Stream Quality

Based on my testing, my upsampling audio from 16/44.1 kHz to 24/192 kHz in Audirvana (also tried DSD) DID not produce a noticeable difference for me either. This is probably because upsampling doesn’t add new information; it interpolates data points based on the original signal. The perceived improvement depends on your DAC, playback system, and personal hearing sensitivity.

Some DACs handle higher sample rates better, but others may perform optimally with native rates. Upsampling to integer multiples (e.g., 44.1 to 176.4 kHz) is often recommended for better results.

Ultimately, I suggest trust your ears and experiment with settings to find what works best for you. It is the synergy between all components that make a system sound good and especially the room.

Why are you tilting at windmills? 95% of the very experienced people here use dedicated streamers, not computers. Why do you think that is? I started streaming with my iPad and thought it sounded fine until I added a streamer and realized the iPad absolutely sucked as a streaming source. My advice is to stop overcomplicating and overthinking this and just get a good streamer and be done with it. Best of luck.

+1, I also suggest you used a streamer and not a computer for your music streaming, etc.

My Infigo Audio IS-1 Signature streamer replaced my MAC Book Pro laptop dedicated for music streaming only. The Infigo Audio IS-1 streamer has substantially improved my sound quality.

I immediately noticed my system sounds much better. The music is clearer, bass is more powerful, and imaging has improved. I use the Audiovana remote on my iPad to control Audiovana.

See Infigo Audio streamer link

The Infigo Audio IS-1 Signature employs Intel’s best Quad Core CPU with one core fully dedicated to music processing. This music core runs at a moderately high fixed rate while the other 3 cores vary in speed depending on needs. Intel primarily designed this as a state-of-the-art CPU with maximum speed and power for mobile devices. Infigo chose this CPU for its speed, power and low-current draw, allowing the use of a mandatory linear power supply to meet performance goals.

@navyachts, 

FYI: The Infigo Audio IS-1 Streamer uses a “Fiber optic isolation that in this case improves audio quality by eliminating network noise and jitter. This separation between the ‘dirty’ network and the clean audio chain ensures that RF and EMI interference, as well as high-impedance leakage currents from network devices, do not degrade the audio signal. As a result, digital music reproduction is cleaner, quieter, and more transparent, providing a more natural and lifelike sound experience”.

It also incorporates ultra-low jitter re-clocking of network audio packets, reducing the need for specialized network equipment. The device supports multiple modes of operation, including Audirvana, uPnP, Roon, and HQPlayer, making it compatible with most music players.

@navyachts

simple answer is computer into dac via usb is inferior to using the DAC network renderer. And this applies to Bricasti 100%.
Best option - streamer into DAC. Second best is use network renderer. Computers are not built to be streamers.

I know you sold your Aurender N200 so your next best is roon over network. I don’t want to poop on your parade but I think you’re back on a streaming merry-go-round now that the Aurender is gone

A dedicated streamer will outperform, and if a good streamer by a huge margin anything with a PC as the streamer. 

I gotta ask, what in the world made you sell your N200?

@soix 

Good question. Maybe just buy one back.

I connected my PC to my Cyrus i7XR and also have a Vault 2i connected.   There is no comparison when both are streaming Qobuz.  Just the fan noise of the PC is an absolute turn off.  

In my main rig I have a N200.   It's fantastic.  I also have to ask why you let it go. 

As to this part of the question…

I was also playing around with Audirvana and changing the upsampling rate from 16/44.1 kHz to 24/192 kHz (which is really getting fancy for me!) but I couldn't hear much difference, should I?
 

Sometimes the 24/192 is a completely different mix. Sometimes the difference isn’t that audible. But in general you should be able to hear the difference. 24/192 is usually at least as good as the cd rip in my system with my streaming setup. 

Why do you think that someone that used a PC for a decade and then found much improved musical enjoyment with dedicated players for the following decade is full of baloney?  My PC has USB, coax and toslink outputs. They all sound inferior.

Live with it.

My SQ upgrade path over the years is the proof to the following equation, at least to my ears:

SQ:  PC < PC + Audirvāna < DAC network renderer < Dedicated streamer.  My strong recommendation is to go back to a  dedicated streamer.  My personal preference is an Aurender. Get a new N200 or a used N20.  But audition competition and let your ears choose.  I find upsampling vs no upsampling less of an important question than design execution.  I have heard streamers with no upsampling sound very good even though most designers are using upsampling technology. Design execution of the digital processing system as a whole (digital conversion + analog output stage) is what is critical.  

Got to use a separate streamer, don’t use USB use I2S if you can huge difference. The streamer interface is all about keeping a simple handshake clean of noice you can actually hear, they use many tricks to move and double noise to keep it out of the audible signal. At 24/192 the engineers are really not using all that bandwidth for listenable audio but to put noise out of audible frequencies and into high frequencies you can’t hear so it can be filtered away. DACs are really important but the same story is true very high sample rates aren’t for listening no one can hear Audio that high they are for hiding noise. All digital circuits filter sound above higher than human hearing or else they would be raving an engine that wouldn’t be turning the wheels.