Difference between Bluesound Node 2i and Cambridge CXN v2

If anyone still on this thread, what is the difference in streaming quality vs the two. Not using the internal dacs? Any difference?

Just saw the thread now,
I tried both the Node and the Cambridge using a Benchmark DAC.
Similar to someone’s opinion above, my view was the SQ of the Cambridge was better sounding.  So, I returned the Node and kept the Cambridge.
it also has more features than the Node (e.g. front display, internet radio) and is more flexible.
A better all-round unit in my opinion.

Hello. Have been reading for a long time and happy to finally contribute to this forum. I have a CXN2 on my living room serving as 2 channel multi media interface also connected to a 4Tb HDD for streaming high res ripped vinyl files and some CDs. File format is predominantly FLAC with some WAV and Mp4 for the 16/44.1's. Files are large as unable to justify individual track ripping for some music styles (jazz, classical) and instead do full record sides.

Thing is I just bought a Node as a streamer for my main system to find this unit is incapable to play any of the large files while the CXN2 has absolutely no issues going through the same data. Have tried all possible troubleshooting, followed the Bluesound manual/forums and since formatted HDD to NTFS, Fat32, used different flash drives to the exact same outcome.

My first-hand feedback is that the Node works fine as a streamer (MPQ radio sounds good). Just forget about indexing or playing a large HDD library. To be fair Blue Sound vaguely mentions this and favors the use of a NAS but personally unable to justify the extra hustle. The pluses for the CXN2 is good sound quality, overall feel (no plastic), a more powerful processor, and physical controls. The trade-off is form factor and a higher price. No complaint about the Cambridge app.