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

During COVID, I built a series of Roon endpoints with Raspberry Pis (of various types, 3/4/5), some with screens, and some with 'hats' providing DAC service. (The NanoSound Pi case with internal I2S DAC was comparatively warm and still in use as a nearfield desktop speaker endpoint for a pair of SVS powered monitors.) With the others, I swapped out a series of Topping DACs (D10s, E70 Velvet, et al.) with steady improvement. All external options improved upon the internal DAC on my integrated NAD c368. 

Recently I purchased the WiiM Ultra (well-reviewed by amirm). I tested with the internal DAC, the CoAxial into the NAD, and SPIDF to the Topping Velvet. The Ultra's internal DAC and the Velvet were very good and noticeably an improvement over the NAD internal DAC on A/B testing. With room compensation enabled, I've settled on the Ultra's internal DAC, and I believe it is a distinct improvement in separation and image through my KEF LS50 metas. For now. :-) 

@lanx0003 What was your opinion of the Wiim Ultra?  I snagged one on a black Friday deal.  It's for my son for Christmas.  I was impressed by the size and weight of the box (I haven't opened it). I expected something much smaller and lighter. 

I heard noticeable differences in SQ among three modestly priced but capable streamers: CA MXN10, IFi ZS and Wiim Ultra in my humble system.  All were tested with an external dac.

I’ve heard bigger differences between music servers than DACs, with the exception of when I had the DCS Rossini APEX DAC.

I am surprised so many don't hear a difference in streamers, particularly comparing those with big price differences.  I wonder if "noise" might be veiling the differences.  EMI, RFI, ground plane noise and jitter are like grease on an optical lens, it hides the difference in a cheap and a quality set of optics.  After significant upgrades to my DAC and Streamer I still noticed a level of glare and lack of resolution that responded favorably to extensive noise control.

I also agree with @mitch2 on the effect of the Sonore SignatureRendu.  I was using an UltraRendu to utilize the Ethernet output of my streamer which I preferred to USB.  Replacing the UltraRendu with a SignatureRendu was a WOW moment.  Of all the upgrades and changes I have made the SignatureRendu takes the cake.

When I purchased my Rockna Wavedream Signature DAC, I saw many owners recommending pairing it with the Rockna Wavedream NET for best results, that the Rockna server took things to another level and that using the i2s connection was critical.  

Prior to the Wavedream NET, I had a Roon Nucleus.  If there was any difference in sound quality, I couldn't detect it.  The Wavedream NET is a nice server and provides functionality the Nucleus doesn't, most notably, an excellent CD transport is included.

On another note, I initially used a DH Labs i2s cable, but "they" said you need to get a Tubulus or RAL i2s cable (or something even more expensive) to get the best sound quality.  I purchased a Revelation Audio Labs Prophecy CryoSilver Reference I2S Cable and was able to A/B, as the Rockna Server and DAC both have two i2s connections and thought the RAL sounded better than the DH Labs cable, but I recently did that again and couldn't detect any noticeable difference.  I'm not sure if that was confirmation bias initially, or that my ears are getting worse, or something else.  I have been told by other audiophile friends that I have a "good ear" and my system is pretty revealing, so I'm leaning towards confirmation bias.

The DAC is where almost all the magic happens.  Focus on getting that as good as you possibly can and then tweak away. 

I have a Bluesound Node 2i and a Innuos Zen 3, the Innuos sound is much better than the Bluesound for me, however, I am surprised at how well the node sounds when looking at the price comparison, I think the Node benefits greatly from me running it through my Denafrips Terminator 2 12 edition. The node was 600.00 the innuos 3,600. 6 times, is the Zen 6 times better, no , but it is noticeably better on many levels. When comparing the Node using its own Dac sound to Node/Denafrips, it’s clear to hear how much benefit the Denafrips provides to the Node. 

@glennewdick +1

I recently upgraded my streamer from Zenith Mk 3 to Zenith NG.  Big delta in price.  I heard very little to no difference.  I think this is a function of the quality of your DAC and its USB implementation.  I use the MSB Reference DAC with their USB Pro.  It's galvanically isolated through optical cables. My advice is to buy the best possible DAC you can.  For me the streamer is much lower on the priority list.  

No discernible difference that these old ears can hear between streamers, although some are more convenient to use than others…all are fed to external dacs and my favorite is the Teac nt 505 (dac/streamer), also have bluesounds and WiiM Pro Plus…all good

@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.

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.

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. 

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.

@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 explorations over the years have led me to understand that differences between components can be minor but significant improvements could be had by spending attention (and money!) on modem, router, their power supplies, acoustic isolation, the quality of the AC going into the streamer and of course, connecting cables.

I use a 12V deep cycle battery to power my modem and router and another, via a pure sine wave inverter, to power my streamer/DAC. All connecting cables have RF filters installed.

My audio experience from Qobuz is delightfully musical: tirelessly detailed, spacious and very immediate, often sounding more ’live’ than Live...

If you're going to stick with the BlueSound Node, get yourself a Teddy Pardo power supply....you will notice an immediate and substantial improvement in the overall performance of of your Node....it elevates everything head and shoulders above the BlueSound without the Teddy Pardo power supply.  You will be very pleased.

The Teddy Pardo Power Supply is around $400.

Bluesound Node/Node-X/Node2i Upgrade Kit - Teddy Pardo Audio

Roon Nucleus with a nice LPS?

@asctim

I’m not talking about cables, that’s a rather different topic. I’m talking about the differences between different servers and different software. 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. Some people have latched on to SD players, which eliminate all the server protocols like DLNA and UPnP, and pretty much do away with an intervening operating system. But most digital audiophiles are stuck with a motherboard, an operating system and various forms of interconnectivity between the server and the DAC--USB, coax, I2S etc.

As for "grooves are grooves," well, take the same LP and play it on two different turntables. Heck, two different catridges! All else being the same, that LP will sound completely different.

@dhite71 

Experimenting with streamers in the used market is a smart and practical approach, especially when dealing with high-end gear like the Aurender N20 or W20SE. It’s a great way to explore different sound signatures and features that best suits your needs and also helps towards refining your system.

IME, N20 holds a sweet spot in Aurender lineup. 

Some additional insight was offered by Aurender tech support.  I owned an A20 for about a year and had spoke to and emailed them a few times throughout my ownership.  Their support/service is top notch.  They felt that since I only had the Audioquest Cinnamon when using the W20 that I never was able to realize its full potential.  Unfortunately I didn't yet have access to the Clearer Audio Silver Line cable that sounds so good with the Node Nano.  

I ordered the Audio Envy digital coax and the Snake River Boomslang today so will have more cables to audition in the next week or so.  

Whatever cable I end up with I am sure I will try more streamers over time...maybe even another Aurender like the N20 or W20SE.  That is one thing I enjoy about the used market.  I am fine with buying and selling a piece of equipment like that and sometimes you may lose a few hundred or may even make a few hundred.

@mdalton 

Sounds very plausible to me. I've read other accounts of EMI creating audible sound effects in susceptible DACs. 

uh huh.

Also…EMI on digital cables does impact timing (voltage fluctuations) and that’s jitter as far as clocking is concerned.

Cool it mdalton. I’m letting it go for me not for OP. I was trying to understand the underlying reasons. That’s all. 

As explained previously, reclocking does nothing with respect to RF/EMI and other non-jitter sources of noise.  RFI/EMI are not the same as jitter.  The OP indicates that he can hear a difference between an $80 cable and a $230 cable from the same manufacturer.  The manufacturer describes the shielding of the $230 cable differently - I would hope so for a $150 difference!   And I’m sure the OP is deeply grateful that you’re “letting it go.”  

Coax is susceptible to RFI yes and that translates to jitter. But two different model cables from AQ…I’ve experienced pretty big difference in signal cables and USB but never with coax. Plus the DAC will reclock it anyway.

I’m letting it go but putting the DAC 9 on the list for when I get sick and tired of differences between streamers. Hehehe

At least conceptually, there is a pretty easy way to explain the OP’s experience of cable differences.  Coax is potentially susceptible to RFI and other non-jitter noise coming from the network.  And as with jitter, DACs vary with respect to how, and the extent to which, they filter out noise from a source.  So if the DAC9 is susceptible to this type of noise - in contrast to how it handles jitter - then one can imagine a difference in sound if a cable with better RF shielding is used.  This issue is the whole reason for the existence of the Sonore optical products.  Occam’s razor strikes again.

@dogearedaudio

I mean, "grooves are grooves," right? Is one person’s system "broken" because it sounds different from another person’s system?

It’s a very different situation because the groove on a record hasn’t been transferred to an abstract definition during the recording process, while the digital file has been. Because of this, each vinyl record is a one-off, with it’s own set of unique sonic characteristics that weren’t intentional, but are indelibly intermixed with the intended signal. No mechanism was used to keep them separated, and no mechanism can tease them back apart.

Each copy of a digital file, assuming no errors crept in, is identical, because it’s a definition, not a direct analog representation. The server’s job is just to serve up that definition, and there’s no excuse for a server doing anything other than that because the engineering has been solved. Any decent cable will allow a bit perfect information transfer to the DAC, as has been shown by capturing the bits into a file on the other end of the toslink, usb, or whatever, and then comparing the sent file to the received file.

Jitter artifacts are typically below the audible threshold of mere mortal humans even on $8 dacs running a synchronous signal through a cheap digital coax. 

I think it was on this forum that I read about a guy who was playing test tone LPs, and noticed that something as simple as a sine wave sounded better from LP than from CD. When he analyzed the waveform, the CD produced what looked like a nearly perfect sine wave. The LP produced something only vaguely similar to a sine wave. It added a lot of other stuff, which is why he liked it better. Pure sine tones aren’t pleasant sounding if you ask me.

So no, there’s no equivalence between saying ’bits is bits’ and ’grooves is grooves.’ Because bits is bits when comparing two copies of the same recording, while grooves ain’t. They’re just very similar. And different cartridge designs are going to result in much larger output differences than different dac designs, assuming the dacs are all reasonably competent, and the vast majority are. From what I’ve seen, the most suspect ones are the most expensive and least expensive.

This is why I would say that if server software is producing a different sound, something somewhere along the data chain is not working to specification, or there is some intentional DSP going on to add some kind of effect to make the server sound different than it would if it delivered an accurate file to the DAC.

@dhite71 yes excellent discussion! I now know if I sell my Bricasti DAC and get an ARC DAC9 I can also sell my Aurender, pick up a $450 BS Node, and pocket the cash from the Aurender sale! I am only half joking here by the way LOL

@mdalton you may have nailed it. And it would support @lalitk findings as well.
@lalitk I only spoke about the Ref 6. It’s crazy if the DAC just homogenizes all digital sources.

But….how does all this explain differences the OP is hearing between digital cables?

This has been an enjoyable discussion to learn of others' experiences.  I definitely feel more confident but still puzzled that these Aurender streamers are not showing more of an improvement in my system.  I enjoy trying new equipment so will look at other brands when it makes sense.  For now, I am enjoying the cable upgrade, I just talked to Captain at Audio Envy and ordered his coax.

@audphile1 

While I respect your opinion and take on Ref 6, I would like to point out an important distinction - you do not have an all out ARC system.  At the time, I was running Aurender N10 through DAC9 ➡️ Ref 6 ➡️ GS150 and I could discern no appreciable differences between N10 and BS Vault feeding SPDIF/BNC inputs of DAC9. 

Later, switching to EMM Labs DA2 DAC revealed the not so subtle differences between the two aforementioned streamers. So my previous post was strictly referencing my experience with N10/Vault in an all out ARC system. 

It is possible for a DAC to reclock, even when SPDIF is used.  The DAC 9 manual indicates that it uses “reclocking for all outputs”.   I think that may be why the streamer wouldn’t matter, even using SPDIF.  In addition, the purpose of reclocking is to eliminate jitter from the incoming signal.  If a source is a low jitter device to begin with, reclocking may have de minimus effect.

To add…I’m not familiar with DAC 9 but I did own CD3 MkII back in a day with LS-25 and Ref 1 preamps. Huge fan of Audio Research and loved the CD3.
I’ve also had Ref 6 in my system recently and compared it to Pass XP-22 driving X260.8 amps into Wilson Sabrina. So our systems are somewhat similar.
I usually agree with @lalitk but this time I have to respectfully disagree at least when it comes to Ref 6. In my experience it doesn’t homogenize anything upstream. I also can’t see how DAC 9 can possibly be streamer agnostic but react to digital cable changes. 

@dhite71 when you’re on Audiogon home page click on the hamburger menu at top right, then click your username, click My Virtual Systems. When you get to next page couck the Action drop down and select edit. You should be able to see the option to add images.

I said I won’t call BS but I will question your findings. Not the same as considering calling BS.

There are too many factors that can impact the difference you perceive between streamers or DACs or any other components when compared. This includes what I mentioned in my original post as well as how you compare…meaning the actual method/strategy used to compare components. In example you have both streamers playing the same song from qobuz and they’re connected to different inputs on your DAC and you repeatedly and rapidly switch back and forth as opposed to taking your time with each unit to analyze the sound and other attributes and make notes on sonic characteristics of each. When you compare phono amps, you take your time to listen to each unit playing at least one full song before you flip to the other phono stage that involves disconnecting and reconnecting. Just few examples.
There is an approach to everything.

If you hear different digital cables sound different but you can’t discern differences between streamers, it’s fine by me. I’m just questioning your approach. There’s not enough information in your OP to go by

@audphile1 I did create my virtual system and listed my components but did not see a way to upload a picture. The field is there but nothing to click

I am now comparing coax cables from the Node Nano to the DAC 9. My initial purchase was for an Audioquest Cinnamon as it was inexpensive and allowed me to set up the Nano immediately.

A friend that utilizes USB brought over his two coax that he had in storage

Audioquest Carbon

Clearer Audio Silver-Line Optimus Reference

I am appreciating about the same level of improvement, possibly a bit more going all the way to the Clearer Audio.

I am currently listening to Sting and at the 1 min mark on Seven Days the music picks up its pace and was bright with some ear fatigue with the Cinnamon. The Carbon calmed it down to be enjoyable but still a bit bright. The Clearer Audio completely smoothed out the sound to be more like vinyl. My friend has better ears than I and we compared together the other night and he had the same feelings about the differences. I am thinking now to pick up a few more cables that offer a trial period to extend the shootout. Audio Envy and Snake River are a couple contenders.

Why would you even consider calling BS on someone’s experience. We are in such a subjective arena here and all any of us can do is trust our ears. What’s good for one may not be for another...happens all the time.

@mahler123

+1 ,,, big time.

I too dumped by BRYSTON BDP1USB and BDA2 stablemates, because of BRYSTON’s Jurassic era utility and infuriating “Manic Mooss ’ digital interface, As @mahler123 has pointed out….its a must to avoid.

I I upgraded to a MOON 280D MiND2 network player/ streamer/ DAC that is flawless at its pricepoint.and a step-up in audio performance from the BRYSTON pair that was not insignificant.

The best streamer I ever had for SQ was the Bryston BDP-3.  Unfortunately the software management system was unusable.

  My current streamers are Melco N100 and CA CXN 100.  The difference between them and the BDP3 is very slight.   All three sound worlds better than the Bluesound Node

@dogearedaudio add to everything you mentioned the differences in clocks between different streamers.

In the OP’s example an ARC DAC 8 was used with 2 streamers - BS Node and Aurender N10. To the best of my knowledge the DAC 8 isn’t compatible with the Linux based Aurender N10 so that takes using USB out.

We’re now comparing N10 vs BS Node driving DAC8 via SPDIF coax cable. In this case, the Aurender’s superior OCXO clock is being leveraged. BS Node clock is nowhere nearly as good. This alone would make a pretty big difference. But the OP doesn’t hear enough to appreciate the change. Add to this the Aurender signal processing that caches the data onto the internal drive. This results in much cleaner data feed to the DAC. Compared to BS Node that uses small buffer area.
Another key difference between the two streamers.

Same applies to using DAC 9 now when comparing the next level up BS to Aurender W20

And the outcome is the cached digital files clocked by the super precise OCXO in the Aurender didn’t sound any different than the buffered data stream out of BS Node? Or the difference was so subtle that it wasn’t enough to appreciate?

I’m not going to call 🐂 💩 but I will question this.

@asctim 

"If the server software or the cables are delivering the digital file information to the dac in a different enough way to make the DAC sound different, then some or all of them aren’t working correctly. Or the DAC isn’t working correctly. Or none of them are working correctly. Or there’s some incompatibility. Or they’re creating different sounds on purpose through processing."

Well, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it? ;-)  In the analog realm, audiophiles spend tens of thousands of dollars on turntables, cartridges, tonearms, preamps, etc etc, all seeking "ideal" sound, when all we really should be worried about is hearing the darn record, right?  I mean, "grooves are grooves," right?  Is one person's system "broken" because it sounds different from another person's system?  Of course, in the analog realm it's generally accepted that various "macro" mechanisms will affect the transfer of sound waves from the grooves to the speakers.  When it comes to digital, there's a stubborn belief that "bits are bits."  But a lot of people would argue that the "micro" mechanisms involved in *how* those bits get turned into music make just as much of a difference.  An OS that uses a different kernel or tweaks the operation of the CPU or system clocking devices appears to have an effect on the end result.  Is that "processing," or just an attempt to improve the quality of not only the digital-to-analog conversion process, but the way the information is shuttled from one device to another?  Is it "processing" to upsample or change filter parameters to bypass a DAC's internal filters?  No one seems to dispute that in purely analog systems, there are many ways to skin a cat, so to speak. ;-)  When it comes to the digital world and it's less-readily observable processes, suddenly "bits are bits" and if one algorithm sounds different from another, it's "broken." ;-)

@dhite71 any plans to post your system pictures? 

Only if you use coax from streamer to DAC where jitter begins to matter. Otherwise all PCs are identical. CPU does not care if power is linear or switching. Internet does not tell of this is audio, video, jpeg or a Word file, all sent the same way. USB optical isolation may come handy in some cases. 

I'm using HDMI out of my computer into a receiver. I'm not sure what brand it is. Some very basic HDMI cable that costs about 12 bucks and can handle 8 channels of audio at 24/96 along with a 4k HDR video signal. So I'm definitely not saying my system is one that might reveal issues with cables and streamers, although it definitely does concerning the HDMI cable from the Blu-Ray player to the TV, whe I can see and hear static sometimes when the cable needs to be jiggled to make it go away.

On better systems, where cable time smear might cause easily audible issues, what time scale are we talking about? Millionths of a second? Is this smear that would cause data errors? From what I've seen in testing it's not hard for a cable to get up to a million hertz while still maintaining excellent phase and amplitude fidelity. 

There you go, another perfectly interesting thread infested by cable zealots