What is the added value of a streamer over a networked dedicated Computer


Hi

I see lots of sales pitches for streamers as digital sources, and plenty on this site advocating them. I get that they're a purpose-built user interface but, apart from that convenience, including a visual display on the device, (i) do they really deliver better hi-fi sound as a source over a well set up computer dedicated to hi-fibreoriduction (ii) if so, why?

Here's some background to my question(s). I currently use a dedicated Mac Mini with SSD (headlessly) and Audirvana Plus software through a USB DAC. I tend to listen to digital files on external drives (wired connections). Some are high Definition eg Flac, some are aiff ripped from my extensive CD collection. Currently I only tend to use Spotify etc to test if I like music and invest in actual downloads of the music I like.  In day to day use the Mac Mini/Audirvana Plus (virtual) player is controlled using its remote app on an iPad on the same Network. If I wanted I could add high quality online streaming from, eg, Tidal. Whilst that would expand the breadth of music I have immediate access to, it seems to me to add another potential source of interruption/corruption of data flow. The Audirvana software overrides/bypasses detrimental computer audio elements and processes keeping the data path simple and dedicated to hifi audio replay.

So what, sound quality-wise, would a standalone streamer device using NAS or other drive storage and/or online web connection bring to the party? It seems to me it's just a digital device containing effectively the components of a computer with a button (or remote) interface. I understand the old argument that it's dedicated and not doing other things simultaneously and that computers are traditionally electrically noisy environments but I'm currently sceptical that with a dedicated computer, not being used for other purposes, and running a virtual device like Audirvana Plus which effectively switches off internal functions which might compromise sound, this is a real problem. Also it seems that a "dedicated streamer" contains many elements which are effectively computing elements. Note that I have no industry connection or monetary interest from Audirvana or Apple.

128x128napoleoninrags16

Showing 3 responses by ghdprentice

Congratulations!
 

I remember the moment I heard my Aurender N100 for the first time… I couldn’t believe it. Finally, high end audio sound without a turntable. I quickly progressed to the N10 and finally Aurenders flagship, each more impressive than the last. Welcome to the club.

Yes. A high quality stand alone streamer will provide very large sonic improvements. 
 

I experimented for years with PCs and my Mac laptop… running on battery with most software shut down, with files in different places.

 

Then I got my first stand alone streamer: Aurlic Aries g2. That in a couple minutes put an end to my resistance to spending a lot of money on what amounts to a computer that looks like audio equipment. The question was dead. No more computers in my signal train. I then worked systematically from the bottom of the Aurender to the very top… and my system is now sonically the same as my great analog side.

Experience completely shut down any logical arguments in my mind. I have reasons I think for the difference… but the proof is in the sound quality. I now listen to streaming 95% of the time. 

@herman

The timing of the Streamer vs the DAC depends on the connection used. If you use the USB connection, then the DAC retimes the bitstream. If you use the S/PDIF or AES connection then the DAC uses the incoming timing. This is why it is important to try both.

My theory is that you should use the better component’s ability to time. I tried both the AES, S/PDIF, USB from my Aurender W20SE and Audio Research CD9SE DAC and found them all to be really… really similar, with the AES slightly better than the S/PDIF. But, I think it depends on your streamer and DAC.