ARE SUPER EXPENSIVE STREAMERS REALLY WORTH IT

The cleaner the incoming signal and the less jitter and noise the DAC has to deal with the better it will sound. Likewise using i2S obviates the need for the DAC to go through the added step of having to parse out the combined data and clock signals and can contribute further to better sound. So yes, to the extent a streamer can provide all these benefits it can make a material difference in how the DAC performs, and by all accounts the more costly streamers from the likes of Grimm, Aurender, etc. do seem to result in material sonic benefits. If you choose to spend less on a streamer then adding a good DDC can go a long way toward providing a cleaner signal and i2S to the DAC, which is what I did with excellent results. Hope this helps.

Quit reading at I2S...

When someone shops for a component based on what I/O format they use, I lose interest.

Your thread title did interest me.  I'll say that a low to mid level streamer achieves a higher percentage of high level performance than a low to mid level DAC does.  So if you have limited funds, put them into your DAC.

Jerry

In my experience, one doesn't need an expensive streamer to get really good sound digitally. I use a Mac Mini M2 with Audirvana and a Denafrips DDC, which in my opinion takes the performance level very close, if not, surpasses some dedicated streamers. I've had an Auralic Aries G2 in my system for a few weeks and while it was very good, I preferred my Mac x Audirvana x DDC combination. 

The meat and potatoes of getting excellent digital sound are the software (Audirvana or Roon), managing & reclocking jitter (DDC), and reclocking the network (Audio-grade Network Switch). With that trifecta in place and with a good DAC, the sound can be sublime.

Obviously, some people prefer the one-box solution of a dedicated streamer, fewer boxes, fewer cables, and that's fine.  

Streamers are like every other component in an audio system. The better the component the deeper the thought has gone into it, the designer has gone through extraordinary efforts to clean power, eliminate internal interference and vibration and chosen materials and subcomponents accordingly. The fruits of this are very heavy... my Aurender W20SE weights 46 pounds, full footprint and expensive streamer that sounds simply spectacular. I have tried a dozen streamers starting with low end ones and confirmed, that in general you get what you pay for in terms of sound quality.

Nope there isn't a cheap work around.... or there wouldn't be all those expensive streamers on the market. 

I have tried iPhone, iPods, iPads, PCs, MacBooks running on batteries. None of them measure up to a good budget streamer... and the sound quality just gets better from there. I you just want something that sounds pretty good... than any of these work well.

From my experience once a good DAC is implemented the streamer has very little to do with it as long as the signal is good. Most good quality DAC's now can overcome any issues with timing/data issues/ noise,  ect.  I’ve gone through a half dozen streamers now with little difference, at least not enough to warrant the cost of some of them. In one case i found the $6800 streamer to sound worse than a dedicated and optimized PC (Aurender I'm looking at you). For me once I got an excellent DAC it was about user interface and ease of use, some of those streaming apps are terribly designed.  

Recently I've been comparing Apple 4kTv box with a tidal app loaded to many of the streamers I've or friend have and I'm shocked at how good the Apple tv box is, even only at CD quality. Yes, Hi rez files do sound better on a dedicated streamer/PC/Apple computer/etc.

nubiann

I2S is designed to preserve and separate the Signals so avoiding the timing issues connected with multiplexing.

There's nothing magic about I2S, it's simply another interface du jour. And I'm not convinced that there's any truth to the claim that it avoids "timing issues connected with multiplexing."

i2s was developed for internal connections and was never meant to be an interface between two components i.e. streamer and DAC. There are no standards defined for i2s snd that is precisely the reason why there are compatibility issues between components.

You need to understand differences between streamer types, DSP, jitter and clocking more than you need to worry about i2s.

Listen to the Taiko Olympus and report back. I've heard differences with every single streamer I've had in my system, extremely important  streaming component. Issue is full potential of any streamer won't be heard if rest of streaming chain not up to snuff. I treat streaming chain exactly like entire system chain which means everything from AC quality to room.

Lalitk can answer your question OP.

There's nothing magic about I2S, it's simply another interface du jour.

@cleeds  That’s not correct IME.  The i2S sends the bit clock, word clock, and data stream separately to the DAC so it doesn’t have to go through the added step of having to unpack them from a combined signal as it is sent through SPDIF and AES/EBU.  It is also capable of higher resolution data transfer than those other connections that are limited to 24/192.  I compared SPDIF using a $520 digital  cable to i2S using a 6” $8 HDMI cable from Monoprice (both coming from my DDC) and i2S was superior — more transparent, quieter background, and better imaging/3D soundstage.  While USB is also capable of higher resolutions you are limited to the clock in the DAC alone whereas i2S can utilize the clock in the streamer or DDC to send a lower jitter signal to the DAC that can further improve the DAC’s performance.  So I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss i2S as just another interface especially if you haven’t tried it. 

@soix I had exactly the same experience as you when I compared DH Labs coax vs. stock cheap usb cable between Aurender N200 and Bricasti M3. The cheap USB beat the DH Labs. And it had nothing to do with the cables. The DH Labs D750 is an amazing digital cable. It’s purely the processing - coax relying on streamer clock vs USB relying on DAC clock. Same with i2s. And if you take into consideration that some use DDC to reclock USB in and output i2s to DAC then you have as clean a signal as could be. And most likely USB and coax would sound just as good, all else being equal (clean reclocked signal, etc.) 

I haven’t tried but that’s my thought process  

@audphile1  My understanding is SPDIF/AES/i2S benefit from the streamer/DDC clock and that the clock in the DAC still works but just has a lower jitter signal to deal with.  I was also under the impression that USB does not benefit from clocks in the streamer/DDC and that the only clock in play is the DAC’s clock, which if true would put USB at a bit of a disadvantage in that regard.  Of course it also greatly depends on which input the designer optimized on any given DAC as usually there’s one that’s better than the others, so that’s at play here too.  Not sure I’ve got this right and still learning as I go here so very open to other thoughts on this. 

@nubiann So many highly technological responses here, it boggles the mind, lol. For what it’s worth, a few years ago, I had to move my audio system to a smaller space, so I downsized and simplified my audio system with phenomenal results. One of the things I did in order to have less components in my audio system was to purchase an extremely high end streaming DAC. The streamer/DAC combo in my Ayre Acoustics QX-5 Twenty DAC sounds absolutely superb. I can’t tell you how, but it does. So, there are other more simplified, high quality, options out there at your disposal. Happy listening.

I think it's a matter of balance in your system. If you have a modest system you wouldn't need to buy a $20K streamer and in fact you most likely wouldn't even realize the improvements in the expensive streamer. On the other hand, it wouldn't make sense to have an expensive and very revealing system with a very low end and inexpensive streamer either. I think common sense prevails here. Like people say everything in your system matters and you need to always look at the weak link. I will tell you that I'm certain that there are differences between cheap and expensive streamers. What those differences are is something you need to decide for yourself and to make a decision if the addition costs are worth it to you.

To me they are ,I am in several audio clubs 

a blue node good for starting out, like the Eversolo 6 

I have a Innuos Zenith Mk3 and it’s just built on another level 

the casework and ever feet were designed with vibration in mind , from the high quality Teac cd- ripper drive to the SS HD 

linear power supplies 3, plus incoming,outgoing filters to clean the signal 

very high quality Mundorf Mlytic power supply filtering capacitors to complement

even more so the Nichicon. Capacitors , it’s built to a very high level 

similar to my LSA MicroZotl series 2 preamp and a richer warmer more Analog type sound ,to me well worth it ,and the power cords, as well as usb,and Ethernet cables equally important. Even the incoming digital a Zlinear Power Supply is a must from the router fs the horrible $5 wall wart.

Yes @soix you are correct. I was referring to DDC or clock that is inserted between streamer and dac. It will reclock whatever input you feed it. So the i2s out of DDC into DAC will most likely sound as good as any other interface. 

i2s is not the step up that you think it is. It is totally dependant on the DAC and somewhat on the cabling.

As many on this thread have said, put you money in a good re clocking DAC. Gordon Rankin solved the problem of streaming digital samples from a cheap computer years ago. 

I am sure the more expensive streamers are better but at what cost ?  Just like a Rolls Royce Phantom is a much better vehicle but at $500K, I would be very happy with a $100K Audi A8 and have $400K in the bank...

@nubiann - it’s not either or, but rather the entire audio chain matters.  It’s not the strong link that matters, but the weakest link is the one to address to lift sonics.

So for choosing a streamer, it depends on the level of your audio chain - not good enough it becomes the bottleneck/weak link, higher than the rest of the audio chain performance will be limited.

if you tell us your audio chain and budget, then we can make informed recommendations

Expensive streamers are best matched usually to very transparent systems with low noise floors which tends to also be expensive.   

Crazy thought but forget about the geek-a-thon tech analysis and buy what sounds best to you in your system. Im convinced that more thought goes into marketing spin than technology. Hence all the wildly different opinions. This is not an exact science. Only you can answer your questions. 

I have a BS Node N130 with a separate linear power supply and I have a Aurender N200 streamer.  When plugged into the same DAC, they sound very much alike, but there’s a huge difference in presentation. The N200 sounds cleaner and you can hear individual instruments to the point where you can point to them. There’s a crispness that the N130 just doesn’t have. 

People don’t get i2s, probably they don’t want to spend the money for better equipment that has this interface. People claim they worry about noise, clocking, etc, and you would be right if you are using usb. The old days I used usb just like 99% of the people, mostly because the servers, streamers, dacs didn’t include i2s. I also purchased a bunch of gimmicks/tweaks on usb clocks/reockers/cables that separated the power and data cables using usb, and in the end, it all sucked.

I did have a dac system that used i2s decades ago that was audio alchemy. Their i2s cable was strange. For decades, many sacd manufacturers had an hdmi interface between their sacd player and their preamp. Thes were all i2s and yes they were proprietary. 
I used Ethernet into the dac for a few years over using usb. Now, I’m using a streamer that its main function in life is to be a Roon endpoint and read data from Ethernet and the output uses i2s into the dac

I went from a Blusound Vault 2i to an Aurender N200 ... not super expensive but considerably more money. Given that it is my most frequently used source , I have to say it was worth it to me. I got a great deal by leveraging another component toward it on a trade in but I have no regrets about doing it. I love that machine. I get a lot of enjoyment out of it so money we’ll spent.

I think Jim summed it up for me with respect to Bluesound VS Aurender .   I still use my Vault in my second system.   Still a great platform.   

I’m using a blue sound node 130 with an upgraded LPS going into a Denafrips Hermes DDC and the new Denafrips Venus 15 DAC. I have not heard other streamers,  but I think this combination sounds great. Hi-Rez files from Qobuz can sound better than original vinyl pressings of the same recordings.

So I don’t think it’s necessary to have an expensive streamer to have musically satisfying sound. It’s a personal choice whether further improvement justifies the expense. From what I’ve been told the Innuos Sense app may have features which the BluOS lacks, and this sort of thing may also justify an upgrade.

No. It's more about your internet service. Fiber optic is best.

@nubiann If you have highly resolving gear and a good/great room, then Y E S. Please keep in mind that the streamer and DAC or both in one box will benefit from clean ethernet, (lots of how to on these fora) power, and connects. 

Read your opening sentence that you have in all capital letters. Then add the word "NO" in even BIGGER capital letters, and make the letters BOLD for emphasis.

You have your answer.

Thank you, everyone. As I had hoped, there have been plenty of thoughtful, knowledgeable contributions from our community and not too much in the way of a pile-on.

Just a quick note to Jerry: Thanks for reading at least some of my topic. Of course, I wouldn’t purchase a component based solely on the I/O, Jerry, but I genuinely wanted to take advantage of the knowledge here and better understand the subject matter.

I’m sure I am a fairly typical purchaser. Like many here, I have a decent budget and a very understanding better half, but I don’t have unlimited funds either. So, I regard these purchases as consequential since music listening and enjoyment are important to me. As I look to add this relatively recent music resource to my system, I need to do some due diligence. I always believed in attempting to do this to the best quality I can afford. These will be substantial and, I hope, long-term investments.

I’m not a luddite; I do have a digital source in my system. But this whole discussion is about how we turn digital into analogue, i.e., music. I would add that a quality vinyl solution will remain a part of the equation for me, at least in the medium term.

I asked about I2S because my left brain needs answers. It’s far from clear what investing a substantial ratio of the streaming savings pot into a streamer, which in my case potentially constrains what I regarded as the more consequential part of this particular chain, the DAC.

If a streamer collects the data packets and establishes they are all there, it feeds this stream of data via I2S. Then surely it deals with the clock signal differently by isolating it and presenting a clean, jitter-free signal for the DAC. I have heard this work with a CD player outputting to a DAC via I2S, and there are audible differences for me.  I appreciate that there isnt a pin confiuration standard as yet but most DAC's with this connection can accomodate this by offering configurable I2S. So why isn’t it discussed as a possible game-changer? And why, when a quality DAC can and often does use separate super quiet regulated power supplies, one for the analogue circuit and another for the digital; heck I have even seen that they often utilize twin “high-end” DAC chips and two “high-end” temperature-regulated clocks?

Am I being unreasonable to suggest, at least to myself, that anything the streamer does regarding jitter/timing is pretty much redundant? As long as the stream contains all the zeros and ones that sum correctly, these amazing modern DACs take total control and will deal with jitter and noise very effectively. Therefore, possibly negating the need for a super expensive streamer beyond the implementation of a decent power supply, a well-thought-out motherboard, and ample processing power, allowing me to spend much more on the DAC.

This whole ethereal rabbit hole of what happens when obtaining data packets from a remote server before handing off the digital stream to analogue conversion is becoming more contentious an area than any part of the more traditional analogue chain.

I have to admit I’m leaning toward the influence of the DAC as more important than the data stream, as it should be pretty much error-free, as is most of the half a zettabyte per day that gets zapped around our world.

Most of what a high-quality DAC does, including the importance of the internal clock functions, is somewhat easier to grasp. So just how important is the data stream being clocked from the streamer, then re-clocked by the DAC before it becomes an actual music waveform? No one has really convincingly explained this.

High-quality DACs seem to equally emphasize the importance of stable power the internal clock functions, but in addition also how the DAC chips present the waveform to the analogue section ready for amplification. So just how important is the data stream being clocked from the streamer, only to be re-clocked by these powerhouse DACs before becoming an actual music waveform? No one has really convincingly explained this to me.

I am already getting from reading the great contributions here, that there are hugely differing experiences being shared.  So, in addition to what I have learned and still learning here, is that I need to and on listening to some streamers and DAC combinations, as well as DAC Streamer units in different price sectors and hopefully narrow a few down to audition in my not low end but certainly not esoteric £50-60k system.

Am I being unreasonable to suggest, at least to myself, that anything the streamer does regarding jitter/timing is pretty much redundant? As long as the stream contains all the zeros and ones that sum correctly, these amazing modern DACs take total control and will deal with jitter and noise very effectively…So just how important is the data stream being clocked from the streamer, only to be re-clocked by these powerhouse DACs before becoming an actual music waveform? No one has really convincingly explained this to me.

It’s like you never even read my initial response because I thought I provided a pretty clear explanation of what a streamer does and why it’s important.  The digital chain is only as strong as the weakest link, so if you choose to skimp on the streamer and it’s not on the level of your DAC it will be a bottleneck to the DAC’s performance.  Please go re-read my initial response more carefully as it does answer your questions.

Jitter has been a non-issue for a long time. There is no real advantage to use IS2 over SPDIF. In a controlled blind test an inexpensive streamer cannot be distinguished from an expensive one. This is reality. To believe otherwise is to be delusional.

The OP is overthinking this issue. Regarding DAC's: they as a category have been transparent to the signal for a long time. For a DAC to have a distinguishable "sound" it would have to be poorly designed. Practically all DAC's today are competently designed and are indistinguishable regardless of price. This is reality.

Yes,  it's the cheap DACs and streamers that have really been pushing I2S.  It's a shame people are basing their choice on a connection with no universal standard 

Ben of Mojo Audio has stated more than once that I2S is not his preferred scheme.  An excerpt from their site

"

I2S was engineered as an internal transfer protocol for inside of DACs and ADCs and is the language most DAC chips read. In most DACs all other transfer protocols are converted to I2S before they can be sent to the DAC chip. The official specification for I2S is that it should not be used for longer than 4”. This is why so few companies sell I2S compatible CD transports or DACs: it is not necessarily a good idea.

Think about it: all other transfer protocols are a bit stream with embedded clocking. Companies who boast about the performance of their I2S claim that the clocking in a single bit stream becomes corrupted. You see I2S has three wires: the data stream with embedded clocking, a bit clock which synchronizes with each bit, and a word clock which synchronizes with each digital word. If clocking in data streams can get corrupted, then why would it make sense to try to synchronize three data streams and clocks?

The only reason I2S sounds better on a specific DAC is because the other transfer protocols are of a lower level of performance. In a sense I2S saves the manufacturer money in that they are relying on expensive clocking from the component feeding their DAC rather than integrating such high-performance clocking.

So, which transfer protocol has the best sound? That would depend on the digital source (server, streamer, or CD transport), and the quality of the specific digital input on a specific DAC. Most DACs don’t have the same performance from all their inputs. Many DAC manufacturers will even state their best input is USB or Ethernet or S/PDIF. And even if you have the best input on your DAC, if you’re using a less than optimal digital source, overall performance won’t be all that good. So, once again, transfer protocols are not universal, but highly component dependent."

Yes. They have bigger transformers and circuitry. I still think that spending the larger % of money on the DAC is most important though. 

Buying a separate DAC and streamer is a good decision as well. 

No way.

It’s like you never even read my initial response because I thought I provided a pretty clear explanation of what a streamer does and why it’s important.  The digital chain is only as strong as the weakest link, so if you choose to skimp on the streamer and it’s not on the level of your DAC it will be a bottleneck to the DAC’s performance.  Please go re-read my initial response more carefully as it does answer your questions.

Sorry I didn't read your post, I skipped through on my phone last night and must have spun past your contribution. Thank you for commenting. I do have a question though and please bear with me if I am not really getting this. If a decent but not considered high end streamer ouputs via I2S and is connected to an accepted excellent DAC which accepts I2S, is then compared to a top end streamer connected to the same DAC but via USB lets say. Is the outcome a slam dunk to the expensive streamer. I understood that I2S properly implemented all but elliminates the possiblity of timing errors, so if as is being said the whole raison d'etre of high end streamers is to provide a clean signal to the DAC so it doesnt have to work as hard and this results in a better audio signal, I2S should win this contest or?

Yes,  it's the cheap DACs and streamers that have really been pushing I2S.  It's a shame people are basing their choice on a connection with no universal standard 

Ben of Mojo Audio has stated more than once that I2S is not his preferred scheme.  An excerpt from their site

Thanks for the information really usefull observations I was considering DAC's and Streamers that offer the best availble interfaces and having head the difference in a CD player using a fairly short (Not 4") but short Audioquest Carbon I2S I was considering the possiblity of using a very good streamer with an exceptional DAC.  But I appreciate that this may be a "red herring" Still learning and I guess I will just continue to ask dumb questions until I arrive at the right answers

The DAC and what it does to produce the analog signal that is sent to your speakers is the most important part of your digital chain. i2s vs. USB vs. coax, etc., R2R vs.FPGA, etc. matter less than the implementation of the conversion to analog.

To provide some real life examples...

When I upgraded from a Roon Nucleus to a Rockna Wavedream Net server, I heard very little if any in sound quality.  

When I added a HDMI it i2s converter to my Oppo 203 to send the DSD signal from SACDs and also Redbook CDs to my Rockna DAC, instead of using the DAC in the Oppo, there was a significant improvement in sound quality and musical enjoyment. 

Moving from a TEAC streamer to a Roon Nucleus/Aqua La Voce S3 resulted in a significant increase in sound quality.

Moving from that to Roon Nucleus/Rockna Wavedream Signature DAC resulted in a significant increase in sound quality.

Moving from the Roon Nucleus to the Rockna Wavedream Server, almost no difference.

It all matters, but 90% or more of the magic happens in the DAC, that's where I recommend making the biggest investment in your digital chain.

If you believe that more expensive = better by default, you've already succumbed to the fallacy of "you get what you pay for." 

I wonder if this has been blind test?  Could it be if you spend $10,000 you automatically are hearing a significant difference?  Are we splitting hairs or is it worth the money.  I don’t have knowledge this group has that is for sure.

If a decent but not considered high end streamer ouputs via I2S and is connected to an accepted excellent DAC which accepts I2S, is then compared to a top end streamer connected to the same DAC but via USB lets say. Is the outcome a slam dunk to the expensive streamer. I understood that I2S properly implemented all but elliminates the possiblity of timing errors, so if as is being said the whole raison d’etre of high end streamers is to provide a clean signal to the DAC so it doesnt have to work as hard and this results in a better audio signal, I2S should win this contest or?

I would expect a better streamer using a non-i2S connection to sound better than a cheaper streamer using i2S because there’s a lot more to it than just the connection type. I don’t think i2S has as much to do with timing but more to do with the DAC not having to unpack the clocks/data from the combined signal transmitted by other connection types, but I guess timing could be tied into that somehow but I don’t know. Mojo Audio brings up a good point that any i2S cable should be as short as possible (1 foot or less is preferable) because the signal will degrade rapidly with cable length potentially overriding the benefits of i2S, and it also depends greatly on which input(s) the DAC designer put the most effort into sounding best so there are significant variables here and trial and error may be your best option here (unless the DAC designer says one particular input is preferable and then probably best to just go with that). That said, i2S seems less sensitive to cable quality than usual, and I use this cheap 12” HDMI cable from Monoprice and am getting excellent results. I’ll try a better HDMI cable (probably from DH Labs) at some point just out of curiosity, but my results are so good as is I’m not in any rush.

https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=24187

The bottom line is there are many variables when it comes to DAC performance and connection type is only one. Personally I’d take a better DAC that has optimized a given input over a lesser DAC with i2S, but in my case my R2R DAC only cost $1100 and maybe that’s why i2S was better than the other inputs. I don’t know but am just following what my ears are telling me, and since almost every situation — between individual tastes/preferences and differences in equipment design — is different, following your ears as usual should be the final arbiter.

@nubiann Let's try this a different way. The only base caveat being is that the room and equipment need to be all that or close enough.

Many have done this. I did. 

1.) Mac book or Computer w/ generic wire into AMP or integrated.

2.) BlueSound w/ generic wire into AMP or integrated.

3.) BlueSound w/ generic wire into AMP or integrated with upgraded power supply and wire

3.A) Better wire

4.) All in one Streamer/DAC ($) into.....

5.) Better ($$) Streamer/DAC or separates and DAC into ....

6.) Filtered ethernet(Network Acoustics or the like) and audio or enterprise switch with very good wire/connects

7.) Better Streamer/DAC ($$$) or separates and DAC into...

8.) All the bells and whistles ($$$$) for a bit more nuance. Only for the best of the best resolving systems.

So yes, OP as long as the everything's jake, then a top tier streamer and great DAC or a super duper all in one is copacetic.

Chasing down how to get amazing sounding "digital" has a leaning curve and thanks to many here on Agon who are far more knowable than little 'ole me; I believe I now have a digital system that allows hours of pleasure with no fatigue. Got to go....time for my sound bath.

So there seems to be a lot of discussion about I2S vs usb here. I have my own experience which favors I2S but not going to extrapolate this is universal for all setups. I2S does have inherent advantages in that it is native signal path in dacs, it separates data from clock, a lone possible disadvantage is an external clock may be used vs internal dac clock, the theoretically better placement of clock is closest to signal path. So I have the choice to use the external OXCO clock in my Gaia DDC vs internal clocks in my dacs, both Femto, in other words I can sync or unsync clocks, in both cases the external OXCO clock in Gaia provides better sound quality than local clocks (this using 1/2M Tubulus Ximius I2S cable).

So for those who claim none of this is an inherent advantage of I2S, is it an inherent advantage to send signal on detour through usb boards of who knows what quality, only then to convert back to I2S? Is it an advantage to require the dac to separate clock from data?

Not saying usb can't sound good, I used it for at least a decade without complaint, only recently did I discover the I2S setup beat it. And over that decade I've used all manner of streamers with various usb implementation, tweaks and isolation of usb, very nice usb cables, dacs with some very nice usb boards including custom implementations. I2S belongs in the category of less is more which some seem to espouse, point being why do needless conversions.Not going to argue this point as I sometimes experience more is more such as optical conversion.

All in all, I'd take the battle of I2S vs usb on a case by case basis, optimize both and report back, actual experience counts for more than second hand repetition of some other person's experience.

With SPDIF and I2S, the source controls the master clock. With asynchronous USB, the destination controls the master clock. As such, the quality of result with SPDIF and I2S is primarily dictated by the source implementation and vice versa with USB. This distinction is important.

It has been demonstrated through independent, objective testing (Golden Sound, L7 Audio, etc.) and supported by followup listening that DACs that provide USB implementation that feature galvanic isolation and high quality clocks (e.g. Holo Audio) effectively eliminate noise and any jitter falls well below the audible threshold. This holds constant even from noisy sources, with no observable benefit from either switching to I2S, and inserting an expensive external DDC into the USB connection actually degraded performance.

A streamer brings the convenience of a single box that also includes an internal DAC. Alternatively, using an external DAC with a high level of USB performance opens the door to streaming from a computer based platform like HQPlayer ($300 USD), which enables high upsampling rates, PCM->DSD conversion, and a wealth of filters and modulators that offer measurable and audible advantages, all of which that lie well beyond the computing power of a streamer.

Whenever one purchases something super expensive and decides to keep it, that pretty much indicates it was deemed "worth it". Unless of course one is simply stuck with the purchase.

Now what happens a year or two later? Keep or sell for a loss? That’s the interesting part.

If you can sell without taking a loss....G-d Bless! How often does that really happen though for things bought new?

Honestly I've not heard any improvement in sound using I2S connectivity. I, using Denafrips Arcas and Pontus. Have tried HDMI I2S from Arcas to Pontus, also USB and SPDIF and haven't heard improvements. Have also tried connecting Roon on my NUC via USB directly to Pontus, there is slight difference in clarity. But not significant. I'd say get a good DAC, save on streamer and get some decent cables (whichever connection you chhose, but not Amazon Basic) and you should be good.

Hi, 

I have gone through several streamers and can confirm that super expensive streamers DO make a difference.

Now I'm enjoying a Ideon Absolute Streamer Meta and it is far superior to my previous Aurender Top of the line.

Regarding I2S connection, There is no advantage in my experience. The connector is superior but there is no real advance to stream music.

it's probably very much like voting for a candidate in an election. Once you bought what he is selling, you would argue to great lengths how true everything s/he says