2. digital
  3. 190959-84411

Are all streamers the same?

Dogma says they’re all the same. Experience suggests otherwise. Price may or may not be guide. Are there solid tech reasons such as bleed of noise into the digital signal? What does “it’s all about the ‘implementation’”really mean? How come power cords and interconnects make a difference? For example, there are numerous USB cords that separate the power from the signal cables to minimize interference and noise transference.

Why don’t we have an accepted science of audio, as yet? Where’s the research compilation esp at textbook level? Yes I’m happy just listening and using my ears and my biases to make judgments; no problem.

Yet I continue to see dogma, from the USA and Europe, indeed everywhere, that remains steadfast in their disbelief in variances. It becomes tiresome at times. But hey what do I care? Lol, my pursuit of fidelity and knowledge remain equally strong.

johnread57

Showing 1 response by bipod72

bipod72
154 posts
 

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. 

More to discover