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 tubeguy80

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.