Ethernet streaming

your argument is somewhat specious

@antigrunge2

Nothing like being called specious to end my day.

I make similar arguments you do to the benefits of a single unit but I guess you decided to ignore my post after you decided I was specious.

Look, I am sure those companies you named are fine organizations, but we’ve all seen organizations we thought would be around for a long time suddenly go poof or decide a particular market was no longer worth it, or, often, they decide that a previous device has reached end of life, or take too long to add a service we could find with a new streamer.

So, I take the word specious and throw it back in your face with prejudice.

My original post pointed out good and bad points of each approach.

I don’t think there’s a technical reason why separates would be better, in fact if we can remove one cable (say the USB) from the equation you have an easier time controlling all issues related to jitter.

Having said that, there are good reasons for keeping them separate. Being able to pick the sound quality of the DAC, and the software that is used to stream separately are really nice for me. For instance, I only use Android control devices, some famous streamers are Apple only. Next, what happens when a new streaming service comes along and you want to keep your DAC but the streaming software is no longer being updated? Replacing a relatively inexpensive streaming component down the road means I can keep my DAC investment.

In my case my streamer is a Raspberry Pi based device, around $200 with the fancy power supply and case. If my software is no longer adequate or I wish to use an unsupported service I can swap it out without issue.  The same for network features, such as Wifi 6, etc.  In these cases having a separate streamer makes your DAC future proof.