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

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.

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

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.

@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. 

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. :-) 

@sls883 Same here. After burn-in and room correction (RC), it starts sounding smoother, but I still prefer the MXN10 overall with both internal and external DACs. The MXN10 sounds cleaner, crispier and more transparent. The edges of both high and low notes are better defined. That said, depending on personal preference, people might prefer the smoother, more forgiven, jack-of-all-trades sound that the Ultra delivers. My son wants to explore TT and I think it might be a good Xmas gift too. I heard its phono stage is okay.

@lanx0003 thank you for the reply.

At least initially, my son will use it as a streamer with a headphone amp. I think the Wiim has a headphone jack, but his headphone amp is probably better.  

He's new to streamers, so it should be fun for him.  He's been using a laptop. 

To pass blind A/B comparisons reliably between streamers, dacs, cables, etc, i.e., the subtler devices in the chain, you will need to address the room resolution bottleneck. The room's always in the way....

Here are some examples...such designs (not cheap) are typically meant for the pros, but, if you are an audiophile seriously chasing such subtleties , this is where you'd drop some cash first.

https://youtu.be/IiW1YfaIr_U?si=CaVKJi37cbm7stGZ

https://youtu.be/Tkqo3pN8S4A?si=btNM2ngWl6-0lgMd

https://youtu.be/neboFNJzI-w?si=pTtDNr8DQ0k0mptO

I mainly listen to classic rock, jazz, r&b and blues so maybe my music taste is also not as demanding.

I tell ya, if all I ever listened to was Jimi Hendrix, or the Doors first album, I probably wouldn’t even have a home stereo- I would just listen to it in the car, the wife’s Sonos, or maybe through the home theatre.

And I do LOVE Jimi Hendrix, he is a musical genius, but the more resolving my stereo has become over the years/decades the worse this music sounds on it.

And one of my all time favourite albums, the Yes album, I don’t listen to much anymore.

There are many excellent sounding other classic rock albums, and blues albums however. I just whipped through this thread @dhite71 so my apologies if I missed it, but when determining changes in your system you are listening to something with a decent recording quality of for example Keb Mo, Guy Davis, Buddy Guy, Muddy Waters -Folk Singer, King Crimson, Stevie Ray Vaughan? or the many hundreds of wonderful jazz albums that today’s audiophile can stream?

@mclinnguy 

I do listen to all those artists you listed.  I do not listen to classical and that is what I wondered about as I see where people here and reviewers talk about how demanding this music is to be accurately reproduced.  I don't have a specific song or set of songs....I typically just listen as I normally would and when there is a section of a song that has really nice vocals and separation of instruments or whatever comes across as really nice, I will start comparing.  Regardless, it is always a good recording when doing any comparison.  

@dogearedaudio

I appreciate your engagement with me in this discussion. I’m not a software engineer either, and what little programming I ever did used audio APIs that were a black box that I just plugged in without understanding all the details. My basic understanding at the moment leaves just three options that I can comprehend to explain server software sounding different:

1. Not all the correct bits are reaching the DAC.

2. The bits are all correct but their timing is off enough to cause audible problems.

3. The bits are correct and the timing is also good, but other parasitic noise is coming along for the ride and somehow reaching the analog output stage of the DAC and creating audible noise and distortion there. Or it may be causing the converter stage to perform poorly even though it was getting a perfectly good and clear stream of data. The noise may be EMF transmitted from the server hardware directly to the dac regardless of cables, and of course the EMF is probably different with different music servers as they use different routines to process the data.

If none of those things are happening in any particular system, I’d propose it’s possible that the server software in such a case is working perfectly for all meaningful purposes, and there should be nothing audibly to discern between another server program or hardware bundle that is also working perfectly "to spec."

@asctim

Okay, let’s take a very common example. Many, many digital audiophiles remark that Squeezelite, MPD and Roon all sound very different. When it comes to MPD and Squeezelite, I have the option to use either on my streamer. When adjusting settings for MPD, I can chose to bypass Linux’s internal ALSA mixer, by setting the volume control to "none." Squeezelite does not offer this option, only to set the volume at "100%". So there’s a significant difference right there. A digital algorithm is being bypassed in one player, but is still in the playback chain in another player. Both players are working to spec, that is, they’re sending "bit-perfect" information to the DAC. But one has an intervening step that the other doesn’t. Does that affect the sound quality?

As for Roon, their streaming protocols are proprietary and are obviously designed to produce the Roon "sound," which is one of their selling points.

None of this has anything to do with the source of the music file, but that’s another issue. How does the player software retrieve the music file? How much does it buffer? How does it manage the clocking systems, CPU speed, etc etc. It’s all presumably "bit-perfect," but will it sound the same?

@mclinnguy  "Blues" by Jimi Hendrix sounds great on Qobuz

OP....As I said a bit ago in this thread...maybe it's something else like your switch, ethernet cabling, ethernet filtering and so on? Please tell what your setup is going into the streamer (and DAC).. Room treated?  My experience has not been as yours especially after filtering and room treatment, etc. I went from Mac Book to Bluesound to a Lumin T2  to a Lumin X1 (nice and relaxed sound) and to paring up (used) a Grimm MU1/Weiss 501 DAC. Full stop.

The Aurender's W20/A20 are in the same class as the Grimm MU2 (best I have ever had the pleasure of hearing) and many other$. A used Grimm Mu1 is around 8K if your DAC is all set, then please consider one. The mid and high priced Aurender's are grreeeeeat so I would have thought them noticeably better/less fatiguing than the Bluesound(s). Thus I suspect it something else?

A dang fine LampizatOr high end DAC paired with a top Aurender is the best I ever heard but not in my system.  

@tkunau are you having issues functioning? Could you please delete all 8 of your duplicate posts above by clicking on the top right of each post?

@wsrrsw thanks, I’ll check that one out. By the way, I was browsing some older threads (which I frequently do), and have not yet thanked you for your recommendation for Cyrus Chestnut- fantastic tunes and exceptional recording quality! Others who like jazz and aren’t aware check out the vivacious track "Decisions, decisions" from album Earth Stories.

And more inline with this thread, if someone plugs in an "upgraded" server/streamer/renderer "properly", and still can’t perceive any sonic improvement in the resonance of the lower piano notes on "Grandma’s Blues", then I suggest save your money! And waste it somewhere else, like on Taylor Swift tickets.

@mclinnguy all but the original posts deleted.

@dogearedaudio 

I think that all fits within my current understanding.

Add me to the list of "wanting to upgrade but don't see the value".  Have done blind A/B tests with BS Node vs. Lumin and HiFi Rose (the latter on balanced inputs no less).  Using the Rose example, had a musician friend come over.  Did maybe 10 A/B tests with primarily Fleetwood Mac Rumors via Qobuz synched for volume with db meter.  Maybe 5 times he preferred Rose, 2 times the Node and 3 times a draw.  

If I was quantifying the difference I would say on the order of 1% better, but certainly not worth nearly $5K.   The search continues.  

@mtbiker29 
sounds like you were comparing these units as full featured using their DACs. And all three DACs sounded more or less the same with you quantifying about 1% difference between the three? Can you even hear a 1% difference? I know I can’t. You must have extremely sensitive hearing. But then again all these units sounded the same to you. I’m confused. Can anyone help me sort thru this 🐂 💩…someone should be buying Taylor Swift tickets…

Not too surprised by this streaming discussion. It’s apparent that if you have a well performing system, you will see bigger gains in other areas as the streaming factors have been advancing steadily over recent years.

The streamer vs. DAC chatter is an interesting one but amplification quality with speakers are big drivers and IMHO, the amplifier is the first place for investment then speakers. There’s a great level of improvement in the DAC and streamer world. Factoring in those gains is getting harder as the improvements in recent years with the tech have rapidly filled gaps.

I’d like to do more testing on the streamer side. I’ve made gains with fiber internet, then CISCO boxes and fiber running to a streamer. It sounds great in my system even compared against an M1 MacBook Air running Roon direct.

Roon seems to have made strong improvement to sound quality of late and running it direct through systems output versus a WiiM Pro with 5v external ps to an RME ADI-2 DAC is outstanding. I run unique tube amp mono blocks and recapped McIntosh LS340 floor standing speakers. 

Have never seen such a narrowing of sound quality differential with Roon direct streaming vs. RAAT streaming to date. That says a lot about the gap narrowing with the right choices along the way. Fiber is probably the biggest game changer (from fiber router) making these gains possible. YMMV

@romanesq 

I’ve made gains with fiber internet, then CISCO boxes and fiber running to a streamer......Fiber is probably the biggest game changer (from fiber router) making these gains possible. YMMV

I have read that a few times over the years, and saw some Youtube videos where some swore by it- cheapest tweak to improve your streaming sound. So I tried it-

I got a Cisco switch with sfp output, figured out how to configure it and entered the commands to get it to work, got a 50' fibre cable and the modules, and connected them after the router and before the EtherRegen. I believe I can hear the difference, but it is very slight, and I concluded that I prefer the generic cat7 copper ethernet cable over the fibre- less "glassy"  I get more of a difference in the sound by changing any other cable in my system. So for me it was a waste of $200, but you don't know until you try. 

I have read numerous posts from Lumin users who claim to get the huge "game changer" benefits you subscribe to. 

amplification quality with speakers are big drivers and IMHO, the amplifier is the first place for investment then speakers. 

It would be nice to get some ATC actives, or a Grimm system where one doesn't have to worry about this- I admit it does appeal to me. 

Yes, @mclinnguy, there’s numerous factors to weigh and consider often system dependent. As another small example, the Cisco Meraki was better than the Cisco Catalyst 2960. Had read about Meraki couplings and other adjustments. Removed the power supplies from the two Merakis and thought that was also a nice improvement. No digging into the settings needed on any of them. More improvement with choice of SFP too.

That narrowed the performance but the RME ADI-2 is the master via USB and so that application remained superior streaming via computer versus optical out from the WiiM Pro. (That too has changed ironically going back to Roon. Now Roon on the M1 MacBook Air is more dynamic and superior even using glass toslink.)

In some earlier configurations, I didn’t see improvement but learned along the way and have seen a remarkable improvement with the fiber aspects here starting from a Verizon fiber router to the streamer. Additionally, although I’m not a big cable guy, on the ethernet front I’ve seen a nice uptick in performance using Blue Jeans ethernet cables.

As the streamer technology continues to narrow audible improvement, performance is likely to be succeeded by elegance, usability options and ease of implementation. From this perspective, DACs may be more interesting in performance differences although I remain a believer in starting with the best amplification one can obtain, IMHO.

@romanesq 

You bring up a solid point. Amplification quality is crucial because it directly influences how well the entire system will perform, especially with speakers. A high-quality amplifier can bring out the best in a set of speakers, ensuring the nuances and dynamics of the sound are accurately reproduced. In contrast, a mediocre amplifier can bottleneck even the best speakers.

As for DACs and streamers, while improvements have been noticeable in recent years, I believe they’ve reached a point where further upgrades provide diminishing returns for many users. The differences becoming less perceptible to the average listener, especially when paired with good amplification and speakers.

That being said, finding the correct (synergy) amplification with speakers, is often the most tangible improvement and solid foundation for a system. After that, the incremental improvements from DACs and streamers easily more noticeable. 

As far as fiber optics or conventional copper LAN, whichever path one chooses; I recommend some kind of filtering ahead of your streamer or server can pay huge dividends, IME. 

Copper->Fiber->Copper didn’t work for me. Glassy and artificial in my system. 
I agree on the amplification being almost as critical as the speakers. Amplifiers make a huge difference. But…GIGO. You will hear all the upstream nasties better. On the other hand upgrade the source with a crappy amp and you have a bottleneck - you wasted $ and you’re unable to realize your source components full potential. It’s an endless loop but getting the amp right is still the most important piece (once your speakers and room acoustics are addressed). 

“Copper->Fiber->Copper didn’t work for me”
@audphile1 

To my earlier post on your Aurender thread, if you eliminate the use of fiber optic cable between transceiver, you’re likely to hear much more organic presentation. It’s the darn conversion between the transceiver robbing the dynamics, IME. 

I had a Lumin U2 and experimented with fiber direct to its SFP port from a GIGE switch also with SFP fiber port; Researched the heck out of it and ordered all the parts from DigiKey. Let it settle for a week. To my ears it did not sound as good as copper CAT8 cable from the same GIGE switch. The magic was gone. I’m guessing that it’s system dependent as many users love fiber. 🤷‍♂️

@lalitk yes. 
couple of things for the benefit of clarifying the unit you’re referring to…

Telegartner Opt Bridge 1000M Is an optical isolator. Copper in, all optical conversion takes place inside the unit, then copper out…please correct me if I’m wrong. We can think of this as an optical Ethernet filter, similar in concept to Network Acoustics but uses active approach that leverages high quality copper to fiber optic to copper conversion. It is a high end audio purpose built unit. I’m intrigued I admit but at the same time $2,900 is kind of steep at least within the contexts of my system.  I still have room to grow with DAC for example. I am keeping the Opt Bridge in a back pocket for further consideration.  Thank you for bringing this up to my attention!

To add…the cheap fiber optic converters that are used by some in their systems add noise to the AC line with their SMPS, they produce EMI that affects other components and cables and this results in loss of dynamics, smearing and thin, artificial sound. If you isolate them away from the system, use LPS and run a long Ethernet cable to streamer you mitigate the EMI but you still don mitigate the noise the converter itself poops back out into the outbound Ethernet cable. It kind of negates the issues at best.
All this plus the cable spaghetti you get with it all isn’t worth the trouble. At least to me. In my opinion, until you have the best possible components I wouldn’t waste a dime on these tweaks. Just my $0.02

@audphile1

You’re correct in your understanding of the Telegärtner Opt Bridge 1000M. To clarify:

The Telegärtner Opt Bridge 1000M is indeed an optical isolator that performs copper-to-optical-to-copper conversion. It allows for electrical isolation between components in an audio or network system by converting the electrical signal (copper) into an optical signal, which is then reconverted into copper again at the output. This isolation helps to reduce noise, electromagnetic interference (EMI), and ground loop issues, which can degrade audio performance, especially in high-end systems.

As you noted, this can be thought of as a type of optical Ethernet filter. However, the Telegartner unit uses active conversion, which means it’s leveraging electronics to perform the copper-to-fiber and back process, rather than relying purely on passive elements.

This active conversion allows the Telegärtner Opt Bridge 1000M to offer very high quality and precision in the signal transfer, ensuring minimal loss or degradation in the audio signal while providing the electrical isolation that helps with cleaner sound in high-end audio systems. It’s essentially a high-end, purpose-built solution for isolating and optimizing Ethernet signals for audio.

I am hoping this would be my last upgrade as far optimizing streaming to nth degree with the addition of Hypsos Dual Output power supply :-)

@lalitk 👍

Here’s a cheaper version…

https://www.musicdirect.com/equipment/accessories/ifi-lan-ipurifier-pro/

@audphile1 ….are you going to try in your system?

@lalitk

Can’t take any credit on the amplifier focus at onset as I heard it mentioned originally by Mike Moffat or Schiit Audio. He emphasized some years ago that the DAC craze was out of hand and the changes between varied ones was not that large and more significant gains would be found by focusing on amplification.

Think about it. A guy who at that time was in the DAC business pointing in another direction entirely: amplification. What a legend.

As for the copper ethernet vs. fiber discussion, I’ve made connections and seen how that goes with varied system iterations. Have seen copper beat fiber and vice versa. Think a router from a service like Verizon with fiber-optic internet is easily superior to other offerings and so if that’s available, an entire system review is warranted.

@lalitk for the price and with Music Direct return policy I might try it at some point. 

@audphile1 👍

@audphile1 
"sounds like you were comparing these units as full featured using their DACs. And all three DACs sounded more or less the same with you quantifying about 1% difference between the three? Can you even hear a 1% difference? I know I can’t. You must have extremely sensitive hearing. But then again all these units sounded the same to you. I’m confused. Can anyone help me sort thru this 🐂 💩…someone should be buying Taylor Swift tickets…"

Not sure there was any ambiguity worthy of the snark....But since you can't hear the difference why even bother with a proper setup?  I'm sure Crosley has a product for you.  

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D8Y4RWYS?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title

I bought this to stream fibre to my main rig. It will connect to a Sonore OpticalRendu. It is still sitting in my mailbox, and I will test is out on Sat once I get my DAC back from a friend. I expect it to work perfectly, since I do the same thing with my other 2 DACs. Those DACs use different network switches that cost a lot more and a bit more.

“I expect it to work perfectly”

@yyzsantabarbara 

Sure it will, otherwise it wouldn’t have made it through the QC test. The bigger question is - IF this switch is going to bring any audible improvement to your connected gear? 

@lalitk When I said work perfectly, I am talking about the sonics, the bit transfer is a given. My streaming is working in the fibre domain and everything before the Rendu does not matter from my experience with the other 2 OpticalRendu's I have. I initially had concerns about the quality of the switches but not anymore. My first Ubiquiti switch sells for $400-$600 now (I paid $150 before it became popular). My second switch was $75 and the 3rd one $45. I am not spending money on switches anymore based on my experiennce.

I also used to own the Lumin X1 and used a direct fibre into the X1 DAC and compared that with the OpticalRendu into the X1 and other DACs.

Very interesting test results. I ended up with 3 OpticalRendu's. The X1 was also a great streamer. As was a PlayBack Designs Stream-IF I had in the house (tested with SPDIF not the available PLINK fibre).

@yyzsantabarbara 

It’s great to hear that Rendu’s in your setup are delivering consistent results without switch-related concerns.