Are all streamers the same?

All streamers are not the same.  Some are taller

@danager 

mate my Cambridge MXN10 is a cute small scale unit.

All streamers are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The difference is usually found in the shielding, power supply and software. Many people think that stuff doesn't make a difference I guess. 

OP

No

Another interesting question; Is all

hearing the same? We have our biases, we see and hear what we WANT to see and hear and lastly many of us have hearing impairment. 

All equipment has it's own sonic signature. Some more than others. Long term evaluation is the only way to judge.

I’ve used streamers from PC and MACs, to $3K,  $5K, $13K, and $22K. In general, you get what you pay for and each jump in cost results in significant improvement in sound quality. My streamer’s sound quality equals my very good vinyl system. 
 

Science is used intimately in the design and construction of the dozens of high end streamers on the market. Implementation means what design and part choices are made in designing and manufacturing a component.
 

Just like all cars are the same. They have a power supply, they transmit from one point to another, and they produce noise. As long as it "works" some don’t notice any difference between these 3 factors.

dogma is defined as a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

I would say that if there is dogma in streamers, it is that quality matters.  The statement that they are all the same is more conspiracy theory.

Jerry

A series of updates to the InnuOS Sense operating system has yielded major improvements in SQ n My Zenith Mk3. And that‘s before you work on the streamer‘s PSU, powercord, fuse, etc, worry about the quality of your ethernet connection or the connection to the DAC. So: emphatically: No!

https://forum.audiogon.com/posts/2717861
 

Some great examples of the impact of power supplies, cords, and associated electronics as having a direct impact on the audio signal.

That’s like saying all cars are the same 

some have SS hard drives processor type, memory differences 

and App or lack of ,plus smps,or linear power supplies 

plus many other internal parts , costs .

No, they are not the same.

Mostly difference is in the controlling app. Many require Roon which means paid subscription. Aurender has its own app.

Now as for the unit, they do have different hardware. It is up to you to decide if power supply in your computer makes a difference on the performance in general and sound in particular. I can't see how SSD brand can make a difference, but YMMV.

@audioman58 - depends on what you measure. Seat material won't affect 0-60. But it may affect sound of the car music system. On the other hand, brand of the car battery probably won't matter...

@carlsbad2  “…I would say that if there is dogma in streamers, it is that quality matters.  The statement that they are all the same is more conspiracy theory.”

+1

@johnread57 

I started out with a Bluesound Node and it was good.  I added a Teddy Pardo Linear Power Supply and it was better. I now have an Aurender  N200 and it much better.  Something else that might matter is every company has their own operating system and App and they are definitely not the same!

All the best.

One of the guiding principles of audio (not laid down by me) is that it is subjective.  You must determine what gear is right for you by listening to it.  Books, measurements reviews, opinions, etc. cannot tell you what is right for you.

I was one of those people who pre-ordered a Wiim Ultra streamer. When it arrived, I did an A/B against my ancient PC hooked to the USB of the amp's onboard DAC (I do have a USB jitter filter). I couldn't hear the difference because I was so pissed off at the WIIM's operating system that made it hard to cast my Amazon HD music to it. My guess is that the WIIM probably sounded better due to it's well regarded Saber DAC chip. I'll never know because I sent it back and am saving my money for a better unit.

If someone reads this review and still thinks all streamers are the same, they have issues:

As Marcin explains, standard motherboards have noisy power converters that interfere with other hi-fi components, and efforts at mitigating this do not address the root cause. Therefore, developing an entirely new motherboard from scratch with only audio playback in mind was the only way to go with XACT S1.

The hardware is very important, but there’s more to making a good server. During more than 10 years of developing JPLAY, it has also become clear that the software has as much impact on the sound quality as the hardware platform itself. Therefore, the XACT Operating System was written from scratch and optimized for the hardware. Marcin explored all possible optimizations of the operating system and player’s code, ultimately identifying the most harmonious combination for the S1’s hardware.

XACT S1

DAC chips only get you so far. People tend to weigh those more heavily for some reason and don't give much thought to how the manufacture implements the rest of the hardware. So a $400 streamer might have a high-end Saber DAC chip so they can market that but the internal connections, inputs and OS are so-so and thus the streamer sounds OK. 

My dedicated Cambridge CXN streamer sounds much different than the streaming capabilities of my Marantz integrated. The CXN sounds cleaner and more revealing when I use the Direct option on the Marantz but only when I listening to high-res FLAC files or lossless streaming sources. If I'm listening to Spotify Connect the SQ is nominally better on the Marantz than the Cambridge unit. 

In the end, it comes down to what you are willing to spend and if you can do side-by-side comparisons, you'd find improvements. Whether they're monumental or nominal depends on how good your hearing is. 

I must be the outlier here as I have gone the PC - Roon Nuc - Aurender A10 -Chord 2go/2yu - Apple TV box. and from my experience its not as significant as some people claim. But this is heavily DAC dependent and file type, mastering quality.

I've had an optimized and isolated PC sound way better then all the others but its also a pain to use and set up/maintain. 

In the end when I upgraded my DAC (Chord Dave), all of the major differences in streamers disappeared or reduced to almost insignificancy. 

At this point I feel the streamer is important, but the differences are slight at best and most do not justify the huge prices asked.

At this point interface and apps are the deciding factor for me. example Aurender's app is just poorly implemented support is poor, the manual is laughable. And this is also the issue with many of the streamers and their apps. Specially second thought streamers by some of the biggest audio companies, looking at you Mac...  

I got to hear/witness this argument first hand in the last two weeks. Was using a Brinkmann Nyquist 2 streaming DAC for the last year. Last week I bolstered the set up (that I was extremely happy with) by adding a Grimm MU-1 streamer and the difference in SQ was noticeable right out of the box. Everything was instantly more cohesive and musical…absolutely love the sound and it’s not even broken in yet.

I also have been using Nordost Valhalla 2 cables and interconnects and a Nordost Switch so maybe I’m just a sucker drinking the snake oil, but I couldn’t be happier!

Ears > Charts for me!

Thanks to all posters here. There are some great examples of the reasons for differences as well as variations in experience in different use cases. There are few generalizations beyond case specific, and of course, the audio signal coming out of a streamer including or excluding noise varies.

I have a room correction device from shm . In addition to the basic Dirac RC I bought a unit that for an extra $109 threw in a streamer. I’ve since compared it to the Node, Bryston BDP-3, Melco N 100, and Cambridge CXN 60.

The Dirac is fine but the enclosed streamer is awful.

In general I have found that as one ascends the price ladder in streaming the better things get. For me the sweet spot are the CA and the Melco in terms of performance and price. The Bryston as a tad better but cost several times more and the software package was unusable

The only thing that sounds the same in the audiophile world is the sound of a tree falling in the forest when there's no one there to hear it.

The best approach is to only buy audio products that have been objectively measured by the manufacturer with the results made public (Schiit, etc.) or have been carefully measured by folks like ASR or Audioholics or a few others. That way you can escape from your cave of uncertainty about your own hearing or limited knowledge about science and engineering using expert advice that brings about a Xanadu of confidence in the performance of your equipment, and so will you rise into the nirvana of audio bliss. 

If you mean dramatically overpriced, then yes.

I run a micro PC I got from Amazon for $130 and run Ubuntu Linux (free) on it.  The free clementine music manager looks a lot like iTunes, but I mostly run JRiver ($30).  I can stream music from the Internet, but I mostly just play things from my collection.  Iʻve ripped all of my CDs and have begun ripping my records to digital.  My system sounds great.

Some have nicer displays.

On a more serious note, I think the conversation has to be split between servers and such and the device that is actually connected to the DAC (or has the DAC in it). 

For example, Roon recommends one box acting as the server, decoding the audio, doing DSP, running the user interface, etc., and a separate, much quieter box that only takes the decoded audio stream from the network and passes it to the DAC. 

I use a 2014 Mac mini usb out to a Matrix D2D converter- which in theory, isolates all computer interference  - then XLR out to a Devialet 250

the result is starting , at A very low budget, as testified by anyone entering my listening area.

most important is the software -

IMO no software offered by streamers (cheap or expensive ) comes close to managing large multi-genre libraries, that include artists with difficult to remember names (German, Japanese). Hence a Mac is necessary.

@jji666 makes a good point about there being a difference between a server and a streamer.  In the Roon world, the server operates Roon Core and selects and/or stores music files while the streamer (or Roon endpoint) interfaces with a DAC.  All servers are basically computers.

In my experience, having a server connected to my home network, at a location away from my audio systems, and connected to my streamer using an optical cable, has resulted in zero sonic difference being noticed between the three servers I have had in my system over the past year.  

OTOH, switching from a Metrum Acoustics Ambre streamer (a Raspberry Pi device with LPS and femto clocks) to a Sonore Signature Rendu SE Optical resulted in a noticeable improvement in the sound of my system.  With the Sonore streamer, I perceive a richer tonality and greater dimensionality, which results in a more natural and musical presentation. 

Getting to an adjacent topic, but yes, there is little logic in thinking that, as long as the server device has sufficient processing power, that the packet stream across the network to the rendering device could be any different.  That's the beauty of Roon's configuration. 

I would also agree that DACs can sound different and that different inputs on a DAC may sound different (optical vs coax vs USB etc.) albeit I think a bigger influence is the analog implementation of a DAC.  Thus, playing around with different configurations may result in something more pleasing. 

Not wanting to whip a dead horse, but I didn’t see anyone mention the fact that some streamers have better clock chips than others, so a bit less jitter is always a good thing, even if it borders on the inaudible.

The other issue is to make sure if you are feeding a DAC from a streamer, and if the clock chip in your DAC is better, that it is doing the driving and not the clock in the streamer. i.e. Use whichever provides the less jitter. Sometimes in order to get that to work you have to use USB or another input. Or even a DDC. As @jji666  states, experiment to see what sounds best to you. 

We can hope that more expensive streamers use better clock chips and provide "cleaner" output, but YMMV.

Regarding WiiM, they have been very good about upgrading software based on user feedback, far more than some "high end" streamer companies. They know the Ultra had some issues at rollout and are working on them. At least they aren’t Sonos. LOL.

I’ve compared their O/S with that of a friend’s Bluesound Node 2, and I find WiiM’s just as good if not better. [I don’t use Roon].

Software bugs are one reason I generally wait about 6 months before jumping on any new device. Manufacturing quality also generally gets better over time as changes are made in the assembly line process. I plan on buying one around Christmas to feed an external DAC via USB, hoping by then most software bugs will be worked out.

I have three of their cheaper products feeding "cheap but better" external DACs (Schiit Modi) in a few systems (garage, outbuilding, and bedroom) and for the most part I have had no problems using them over the last couple years. I’m using Android and Windows PCs. I have no idea how well they play with iOS or Macs.

I have built several PC servers - the most recent being a 2box one with a paul hynes PSU. It sounds considerably better than the earlier builds easily challenging my vinyl for sound quality. Recently obtained a Grimm MU1 which is better again, the; flow, separation, energy and clarity improved. The USP being AES rather than usb to DAC conection and very sophisticated clocking of the output signal.

It sounds even better when used as an end point from my PC server.

I like the analogy to cars. A whole lot of marketing but essentially all the same.  Numerous superficial differences yet what matters most is where you drive in the car, whether it gets good fuel, and of course reliability. To quote Paul Simon, “cars are cars all over the world.”

Think of it this way:

Digital streamers are no more necessarily the same than the digital mastering that goes into making the digital recordings.  

It’s all digital!  Pretty much anything is possible. Especially when software is involved which it always is. 

Not all audio streamers are the same, and they can indeed sound different. Here are a few key factors that contribute to these differences:

1. Digital-to-Analog Converter (DAC): The quality of the DAC inside the streamer can significantly impact sound quality. Higher-end streamers often have better DACs, which can produce clearer and more detailed audio.
2. Build Quality and Components: The materials and components used in the construction of the streamer, such as capacitors and resistors, can affect the sound. High-quality components can reduce noise and distortion.
3. Software and Firmware: The software and firmware that manage the streaming process can also influence sound quality. Some streamers have better algorithms for handling digital signals, leading to improved audio performance.
4. Connectivity Options: The types of connections available (e.g., Ethernet, Wi-Fi, USB) and their quality can impact the stability and quality of the audio signal.

Regarding the power supply, it plays a crucial role in the performance of an audio streamer:

• Noise and Interference: A high-quality power supply can reduce electrical noise and interference, which can otherwise degrade the audio signal. This is particularly important for sensitive audio equipment.
• Stability: A stable power supply ensures that the streamer operates consistently, which can help maintain sound quality. Fluctuations in power can introduce noise and affect the performance of the internal components.
• Isolation: Some high-end streamers use isolated power supplies to prevent interference from other devices. This isolation can lead to a cleaner and more accurate sound.

In summary, while all audio streamers serve the same basic function, their design, components, and power supply can lead to noticeable differences in sound quality. If you’re looking for the best possible audio experience, it’s worth considering these factors when choosing a streamer123.

CoPilot.

……yes they are all the same but they have the same father but different mothers 

Yes, not all high end streamers are the same. First thing is, most high end streamers do not have DACs. Most high end DACs do not have streamers. Combining those functions compromise the sound quality of both. This has certainly been demonstrated in the streamers, DACs, and combined units I have had in my system or seriously auditioned.

I think it depends. When things start as a streamer, and then the DAC part gets added, it always seems like a compromise to me. This is how I felt about all the Aurender models I've ever tried with analog outputs. Not that they sound bad, just not on the same level as using a separate DAC with an existing Aurender unit (with digital outputs only). 

When they obviously started life primarily as a DAC, then added the streaming part, that tends to work better imho. That would be some of the newer dCS DACs, certain Bricasti Designs models, the Matrix Element series, the Bryston 3.14, and others like that. I guess one could argue if these fit the definition of a really "high end" device but I have a hard time excluding the Esoteric N-01XD SE or dCS Bartok Apex as not qualifying.

It might have to do with streaming requirements being simpler these days. I just want integrated Roon bridge functionality, I don't need an entire music server with disc ripper and built-in album art editor etc. So it's easier to add the network bridge to a DAC than the other way around. 

Bits are bits. But sometimes DAC designers screw that up. Floyd Toole's book is considered the science of audio.

The phrase “bits are bits” suggests that digital audio data, once encoded, remains unchanged and should theoretically sound the same regardless of the playback system. However, the reality is a bit more nuanced.

Digital audio quality is influenced by several factors:

1. Bit Depth: This refers to the number of bits used to represent each audio sample. Higher bit depths allow for more detailed and accurate representation of the audio signal, reducing noise and increasing dynamic range¹. For example, 16-bit audio is common for CDs, while 24-bit or higher is used in professional audio recording¹.

2. Sample Rate: This is the number of samples taken per second. Higher sample rates can capture more detail and higher frequencies, but they also require more storage and processing power². Common sample rates include 44.1 kHz (CD quality) and 96 kHz or 192 kHz for high-resolution audio².

3. Digital-to-Analog Conversion (DAC): The quality of the DAC can affect how accurately the digital signal is converted back to analog. Poor-quality DACs can introduce noise and distortion³.

4. Jitter: This is a timing error in the digital signal that can cause distortion. High-quality digital audio systems aim to minimize jitter³.

While the digital data itself (the bits) doesn’t change, the processes involved in recording, storing, and playing back digital audio can impact the final sound quality. So, while “bits are bits” holds true in a strict digital sense, the overall audio experience can be influenced by the factors mentioned above.