Hello, Assuming I have separate DAC, and I just want to play songs from iPad by Airplay feature. In this case, I need a streamer to receive music from my iPad -> DAC.
What’s the point of high price streamer? I’m bit surprised that some streamers are very high priced. From my understanding, there should be no sound quality difference. (Streaming reliability and build quality, I can see it but I do not see advantages in terms of sound quality.)
Am I missing something? If so, please share some wisdom.
For both, outputting at the same volume I could not hear any difference at all. This even though the external laptop is upsampling to 192K while the direct connection from the 2008 Macbook Pro via its optical audio is not.
That's not surprising, since the receiving interface in your DAC (Toslink which is SPDIF) is treating the incoming data stream the same. Sample rate may have no affect if the internal SRC on the DAC itself overrides what it is receiving from the interface. I'd imagine Schitt go through some great lengths to reduce jitter (word clock timing variations) on the SPDIF/Toslink interface, which is why there's no perceptible difference.
If you compared the Toslink to the USB interface though, my guess is that with the same source (MacBook Pro and Audirvana) you might hear some different results.
When you talk about your understanding, I assume that is based on your understanding of the electronics involved. There is clearly sonic differences between different streamers (I have both blue sound and lumin). The question becomes the quality of the overall system and what you are looking for. The blue sound is perfectly fine where we use it to fire up a loud 4/4 beat in our workout room. But it would be sub-par in our main listening rooms where critical listening matters
How the data got from source/cloud/drives/whatever via streamer to the output is somewhat moot. All streamers are going to deliver bit-perfect digital audio output.
With respect to your knowledge of TCP/UDP, I offer the following consideration.
I'd suggest delving a bit more into computational theory and architecture before making this claim. I.E., "the network is the computer" and processes within the computer are analogous to/similar to the OSI layer system used to deploy WANs/LANs.
I've mentioned it before but people seem to think there is no difference between the content of the data from a server.
If this were true then why do companies like Kaleidescape write proprietary file systems to store specific types of data (movies and music) on their servers?
Further, why do we have different file formats for audio in the first place? If it's all just 1's and 0's shouldn't everyone be using the same exact file type, conversation done, over?
To break this down a bit more, consider what I mentioned about Spotify.
If I happened to be an insider beta tester for lossless FLAC streaming (I'm not but I've heard rumors of those who are) from Spotify, the App I would be using would include the necessary code to tell the server that the client API was authorized to receive a FLAC encoded file.
A "normal" Spotify use requesting the same exact file from the same server on the same exact network would receive a 320kbps OGG file because the FLAC files are being transcoded before they leave, for use within the "normal" Spotify API.
In other words, not only can the server API and subsequent processes change the data through encoding/encapsulation/delivery on a particular bus, but the client API and how it is integrated with the server can also affect the data, while still remaining "bit-perfect".
In either case, if I sent the signal to a DAC, the signal is arriving bit-perfect.
Bit-perfect does not preclude that something has not happened to the data further up the chain. It's a misconception amongst digital audio "experts".
I can prove this on a smaller scale. I could set up two identical network streamers (I'll use UPnP) on the same exact network. I can configure a NAS device with multiple LAN ports to operate on two different VLANs with two different IP addresses. I can assign each UPnP network streamer to it's own VLAN.
I can then configure the UPnP/DLNA server software on the NAS with a huge file library of FLAC files, and tell the software to send native FLAC over one LAN while transcoding the FLAC to MP3 or OGG over the second VLAN.
If you tested both UPnP streamers with a DAC that can indicate "bit-perfect" output, they would both show as bit perfect after the streamer performs the necessary decode of the encapsulated file.
It's this encode/decode process which seems to befuddle audio guys from realizing that yes, the file data can indeed (and sometimes is) be altered by the server/client in many more ways than one.
The rest of your post is otherwise spot on, I'd just encourage people who really want to enjoy their music at a higher level to keep an open mind with respect to some of this stuff and realize that yea, better hardware and software can provide better results in the right circumstances.
Well said. Spot on! Good things happen to those who try.
I'd just encourage people who really want to enjoy their music at a higher level to keep an open mind with respect to some of this stuff and realize that yea, better hardware and software can provide better results in the right circumstances.
A.You are talking about something different - upstream services/clients *intentionally* pulling a different resolution or transcoding/decoding to a different format/resolution/shaping/whatever. Of course the data output from those processes will be different. I think most of us know this. What I was talking about was that any streamer set to a baseline setting of not modifying a file and simply sending that data to its output, is usually referred to as “bit-perfect” output and will have identical 1’s and 0’s with the same source file/stream. Bit-perfect implies that the source data has not had a single bit modified. If you can’t compare two streamers in this same apples-to-apples way then it’s pointless.
2. With all due respect the file format stuff makes no sense. Of course a lossless FLAC and a lossy MP3 file will be different and thus sound different. And different file types exist because they serve different purposes - compression formats like FLAC exist to save space at the expense of encoding/decoding time. Most compression formats allow one to specify the level of compression. Even a zip file can compress the same original file at different levels - the result is that the compressed file will be different. But once uncompressed they will again be identical. Another aspects of different file formats are security and recovery. Regardless I assumed that this was a given to the discussion. I will guarantee you that any given source file that is compressed with any LOSSLESS format like FLAC or ALAC will result in an identical bit-perfect output from 2 streamers if they have no additional settings to modify said file/stream. (A stream and a file basically the same thing to an application reading them btw - they are usually wrapped in buffers and the underlying process deals with pulling the bytes off of disk or off an http stream respectively).
As for proprietary storage formats like Kaleidoscope, they do this to optimize the performance of and add features relevant to their domain. But the same source file will be bit-perfect identical when read off a Kaleidoscope disk or a ZFS disk array or raided windows NTFS or whatever. Unless they are intentionally modifying the data, which includes lossy compression like MP3 or JPEG or MP4.
I wondered how long it would take to see through the apples to oranges comparison. At any rate take the apple 320kb Mp3 and orange FLAC through identical streamers to identical amps and speakers and I wonder how many could tell the apple from the orange without knowing which was which of course.
@thyname Better yet, a 100 grams of apples and 100 grams of blueberries both have the same amount of carbs (12g) - hence they "measure" the same. Should they taste the same? ;-) As Nelson Pass likes to say..."we just aren't measuring the right things."
a) yes streamers can sound different but it’s only because they do a better/worse job of jitter and/or noise reduction. If they are intentionally coloring/modifying or unintentionally maligning the day itself then they are should be excluded from all consideration. (Amarra software used to monkey with the source data that some seemed to like).
b) and thus more directly to the OP’s question - there are much more effective and cheaper ways to deal with these issues than trying to do it all in a single highly overpriced box, which generally don’t do it very well anyways. And gain a lot of flexibility to boot.
You seem to think that your MCSE level or similar networking experience renders other people not knowledgeable however, your posts are nothing but deflections of the fact that bit perfect non transcoded delivery is child's play if what is desired.
I think my M.A.Sc. (EE) and a few years of PhD before I decided I liked making money, not to mention sitting on the original AES67 technical committee gives me the skills and background to understand the issues quite well though I would rather pull off my finger nails than sit on a committee like that again.
When someone starts questioning others’ credentials, and worse, starts throwing theirs around, it usually means they can’t win the argument on substance alone.
Yeah... our friend audio2design has big ego-boner. But we already knew that since he was posting under those now banned handles, AtDavid, Dannad, Roberttdid, and more
You mean like when someone makes a statement like this arafiq, using fancy sounding terms like "computational theory" which is totally meaningless within the framework of delivering a bit perfect data stream? .
It sounds impressive if you want to reinforce a bias.
I'd suggest delving a bit more into computational theory and
architecture before making this claim. I.E., "the network is the
computer" and processes within the computer are analogous to/similar to
the OSI layer system used to deploy WANs/LANs.
Of course when you then start going on about transcoding which is a cmpletely different discussion from bit perfect delivery ..... We already recognize more likely and mundane issues such as O/S transcoding for data rates which need to be addressed with the right software choices to ensure bit perfect delivery of the uncompressed audio data file to the DAC, which for all the flowery words presented is still child's play.
Thank you for your streamer journey. Many of us do not have the ability to compare audio products in the real world because of a lack of available local sources. Hearing from someone such as yourself, and not a professional reviewer, carries more weight with me. I enjoyed reading your response.
This has been enlightening. I am software guy but new to audio. Have learnt a lot on this thread and special thanks to @nquery for great explanation and which makes complete sense to me.
The point of a high end streamer is simple: Power supply, parts quality and build quality. This simple formula can be applied to all things in audio. In general, these 3 simple things equal improved sound quality. How much of an improvement is relative. The only way to tell is to purchase a few units under the retailers exchange policy and audition them and judge for yourself. Of course the retailer will not like you if you create open box merchandise but active listening in your environment is the only way to tell. Since you are streaming from an iPad, any airplay device will work fine. The most cost effective is a used last generation airport express using a special optical cable with a 3.5mm connection on 1 end. This output is supposed to be bit perfect to 44.1 and it supports gapless playback. With the optical connection the sound will be good. If memory serves me, Stereophile had the APE in its list of recommended components. The drawback with airplay and the APE express is that you are limited to 44.1 . If you want to do Hi Rez streaming then you would need to look into a better streamer. I used the APE for years on 2 systems with excellent and reliable results: I did upgrade both units with Marantz & Pioneer Elite streamers & there was improved performance with Airplay and they both support Hi rez. If you can hardwire to avoid wi-fi, you will get even better sound.
A very wise man named John Darko is fond of saying, “If you haven’t heard it, you really don’t know.” If you accept that truism, you can discount about half of what you read on audio forums. Listening to people rant about things they’ve never actually experienced themselves really is the definition of a fool’s errand.
Now, if you buy the idea that ONLY people who have actually heard the audio equipment in question can possibly know what they’re talking about, then you’re faced with the following questions: Are these people are telling the truth about what they have experienced? Or are they merely trying to sell you something? It’s pretty hard to answer those questions definitively.
So, if you can’t bring yourself to trust any humans, regardless of track record, you might think you can trust “scientific fact.” IF you think that scientific data, by itself, will help you definitively answer the question “What does this equipment sound like?” Then you will be forever disappointed and unhappy. Find another hobby.
The ultimate solution is to put your big boy (or girl) pants on, quit trying to cheat the scientific method, and pay the nominal shipping fees for an in-home audition so that you can hear the product in question with your own ears.
If it makes you smile and want to kiss strangers, the product bloody well works! If you can’t tell whether it works, return the product and consider it a lesson learned. And if you can’t even trust your own ears, audio will drive you and those around you crazy. Do everyone a favor and, for the love of God, find another hobby!
In conclusion, listening to music produced by great audio equipment should make you wildly happy. If it does that, whatever gear you’re using IS FANTASTIC. If your music playback doesn’t regularly thrill you, the whole endeavor is pointless....no matter what anyone says and no matter what the measurements reveal.
The joy of music is all that matters and anyone who claims to know what that’s worth for anyone else, isn’t having nearly enough fun.
Streamers seem to sound different but that doesn't mean that you need to spend a fortune. To my ears, both the Raspberry Pi and Nvidia Shield sound a lot better than USB out of either a PC or Mac and, by a smaller margin, better than SPDIF out of a Squeezebox Touch.
Interesting Audio b 2 design as a dealer wjo routinely purchases and tests these producrscts we many times agree with mr darko who is a very respected reviewer
We have a lot of experrience this area we sell or have sold most of the major streaming brands and rhere are very audible differences betwen these devices
We started with pcs running j river tried modified Mac minis an sotm server eith a custom linearbpowet supply quesonix, a Lauder technik memory player, auralic, innous zenith and statement a baetis reference now 432Evo master aeon and standard lumin and bluesound
Every device affected the sound
Dave and troy Audio intellect Nj Streaming specalists
I'd like to share my experience with different streamers and it's just my personal experience. I think everything starts with the source of the signal. If the signal quality of the music that you're streaming is more than the streamer or DAC can process than it's unlikely you'll experience the differences. I went through the following set up and I'll rank them in ascending order in term of audible quality personally. 1. Pendora => Oppo => PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC (via coax) 2. Tidal hifi =>
Oppo => PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC (via coax)
3. Tidal hifi => PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC (via bridge)
4. CD =>
Oppo => PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC (via coax)
5. Tidal Master =>
Oppo => PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC (via coax)
6. CD => PS DSD Transport => PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC (via coax) 7.
Tidal Master => PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC (via bridge)
8. CD => PS DSD Transport => PS Audio DSD DAC (via coax)
9.
Tidal Master => PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC (via bridge)
My elementary understanding from reading is that the entire chain of signal from your source of music to the speakers needs to be as lossless as possible. The sampling rate (khz) and the signal package size (bits) needs to be delivered to the DAC as clean and without any truncation as much as possible. For example, some of the songs from TIDAL master is up to 24bits but if my DAC can only process 16bit then theoretically, there's some resolution loss along the path. Same with streamer, if the package arrived to the streamer via the internet at 32 bits package and the streamer can only process 16bits. This is where up-sampling comes to place to extract as much information as possible in some DACs. This is also why CD signals at 16 bits are the best that you can extract from any transport and why SACD or DSD are capable of more details and quality. If you are feeding a top of the line DAC that is capable processing 32 bit of information like the Lumin X1 streamer with source from 16 bits music or even lower, you're limited by the neither the DAC or streamer but the source. On the other hand, if you're streaming DSD content to a streamer that is capable of only 16 bits processing or your DAC can only process 16 bit signal then that's the best you're probably get. The rule of garbage in = garbage out is applicable in every step of the food chain from the source => streamer => DAC => Pre-amp => Amp => Speaker.
lemonhaze94 posts12-27-2020 9:40am@ironlung, you are fighting an uphill battle trying to reason with audio2design and his ilk, but full marks for effort.
You mean knowledgeable and not susceptible to flowery but technically in context meaningless words.
John Darko wise? ..... Okay. Embarrassing? Yes. Technically illiterate? Yes. Prone to delusion? Probably. Makes things up? Definitely._———
———- Wow. Ego-boner meter is off charts.
Please point me to your own site, or blog. I will be glad to visit. Although I am pretty sure it does not exist, other than from the bots at the Troll Factory in St.Petersburg
I’ve been reading this post with great interest since I’m in the market for a streamer/dac combination. One issue that was not mentioned at all in this discussion was room correction. I’ve read and have verified in my own system that room correction can play a major role in enhancing the overall quality of the sound produced by the system. I have only found a handful of streamer/dac systems that can perform room correction on their own. One example is the minidsp shd. Wouldn’t room correction play perhaps a more important role than increasing a few dbs in SINAD beyond a certain level?
Not sure you were trying to insult me here, but when Mark Twain wrote this, he was not talking about people like me, but about people convinced about things like the the earth being flat, or the virus is a hoax, or that fuses make a dramatic difference in sound, or that masks can't provide any protection, or power cables need burn in. He was not talking about people who actually know what they are talking about, he was talking about people, absent any real knowledge on a topic, convincing themselves of the superiority of their views. Not their knowledge, their views.
Pretty much always, but room correction generally only corrects total energy, and some timing with good bass management, but cannot account for things like strong reflections, non symmetry, etc. It's best to use acoustic treatments and placement of speaker and listeners to start, and use room treatment to tweak.
Wouldn’t room correction play perhaps a more important role than increasing a few dbs in SINAD beyond a certain level?
I would insult you back @Thyname, but you seem like a sad, lonely person, and since this is the holidays, I figure you have enough to deal with already.
I already pointed to one thing, I was on the committee for the original AES67 (2013), something that John Darko will not and could not be part of. I don't blog, I publish peer reviewed papers, and odds are, you have listened to music that was made better because I was involved some aspect of making the equipment perform to its best, studio equipment I have developed, plug ins, or helping the odd artist get just the sound he wanted. I don't need your approval, but it makes me smile to know I influenced the one thing in life that brings you happiness, music, while John Darko, realistically, has just made you chase meaningless impossible fantasies while lining his pockets while providing you no additional joy. And yet it is me you insult. That makes me smile .... and laugh.
No insult intended. Just offering some wisdom that was not my own. Twain was warning people to be wary of certitude. Ignorance, which plagues me and the rest of the world, is not nearly as dangerous as being certain about something that turns out to be untrue. Scientists are just as vulnerable to this trap as “flat earthers.” Many scientific discoveries remained elusive because some scientists claimed those discoveries were “impossible.” The more someone is certain they are right, the more skeptical I become of his/her position. But that’s just me. Similarly, I am skeptical of people casting aspersions on other people’s character when they don’t personally know the person they’re disparaging. Do you know Mr. Darko? Maybe you don’t know whether he’s “technically illiterate.” Are you certain?
Hey AtDavid, or whatever you call yourself now, Audio2Design: As I said, your Ego-Boner meter is off the charts.
Darko is a real person, with real name, and face, for all to see. Question is: who are you? Other than a pathetic lonely low life import from troll factory, constantly posting under numerous fake usernames in Audiogon, I fail to see your credentials. I might as well proclaim I am the Pope here. It wouldn’t be better than who you say you are. Isn’t it time for the cat to come out?
I don't have to know Mr Darko personally to know that the claims he makes and the things he says are factually wrong and that they reveal that he is technically illiterate on many of the things he claims to be somewhat of an expert on.
I think if you read my post I tend to be a little more balanced than many. I have spent most of my life working to ensure that people subjectively prefer the audio that I have been involved in. I'm not just speaking from a standpoint of uninformed belief I've been involved at an academic practical and research level on audio most of my life. I've spent a lot of time trying to understand what people prefer subjectively. I also have very healthy technical skepticism that skepticism was not formed purely by my technical knowledge but by practical tests far too often usually with someone ending up surprised that they were fooled by no one else but themselves. Just remember that so many of these claims never survive controlled testing and the only measurement that's used is someone's ears and brain. It's not measurement and technology that tells me these things don't make a difference it's actual listening experience not just mine but of the many people I've put through it. Hey even I have convinced myself of a difference only to have a colleague make me look stupid.
Still smiling and laughing thyname, I've positively influenced your music, all Darko has done is influence the lightness of your pocketbook and made you envious.
Gone, there is an assumption in you suggestion that if measurements are the same the sound will be the same. I think it has been pretty well established that hardware with the same specs will usually still sound different. In fact, sometimes equipment with really good measurements has poor sound. I have both a hi-end streamer and Bluesound. In doing an A/B comparison, the Moon steamer produces better sound.
You never answer any questions, do you? Like again, who are you? We hear about your ego-boner credentials, but again people with such “credentials” wouldn’t normally post non-stop in Audiogon, even after being banned at least four times I know of. Over and over with yet again new usernames. How many email addresses did you have to create for that purpose?
And you never said what you actually own. I asked you that many times, never answered. Not even a word, not even which speakers. Now... prove it that you are not those people, and list your equipment.
You seem to always only tell people NOT to own, never seem to “teach” what to actually own.
If someone calls someone “technically illiterate” a person would be well within their rights to ask that you provide a quoted or video captured example that somehow proves or supports the claim of illiteracy. If that proof is not provided, I discount the assertion. Is that not the scientific way? Is that not how we would all want to be treated? Just one link to an example of what you call Mr. Darko’s technical illiteracy. Should only take a minute. Please. Expose him with evidence.
LOL!! Again, no answer. Just stupid attacks that either a child, or a mentally sick person, would do. You try to find some happiness in your miserable life. Over 500 posts in less than two months you joined with this fake account. Over 10,000 posts is one year once you add the other banned usernames. And THAT my friend is a miserable life.
This article was written in 2014, long after asynchronous USB was dominant for DACs and jitter on USB became meaningless, not to mention bit errors are extremely low.
Then comes the argument that the DAC will resolve all data
arrival-timing errors by first buffering them and then re-clocking them
before sending them onto the decoder chip. That’s a nice idea in theory
but experience tells us otherwise.
I have a hard time finding even one blind Darko test which calls into question everything he says.
his article was written in 2014, long after asynchronous USB was dominant for DACs and jitter on USB became meaningless, not to mention bit errors are extremely low.
Then comes the argument that the DAC will resolve all data arrival-timing errors by first buffering them and then re-clocking them before sending them onto the decoder chip. That’s a nice idea in theory but experience tells us otherwise.
I have a hard time finding even one blind Darko test which calls into question everything he says.
Please explain why this article demonstrates “technical illiteracy”. And I don’t understand the last sentence in your post. Humor me and clarify, please.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
