the speakers via 6’ cables. Linn Klimax 500 solo monos with Cambridge 851C Azur DAC/Pre. My weak link seems to be my speakers.
So, the question is, should I spend $4k on a top-of-the-line Cambridge music server or just use what I have set up? Or should I go with a dedicated music server instead of streaming via the computer to the DAC? Also, I can stream all lossless via iPad set at lossless to the DAC via Wi-Fi.
Linn also makes a great DAC/PRE... again, the output stage matching with the amplifier input, along with DAC. I think finding the best matching DAC/PRE/AMP is where 99% of the sound from digital is at.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
