Discerning a difference between streamers is difficult...only me or common for all?

@dogearedaudio 

One digital copy may exactly resemble another, but you still have to get that digital file from one place to another and then convert it to a convincing analog audio presentation.

The server just has to get the correct series of zeros and ones fed into the DAC with timing that's accurate enough to keep jitter induced noise and distortion to a minimum, assuming it's a synchronous connection. If it's asynchronous then it just needs to get the ones and zeros into the DACs buffer in a reasonably timely manner. A lot of server software can do that, with jitter noise well under 100dB below the signal. There may be something going on that's causing it to not deliver the correct stream of ones and zeros at least some of the time, or perhaps to be accidentally sending analog signal along with the stream of ones and zeros that somehow ends up causing noise in the analog output stage of the DAC, or causes the DAC to otherwise not function correctly. So I know there are sonic differences sometimes. I've experienced it. What I'm not getting a good explanation for is how the server software can possibly make the sound coming out of the DAC sound  different if the system is actually working to spec., and not having a problem that could be readily identified with a little analysis. At least the effect could be measured on the DAC output even if the root cause might be hard to track down.

 It's much harder to bring two different cartridge designs in to uniformity of output from the same groove. It's an electro-mechanical device, and making tiny mechanical things with various connected parts vibrate identically enough to be undistinguishable in sound output is more trying. I have seen some double blind tests that showed there are some cartridge designs that people struggled to tell apart, while others were successfully distinguished. 

My initial streaming was with a MacBook Pro.

A perfect step into the world of streaming.

Upgrades of equipment and cables over that time. Realised the biggest limitation was the Mac. Considered a Mac Mini.

In the end, upgraded to a Pro-Ject Stream Box S2 Ultra. A definite step up in resolution and soundstage. Three years of happiness.

Still, knew there may be more I was missing. Upgrade needed to be a step beyond, not a small step up (or sideways).

Ended up with an Antipodes K21 server/streamer. While waiting for it, plenty of questions regarding my sanity in its purchase.

1000 hours in. Wow, is all I can say. So much more information. And more pleasure as well.

I recently upgraded from an Eversolo DMP-A6 to Auralic Aries S1 and I personally found the uplift quite remarkable. Much better timing, imaging and space around vocals and instruments, providing a less digitised and more natural sound. 

I purchased a Moon 280 D streamer with DAC, at $4K is Moon's least inexpensive streamer. I tested it against what I was currently running. A laptop computer running Tidal software through a Chord Qutest DAC. The Moon 280D immediately sounded more nimble and lively than my computer and the Qutest, even though I think the Qutest is a very good DAC for the money.

The store owner knew I was in his store to buy Sonus Faber Olympica Nova V speakers, not a streamer. But with the test against the Qutest, he'd reeled me in to buying a streamer. He then compared the inexpensive Moon 280 D with a $9K Linn streamer. Maybe I could have heard the difference if I'd spent an hour in the store listening carefully.

Bottom line, I'm very  happy with the moon. Also, if you are streaming from a computer through a DAC, and have the money, I would suggest comparing it to a one-box DAC streamer. I do believe something is lost--in jitter or the quality of the cable connection, or whatever--using a computer DAC combo.

@asctim

I’m not a software engineer so I can’t satisfy your need for an explanation. But I think if you actually look into different playback and operating systems, you will find that there are differences both in the way the operating systems control the clocks and CPUs, but also in the way the digital information is handled and moved about. Audirvana, for example, converts the file into PCM and preloads it into ram before playback. HQPlayer employs a complex variety of filters. Any serious digital audiophile will tell you that Roon sounds very different from Minimserver, even sans any direct DSP intervention. Even the more basic players, like Gmediarenderer, APlayer, Squeezelite, MPD--they all present different signatures, at least in my system. Buffers, caches, protocols--I couldn’t technically say what mechanisms are at work. But the differences are deliberate in that the designers of these various players are seeking to deliver digital music in the most convincing way. You say "working to spec." But what does that mean? Honestly, in terms of digital playback we’re waaaay past the "bits are bits" stage and well into how the subtleties of microprocesses contribute to converting bits into music.