ARE SUPER EXPENSIVE STREAMERS REALLY WORTH IT

From Antipodes: 

"a clock stage is only as good as the circuit it is used in and the power supply that powers the circuit. And the re-clocking stage needs to receive a low-noise signal with high-bandwidth, before it can re-clock the signal accurately. If the signals before and after the re-clocking stage are polluted by noise below the bit-rate (such as from employing linear power supplies) then the re-clocking will be largely ineffective. Anyone that claims that digital is 'just ones and zeroes' has not applied their knowledge to demanding real-world problems."

All the best super-expensive, no compromise streamers have gone to huge lengths to develop their power supplies, which is a large portion of their expense. 

@russbutton  I’d encourage you to at least demo a decent streamer from a place like Crutchfield, Amazon, etc. that allows for returns rather than blindly holding on to the belief that it’s all just ones and zeros.  Hundreds of us here have found that’s absolutely not the case for audio — not even close, so unless we’re all somehow wrong and fooling ourselves it’d be worth your while to at least try. 

Bits is bits.  Thatʻs the beauty of digital audio.  At the very lowest level of computing, all machines do is:

• copy data from one register to another
• compare data between two different registers
• add data from one register to another and write out the result.

Everything a computer does is a combination of those three operations.  The ability to copy data from one place to another with 100% accuracy is the hallmark of computing.

@russbutton  Sure, if you’re just sending a Microsoft Word document that’s not sensitive to noise, timing, etc. it’s perfectly fine.  But audio is very sensitive to these things, so you can hang your hat on that it’s just ones and zeros but most here who’ve migrated from basic computers to dedicated streamers know that’s absolutely not the case, and until you’ve heard a dedicated streamer your “opinion” is just insular ill informed. 

All of your various streamers are just generic PC boards running a custom front end app on top of Linux.  Theyʻre just computers dedicated to running that one app.

@russbutton  No, that’s an oversimplification and there’s absolutely more to it than that.  Power supplies, galvanic isolation, clocks, etc. can all make significant improvements over a basic computer as most people here have found.  At least try a good streamer before you just dismiss them out of hand. 

With respect to I/O interfaces, it is the component quality that takes precedence; an example is the Grimm streamer some posters here have mentioned, it is fantastic and uses AES/EBU instead of I2S. I will end by saying the most noticeable sound improvement in my system came from going from ethernet to fiber optic.

@kairosman  Well said.  What other components are you using in your streaming/fiber optic setup?

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.

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.

@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. 

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. 

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.