When I began my audiophile journey I connected my laptop to my dac via usb, using my Maxbook pro as the streamer with Audirvāna. That sounded good to me. Then I got my first streamer, the Sotm sms 200 ultra neo special edition. That was a huge sq upgrade. The I added their usb ultra, another improvement. Then I added a lps to power those units, another improvement. Then I added an I2S ddc to that chain…everything kept making sq improvements. So in my system a streamer made a huge difference. Now I’m building a DIY Taiko Audio Extreme clone, and so far it’s the best I’ve ever heard my music. I still am tweaking this latest server/streamer, but so far I’m very very impressed with it.
why expensive streamers
@soix and others
I am unclear about the effect on sound of streamers (prior to getting to the dac). Audio (even hi-res) has so little information content relative to the mega and giga bit communication and processing speeds (bandwidth, BW) and cheap buffering supported by modern electronics that it seems that any relatively cheap piece of electronics would never lose an audio bit.
Here is why. Because of the huge amount of BW relative to the BW needs of audio, you can send the same audio chunk 100 times and use a bit checking algorithm (they call this "check sum") to make sure just one of these sets is correct. With this approach you would be assured that the correct bits would be transfered. This high accuracy rate would mean perfect audio bit transfer.
What am I missing? Why are people spending 1000's on streamers?
thx
191 responses Add your response
there are two separate camps on this topic lurking here on this forum. One argues that spending a significant amount of $ on a streamer can be a waste of your precious resources, because the science, measurements and their experience tells them that beyond a basic level, there’s no difference in sound. The other camp argues that based on their experience, there are clear differences, and therefore recommend spending upwards of $10k in some situations in order to optimize one’s system. I'm squarely in the first camp. So here’s my view: Putting aside reclocking and oversampling, the only distinctions across streamers have to do with levels of jitter and other sources of noise. These are easily measurable. Anybody who tells you that a more expensive streamer is less noisy while simultaneously claiming that measurements don’t matter is not credible. If your DAC is good at rejecting noise (e.g., filtering, reclocking, etc.), you can assemble your own streamer for as little as $150 and it will sound great ( I’ve done this as an experiment myself). However, if you want something less kludgy than a Raspberry Pi, and you want a streamer that measures and in some situations with some dacs may sound even better than a Pi (and measures and sounds comparable to some of the extremely high $ streamers out there), then there are a bunch of well regarded products that cost between $400 and $1k. They include the iFi Zen, the Volumio Rivo, Holo Red, Pro-Ject Stream Box S2 Ultra, the Primare Np5, and a few others. |
If all the opaque but purportedly game-changing technical differences in capability from increasingly expensive streamer models is so audible, why is streaming not doomed from the get-go since it’s sourced from audio-firestorm data centers? Those places are certainly not set up mechanically or logistically to cater to audiophile concerns as a priority. |
@donavabdear I’m not the OP and didn’t say that if you go back and read the original thread more carefully The rest of your post is an unintelligible run-on sentence about microphones with an absurd conclusion about audiophiles so I’m not even wasting my time responding to it. Maybe take up drinking — it might help. |
thanks @nonoise |
@grislybutter It's not just streamers, but any digital signal that can be potentially degraded. It was from a review of a USB cord that pointed out the importance of proper shielding, keeping out RFI and EMI at all costs. I thought it went along the lines of what blisshifi brought up. All the best, |
@nonoise what does the diagram have to do with streamers? |
May for a question for ghdprentice as he seems to have had a good number of streamers. Q. What price streamer is appropriate for my system? McIntosh MA8900, Luxman SACD, NAIM Uniti Core CD ripper/streamer & Von Schweikert Ref Ed floor standing speakers, w high end interconnects & mains. I’m thinking I need to upgrade to separate DAC too. I don’t mind spending $ and I am curious about what I might be missing based on all I’ve read about DAC & streamers. THX
Dallas TX |
@wokeuptobose I am really just here to learn. I know nothing, especially about streamers and DACs. So far what I learned here is that the streamer delivers a stream of data, like the mailman delivers my mail. I wouldn’t even know if he delivered it with a Bentley or a Fiat. It's about what lands in my mailbox? |
| Post removed |
I am not trying to upset anyone, but the harsh comments from some that say "if I can't hear it or measure it it must not be real" bother me. Those members who cannot hear differences in network componets, cables, and streamers and are concerned about why many/most of us can hear differences and you can't, should have a hearing test. If their hearing is up to par, then begin working on increasing the resolution of your system. The example I can give from my personal experience is when I upgraded from a Naim NAP DR300 to a pair of the (new at the time) Parasound JC1+s. Overall they are extremey powerful and even handed amps that can really control speakers, and to my ears don't do much of anything wrong. My Sasha 2s loved the power especially in the bass. That said, I kept thinking there is more to the music than I was hearing. I changed to a pair of ARC 160m s, and there was another layer of haze removed. I could hear more details, aspects of the recording I wasn't able to hear before. I now run a Gryphon Antileon EVO and Rockport Cygnus. Spending the time and money increasing the resolution of my system allows me to hear details that were masked when I had a less resolving system. This level of resolution is what allows me (and everyone else that has been to my house) to hear differences in the signal and audio chain. |
@siox |
@donavabdear Of course!!! Video parts for better audio! Why doesn’t everyone else know this breakthrough info?!? First, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Second, I never said audio was a “simple signal” so don’t know if you’re day drinkin’ or whatever. Third, what are these prized and superior video “parts” that magically sound better than those designed specifically for audio cause I’d love to know as probably would the audio designers out there who’ve obviously missed the boat here. What’s wrong with them??? It’s so obvious! 🤭🤪🙄 |
@soix |
@jji666 but they can hear the difference. 😊 sometimes I feel audio is like selling water: seller: this is from mountain x, only 100 bottles a day, the purest buyer: this is a plastic box with H2O |
I'm with mikhailark on this one.... most do not understand how packetized networking works. |
If you are streaming from an iPhone make sure you have Audio Quality set to Lossless Audio (Settings-Music-Audio Quality) Not all iPhones have this setting, but my 13 Pro Max does and it makes a huge difference. Also, I’ve found my Bluetooth connection sounds better than my cable connection. See my post: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/any-comments-on-the-slash-3-6-bluetooth-adapter |
I'll certainly echo the importance of clocking in streaming. My rig included a Musica Capella III via I2S and it turned out to be an upgrade from an Auralic streamer using USB. Had a chat with the designer of the Capella and he said that he spent the most time and money on the clocking for the unit and combining that with I2S output. Seeing that my Holo May Dac has two I2S inputs, it turned out to be a match made in heaven. |
@kennyc and @andy2 and a few others have stated it best. The 0’s and 1’s that constitute the bits are actually processed with voltage pulses that are susceptible to not only jitter, but also EMI and RFI. While the introduction of noise will typically not cause playback errors or stuttering, digital signals are incredibly delicate, and any introduced noise will detract in a number of ways:
Addressing noise is a key principle in high end audio, not only in streamers/servers, but in every component (phono stages, preamps, cables, room treatments), etc. With digital, as the signal is notably low in voltage, it takes much less noise to impact at a greater ratio. It takes incredible engineering as a result, via the design of sophisticated linear power supplies, advanced clocking, and isolation of noise from different components through architecture and chassis design to be able to combat the noise and deliver at a fidelity that rises above the typical streaming endpoint. The high cost of a premium streamer/server is also not warranted for many audiophiles as they may not have a system that is able to take advantage of the auditory benefit they may bring. If someone is not hearing the difference between streamers, it is likely that they either do not have a system optimized to deliver a certain level of clarity or are not listening critically enough to care. If you have been wanting to upgrade your streamer but have been disappointed with the results, you should be looking to address weak links in your chain first. The same logic applies to everything even further upstream from the streamer, including routers, switches, Ethernet cables, etc.
|
Component with probably lowest sonic benefits, with ridiculous price ladder. Its basically a low noise ARM based computer with off the shelf components, decent power supply and variant of some Linux OS. Cheap to manufacture, crazy high profit margins. Going from cheap PC to few hundred $ gives small sonic benefits, but then next step is 2-3k$ streamer, where i bet 95$ people wouldn't pass blind A/B test. I tried few cheap and expensive ones, but can't say expensive ones are worth the money, not even close, i would rather invest that in amp, speakers, room treatment. |
You're not missing anything. This coming from a former software engineer with network experience. I think we're at a point where the last gasp of the marketeers is down to clocking (jitter), but as you point out the amount of information is not sufficient to cause a problem as jitter measurements are always way under the human capability to hear them. Marketing is a very powerful tool. |
You go to Munich and visit the $1M rooms for the oligarchs and what do you see for streamers? Mostly Aurender at around $25K, not saying Aurender is the best, I'm just saying $25K is the benchmark ie at that end of the market streamers are seen as important in the chain. Even in the $150K system rooms the streamers are minimum $10K, so yeah manufacturers are telling you when they are demoing their gear, be they speaker or amp manufacturers, that streamers matter. In my system I use the Lumin P1/L2 combo and yes the fiber optic I/O makes for a very easily heard sonic upgrade versus ethernet LAN. Apropos don't let the "makes zero difference" crowd tell you otherwise. |
+1 @herman it a bit fatiguing repeating again and again. Short answer the data rides on an analog stream that’s subject to picking up noise, and minimizing jitter (timing differences) |
OP: What am I missing? Why are people spending 1000's on streamers? Audiophile grade DAC's are all withing everyone's budget. If we all agree that the same digital file entering each DAC is well,,,identical. Then the DAC converts it and sends out its analog interpretation of that digital file. During this conversion, each DAC's colosr and distort the signial in their own way based on the design and opinion of the engineer. The question becomes, do they sound better/worse or just different. Next, do you trust the opinions you get from others without knowing their ability to hear accurately, perfect pitch, and ideal audiophile approved DNA. Add to this each persons equipment and speakers. My rule of thumb is that to spend more that 10% of your system's budget on a DAC's will deprive you of achieving your "ideal system". Enjoy the music!!! |
I just did a thorough search of all the internet audio forums. This is the 2,134,567th thread devoted to this topic. After the 5th one, nothing else has ever been said that wasn't said before. Yet, here we are again. Next time, I suggest doing a search for this topic rather than starting the 2,134,568th thread on the same topic with the same reponses. |
Right the specs can only tell so much. You have to test drive the car to know how it drives.
|
I don't claim to be the world's most sophisticated person (let alone audiophile) when it comes to digital audio and playing music from a cloud-based music service, or a hard drive/server. I do know more than the average person about audio playback systems, acoustics and reverberation time, amplification, cabling etc. |
The streamer is the first point at which timing (jitter) becomes a thing. It's job is to unpack the packets/frames of data which arrive asynchronously and convert them into a bitstream. An highly accurate clock at this point can have a huge impact on sound quality, as of course can the streamer not adding in unnecessary noise which won't make any difference to the 1s and 0s but if it reaches the analog(ue) parts of the DAC then it very much can. I still only have a modest Innuos Zen Mini with a souped up Zen Mk3 LPSU but the improvement in sound quality over my Bluesound Node 2i is clearly audible, and that's despite the latter having been "pimped" with a Sean Jacobs DC3 linear PSU and a Mutec MC-3 reclocker. |
@delmatae - yes, that is the approach used by many DACs (including my Denafrips Terminator Plus), and this helps, but doesn't fully solve the problem. A FIFO buffer can be used to reduce timing errors, but as @andy2 notes, this doesn't really deal with noise issues. And if a synchronous data interface is used (such as SPDIF, I2S, TosLink, or AES), there are challenges with FIFO buffers. In these cases, the source clock is used to clock data into the FIFO. If the DAC uses its own clock to clock data out, then you risk overflow or underflow conditions. Many Denafrips users reported this problem, particularly those using the lower-end models connected to modest-priced streamers and transports (where the clock accuracy of both devices is not as tight as higher-end models). . Many DACs use a phase-locked loop or some other similar mechanism to adjust the output clock frequency to match the input clock, but its significantly more difficult to achieve the timing accuracy with this approach compared to a high quality oscillator. There are ways to reduce the overflow/underflow potential, such as resetting the FIFO between songs (when possible), using very deep buffers, adjusting the buffer depth based on the difference in source clock and DAC clock frequency, and using highly accurate clocks in both the DAC and streamer. Using deep and/or variable depth FIFOs also has issues though, particularly if the DAC output needs to be synchronized with another media stream (such as video). Using an asynchronous data connection, such as USB, allows the DAC to control the timing, which eliminates the overflow/underflow situation, but USB is notorious in the amount of noise that is carried with the signal, particularly if it is generated by a noisy computer or cheap streamer. An optical connection will eliminate noise carried on the ground, but not on the data signals themselves. The optical signal is still an analog signal and will carry whatever noise was on the electrical signal in the source (streamer or transport) before the signal was converted to optical. This noise will still be present when converted back to an electrical signal in the DAC. That said, eliminating the ground noise is still a significant benefit. Some DACs have clock outputs which can be used to control the timing of the source, so that a relatively small FIFO can be used inside the DAC to reclock the data without worry of FIFO over/under flow. But this requires non-standard devices, or an additional digital-to-digital converter that uses an asynchronous source connection (e.g. USB) and a synchronous output that is clocked by the DAC clock. Removing noise on high-speed digital signals is far from trivial. It's a lot easier (but still challenging) to prevent (or at least minimize) the noise from being generated in the first place. Any circuitry implemented in the DAC to reduce noise and timing errors has a much easier time when the problems are minimized in the first place. In my system, I use a Denafrips Gaia DDC which accepts clock inputs from the Terminator Plus DAC. The DDC is fed with USB from the streamer, and then uses a synchronous connection to the DAC (I like I2S best). I started out using a fanless NUC with LPS, then switched to using a Sonore Optical Rendu, and finally to a Sonore Signature Rendu SE. Even with my moderately high-end DAC/DDC, I was able to discern improvements in clarity and soundstage width/depth moving up in streamer performance. I'm now working on building my own DIY streamer which will use multiple levels of data isolation and reclocking, very high quality SC-cut oscillators, super-capacitor power supplies (allowing off-grid operation), and extensive electrical and mechanical isolation, to provide the cleanest possible signal to my DAC. |
I can use either s/pdif, AES/EBU, or USB into the DAC. I could run USB directly from the streamer into the DAC, or I can run the USB from the streamer into the DDC where the signal is reclocked and then from there to the DAC by either s/pdif or AES/EBU. All three sound good with no discernable noise but maybe a slight sonic difference between USB and the other two. Any technical reasons one should be better than the other? |
If I understand correctly, what you have is a s/pdif interface to the DAC - it's not asynchronous USB. So you're still dealing with the data jitter in the spdif interface. Spdif is a synchronous interface so you still have to recover the clock from the data stream. If the data stream has jitter, then the recovered clock also has jitter. Basically the the clock has to move with the data. DCS solves this problem by using what they call "reverse clocking". Basically you have the clock of the DAC clocking the data stream from the transport or streamer. In this case you would have something similar to asynchronous USB clocking.
|
I don't think the FIFO (or what I called a memory buffer) can isolate the noise. I think you may be referring to data jitter - I am talking about ground and power supply noise. The noise from the streamer can inject directly to the ground and power supply of the DAC. I am not sure that the FIFO can fix that. As for data jitter, yes the FIFO can eliminate that if you are using asynchronous USB interface. All you have left is the jitter of the DAC clock itself. |
@andy2 there are many types of memory and storage. I am saying if there is an issue with noise coming through the streamer interace a designer could easily solve the issue. All they need to due is use something called an asynchronous fifo. The sole purpose of this fifo would be to take care of the streamer noise. The buffer memory you mention would be a conmpletely different piece of hardware performing a different function. I sure there are multiple different memory elements in a DAC. |
That is not quite correct. The buffer memory on the DAC is there to ensure there is no underflow - that is the data will always be there. The memory buffer is not intended to isolate the noise. The noise from the streamer can potentially affect the DAC timing. This is true for asynchronous USB. The noise on the ground and supply of the streamer can inject directly to the DAC circuitry. That is why some DAC uses optical isolation which minimize the coupling hence reduce the noise. For S/Pdif it is a little bit different but in this case instead of a streamer, you have the transport noise affecting the DAC.
|
