@soix my digital chain right now in my main system is as follows:
Router > fiber optic > LHY SW-6 switch > fiber optic > Lumin L2 switch & music file server > fiber optic > Lumin P1 > Nordost Heimdall II USB cable > LHY UIP USB isolator > Nordost Heimdall II USB cable > Lampizator Baltic V4 or Weiss DAC204 powered by a Ferrum Hypsos LPS
All source devices including router are powered by internal or external LPS except the L2 which has an internal switch mode power supply. All these devices are plugged into a Puritan PSM156 power filter.
Sometimes I swap in a Teac VRDS-701t CD transport and clock it externally using a LHY OCK-2 clock powered by an LHY LPS.
The LHY clock is also used to synch the LHY switch and USB isolator.
BTW the P1’s internal DAC is very good, as good as the Weiss just slightly warmer. Listening to TV either YouTube or Netflix movies using the P1’s internal DAC over HDMI ARC sounds fantastic even though it’s just 2 channel stereo.
|
@kennyc so yes I agree with your comment. I am in the same boat, I am hearing all types of noise coming out of my pc as I am using it for streaming.
my chain is Hifiman Susvara connected to Viva Solista with speaker taps and sometimes with a zysonix converter box, Fidelice Precision Dac, Custom built pc running windows 11 with tidal, Qobuz, roon, and audirvana.
the issue I am having is whenever I’m listening to music with any streaming service if I am scrolling on a website, opening applications, running games, all of these generate noise I can clearly hear pretty loud, like static, am/fm noise static. If I were to add a streamer to the same caliber as the rest of my gear, which streamer should be added?
|
I believe most would consider my system high resolving. It's about $150K at retail of C-J class A, Wilson, Rega, Shunyata, WW Platinum cables and dCS stuff. That said the digital connections are all ethernet, as dCS recommends. The "streamer" is a Roon Nucleus. The dCS unit also has its own streamer built in and there's virtually no difference in SQ vs. the Roon Nucleus. Connection quality tends to be influenced by whatever the equipment designer prefers. I understand dCS invented the USB connection and does the highest quality build but still prefers ethernet.. which sounds best on their gear with less expensive non shielded cables. What connection and source does your DAC designer like best?
|
ARE SUPER EXPENSIVE STREAMERS REALLY WORTH IT
THEY ARE IF YOU BELIEVE THEY ARE
What’s the deal with all caps titles?
|
2nd Vote for fiber optic.
I originally streamed from a shared switch via 1gb copper.
Then I put the streaming onto its own vlan (Win client-NAS-NUC) which helped make the sound more consistent/focused.
Added a Thunderbolt 10Gb NIC (SonnetTech) to the Nuc and switch (Ubiquiti Aggregator). Definitely improved hi-res playback from the NAS.
Next uptgrade was putting in a fiber coverter (Startech & LPS) to the streamer. Note that the LPS was almost as important as the fiber. This wasn't as big a bang for the buck as I thought it would be. Probably because of the vlan & 10gb headroom.
Last improvment was a direct connect via fiber from my Roon (Ubuntu) NUC to the streamer. Definitely recommend getting that last hop dedicated.
Currently evaluating using a dac cable instead of fiber + transceivers. It eliminates two signal conversions. Jury is out on that one. Getting into minimal returns on performance now....
Also looking at using a lightweight Linux (Alpine?) for Roon for cleaner processing at source. Basically a custom Rock but I get to control the networking.
Another consideration is using sdn routing/vlan for each interface on the Nuc vs a shared bridge for all Nics. That's a bit more rarified and a WiP. Would expect minimal return.
|
This question can’t be answered without a look at the software and the particular streaming configuration you are using. You might as well ask whether a Porsche or a pickup are better...if you’re hauling landscaping supplies the answer is different than if you’re showing up to the high school reunion.
If you are using the streamer to pull music from the Internet or your network (or internal storage) and decompress it, add DSP, and output directly to a DAC, then you need a fair amount of processing which means more power consumption which means you need someone to engineer that to the electrically quietest possible which means some $$$. At least theoretically albeit many DACs will reject the vast majority of any possible noise anyway.
If you are using a server->streamer topology where the server does all the processing and sends a decoded, post-DSP signal to a dumb device that only takes the signal in by network and outputs via USB or other digital, then what you want is a very quiet low power device and those aren’t nearly as expensive to build. Someone who knows computers could build a Pi, a linux device, etc. that will perform quite well.
Secondarily some of the more expensive boxes may have more featured software and/or be compatible with more streaming services and protocols.
It depends on how much you know what you are doing. If you’re really good with building IP-computing devices and networking, you can achieve the same as the expensive stuff much more cheaply. But you do need the knowledge.
Nope there isn't a cheap work around.... or there wouldn't be all those expensive streamers on the market.
I find this logic fascinating.
|
I say yes, based on my experience comparing several DACs and music servers in my system. That being said, that are no absolutes in audio.
|
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?
|
I just had a I2S streamer bake-off between an PS AirlLens and a Matrix Element S. Neither are either cheap or expensive.
The dac is a Holo May KTE. The Holo May has two I2S inputs which was handy for testing.
Turned off the May's own reclocking PLL circuit so the streamer's clocks were used.
Tested with both Tubulus Libentus and Phasure I2S cables.
Regardless of configuration or what was playing, I (+ discerning wife) thought the Element had the best sound and certainly the best soundstage.
This opinion persisted even when the PLL clocking in the Holo was turned back on again. That was a great surprise.
The main difference between these two streamers? The AirLens uses a VCXO clock while the Element is using TCXO clocks.
I remember talking to the designer of the Musica Capella III and he said that he worked very hard to get the clocking right in his design. I had a Capella for several years and couldn't agree more - perhaps that's what sets the streamers apart.
I don't know if USB or I2S is better, it really comes down to your system. There are lots of Holo owners who prefer USB. I've tested both from time to time and have always ended up on I2S.
|
@nubiann +1 with those posting that each component of the entire digital chain from router to DAC matters. Just pause for a moment and really think about that and all the analogous instances where that logic from an engineering perspective is incontrovertably true - it has most definitely been true with respect to building out my digital source chain. 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.
|
What is a super expensive streamer?
And yes, some super expensive streamers are worth it !
|
@newton_john Never tell a physicist he can't quantify something.
However, did you see any numbers? I didn't try to quantify anyting. I just used a simple-to-understand method to describe the RELATIVE performance if these items. Unfortunately, it wasn't simple enough.
Jerry
|
Absolutely not. They are simple ARM computers. And trust me, there are no error in code execution, linear power supply or not. Just don’t use SPDIF. Use quality DAC which properly buffers USB and shielded cables. No, not $$$ ones.
|
@carlsbad2 You say that "a low to mid level streamer achieves a higher percentage of high level performance than a low to mid level DAC does."
Good luck trying to apply a quantitative concept like percentage to the qualitative differences between hifi components.
|
Nope, they are not. Just ask science. Next question.
|
Both the streamer and DAC make a difference in my experience. I moved from a Bluesound Node N130 streamer to an Innuos Zen Mk3 and it sounded better. I Tried 10 different DACs and chose the Holo Audio Cyan 2. It sounded the best to me with my system. Suggest trying a different streamer from a dealer that will let you try it out and listen to see if it makes a difference for you. I connect the Zen streamer to the DAC with a USB C cable and it sounds great. Again experiment with different connections and see if it makes a difference for you. Everyone has their own opinion, preferences and budget. Trust your ears.
|
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.
This mirrors my experience. The DAC is far more critical than the streamer.
Currently I am using a WiiM Ultra streamer (to external DAC). It perhaps the best bang-for-buck product I’ve encountered in this hobby. The functionality and OS is first rate.
The Eversolo A8 was also really good, but its OS wasn’t as well sorted as WiiM’s is currently.
OP, bear in mind that confirmation bias is a real phenomenon and if a listener expects an improvement, that’s often what they will perceive. And to an extent, one’s perception is their reality.
|
@jasonbourne71 all streamers are the same. All DACs are indistinguishable from each other. Jitter is no longer an issue.
|
|
@jasonbourne71
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.
You seem to have a tendency to make such authoritative and black and white statements. Can you please provide a link to the said blind test study? Also, what streamers have you tried in your system and what kind of blind testing procedures did you follow? Thank you.
|
Hopefully pvaulke60 the Varese will be at axpona. For 350k it should perform.
|
I have listened to the $350K, give or take, dCS Varese and it is a marvel. I can't say it is worth all that money, but my lord. It was fantastic. It's a stack with multiple components including a User Interface, Master Clock, two Mono DACs, and the Core. Stands tall, but the music it produces is unlike any DAC/Streamer setup I have ever heard. Amazing. Check it out if it comes to a audio dealer near you.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
@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.
|
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.
|
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 you believe that more expensive = better by default, you've already succumbed to the fallacy of "you get what you pay for."
|
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.
|
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
|
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. 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.
|
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."
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
@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.
|
No. It's more about your internet service. Fiber optic is best.
|
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.
|
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 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.
|
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 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.
|
