Lumin now has the streamer section of the X1 in a new product called the U2 I owned the X1 before and the streamer section was great.
A shame Auralic did not add fibre optical network input to this new streamer.
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
Lumin x1 streamer/dac is awesome. I had a separate dac but I found integrating it with a streamer at least in this component was a great idea. It also has an optical connection. And a separate power supply which I think is really nice to have. You can buy a separate streamer but then you gotta spend a lot of time deciding which dac and there are so many choices and so many interconnect issues it's an incredible pain in the ass. So I would check out the Lumin x1 to avoid all the annoying issues related to this area. I am a big proponent of separates otherwise. |
Audiophiles with disposable income can chase after the ultimate gear, seeking the last-mile's diminishing returns. We all know that a $500 streamer doesn't provide twice the sound quality (SQ) of a $250 device, nor does a $1000 streamer sound twice as good as a $500 one, or a $2000 streamer twice as good as a $1000 one, and so on. However, that 5%-10% improvement at each level justifies the craving for many enthusiasts. These incremental improvements are considered crucial for their systems, which are capable of revealing the subtle differences in those upgrades. |
my main point in this whole thread has been that it is very common for many of us to cite “lower noise” to explain differences in sound that we can’t otherwise explain. but there’s this weird cognitive dissonance among many when confronted with actual measurements of noise; they cite marketing materials promising “decreased jitter and noise” and their experience of improved sound, rather than accepting actual evidence and then trying to figure out more plausible explanations for what they’re hearing. by way of example, on another thread a while back, the op was insisting that a new streamer’s noise level had to explain the improvement in sound he was experiencing. when pushed to reveal what his actual A/B experience was, it turned out he preferred a non-oversampling algorithm that deferred to the native sample rate of his new set-up vs. the always oversampled algorithm of his old setup. in other words, he was definitely hearing a difference, he just hadn’t done the right analysis to figure out why. |
Well, there it is. Again. Everyone should buy the Topping because it measures perfectly, and therefore nothing else will sound better. We are all such fools. I feel so ripped off. Guess I’ll sell all my expensive streamer and DAC gear and buy something more practical, like carbon fiber wheels for my car. Oh, and don’t forget to like and subscribe the above video, because you know, this digital expert who has never designed any digital gear in his short life said so. Let me guess, he is very popular in places where people can't think for themselves, like ASR. |
To me, the issue is not whether there’s no jitter, it’s whether there’s a substantial difference in jitter across streamers, how much jitter we’re talking about, and the extent to which different DACs reject jitter from streamers. As I’ve previously indicated, I have found the “lab report” section of HiFi News streamer reviews incredibly insightful. I’ve looked at the results from 10 different streamer reviews over about 4 years; in 5 of them they use a usb connection to a computer as their control scenario vs. the streamer, and then they use up to 3 different DACs with both the computer and the streamer. All 10 of the reviews I’ve pulled feature the Mytek Brooklyn dac, 6 include the iFi Neo iDSD, and 4 include the AQ Dragonfly. Here are some takeaways: 1) The Mytek has low jitter levels itself, and also is very effective at rejecting any streamer-induced jitter; 2) The iFi is a low jitter DAC, but is not nearly as effective at rejecting streamer-induced jitter; and 3) The amount of jitter produced by all 10 of the streamers, priced from £1k to £25k, is very low, and doesn’t vary materially by price. How did I arrive at these conclusions? Here are several snippets of the data: - the single highest jitter number, 550 psec, was with the computer/iFi combo, substantially more than the computer/Dragonfly number (300 psec). - but, when paired with a decent streamer (e.g., the Volumio Riva or Aurender N200), the iFi’s jitter amount was substantially less than the Dragonfly (18 & 9 psec v. 150 & 135 psec, respectively. - the Mytek’s jitter levels were never above 10 psec, whether using the computer or one of the 10 streamers. So while a decent DAC, in this case the iFi, may not be engineered to reject jitter from a streamer, you don’t need to spend much to have a very low-jitter streamer. That’s why a Raspberry Pi can sound so good - many DACs, even moderately priced, do a good job of rejecting jitter from a streamer. But to be safe, you can invest a little more than $150 and get a very low-jitter streamer.
|
I am confused about "no jitter." When I was looking at different DDCs, I came across this review about the Singxer SU-6 model, that I ended up purchasing. The reviewer performed measurements and at that time the SU-6 had the lowest jitter of units they had tested, but there was still jitter. In addition, the reviewer discussed noise and said:
|
We do live in a post-truth world. But you also did not show me factual information of virtually no jitter. You showed me factual information of little jitter - two different things. And, I’ve read scientific studies that show the ear is sensitive to smaller timing effects than you claim. So, I, right or wrongly, can at least wonder if jitter indeed may be an effect. Regardless, I’m completely open to the differences not being jitter - but I also took out the effects on upsampling and processing in my auditions that you believe are those causes. In my initial auditions, I engaged neither. (Full disclosure - I do now use an upsampler and processor to great effect in my system so I acknowledge those potential benefits.) I’ve also given you rationale (but still anecdotal) why I don’t think I’m so easily duped by confirmation bias as I’ve rejected many things upon audition that didn’t provide the performance promised. I don’t part with money so easily. I will close with this. In addition to being in a post-truth world, we are living in a post civilized world where people on forums not only disagree, but do so with verbal hostility, arrogance and superiority. As I don’t believe my responses merited this, so your closing rings particularly hollow. |
If you are genuinely mystified by these these questions you rattle off, why don't you ask the manufacturers for whatever you seek? Why harass users here to obtain the information on your behalf? This isn't a scientific forum. No one here owes you proof of anything. |
I agree to disagree. And I do believe that you are earnest in your beliefs. I guess my frustration is this feeling that we live in a post-truth world. I show you factual evidence of virtually no jitter across a wide range of streamers, but because you want to believe in the jitter fantasy, you insist there is audible jitter, offering. no evidence other than that you hear isomething. A different approach would be: “ok, i guess you’ve shown me it’s probably not jitter. But I hear something. Maybe I need to work out more carefully what it is.”. Regardless, peace be with you. |
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Perhaps it’s not jitter that makes the difference I’m hearing, but, a difference (for the better) exists. And, it’s been a worthwhile pursuit for me and many others. Nevertheless, I would also politely suggest that the notion that jitter is virtually nonexistent in any decent streamer is incorrect. You might argue if it’s audible - but jitter exists and the benefits of better clocks in both streamers and in DACs, or in outboard clocks - is plainly audible. Plainly. The only thing these better clocks are doing is reducing that timing error - jitter. So - we disagree. No harm. My best to you. Moving on. |
Jitter WAS an issue in early digital audio that has been solved. It was primarily an issue with digital recordings where things have to happen in real time. In reproduction, buffering allows the time for error correction. Any serious manufacturer can use off the shelf components to make jitter a non issue. That being said, every piece of electronics will sound different for other reasons. Circuit design, components, quality control, all can make streamers sound different from each other. Whether different is better is an opinion. We all have one. |
I’m astonished that you can point to jitter at the same time that it’s been demonstrated that jitter is virtually nonexistent in any decent streamer. How can it be that these manufacturers have discovered a secret in removing jitter, noise (and fairy dust?) without showing us how to measure this new, exciting branch of science? Why don’t you ask them to prove it? Why don’t they volunteer this information that would prove their brilliance? It’s all mystifying to me. |
you have tube gear, what does your science say about the sound profiles in different tubes? Care to show us some microphonic measurements? |
I didn’t attribute the difference to noise. I suggested that noise may be part of the equation. A subtle, but important difference. I did, however, suggest that the difference may be due to the rise and slope of the analogue waveform representing the 1s and 0s. A “bit perfect” file may be interpreted differently because of these minute variations. Accordingly, I am skeptical of claims of certain DACs to be “immune” to jitter when the benefits of improved clocking are plainly audible. It turns out the ear is astonishingly sensitive to jitter distortions. Again, the benefits of femto second clocks are well known - and the results plainly audible to even not well trained ears. I would modify your metaphor thusly. Put poor quality fuel into any engine - regardless of the quality thereof, and see if it performs to spec. You believe what you believe - and have provided some anecdotal evidence to support your claim - which I fully accept. I and some others believe differently and have provided anecdotal evidence to support our belief as well. I would offer this. We’re still early in streaming relative to high performance audio history. We don’t currently know everything. It was originally postulated that CDs would provide “perfect sound forever” and that, because it was digital, all CD players (and transports particularly) would sound the same. That has been shown to be false, though perhaps still disputed by some who fail to do the work. Perhaps as an experiment you could try different inputs into your DAC. Try S/PDIF vs USB. Try different cable companies. They are all providing the same bit perfect stream, yet each will sound different. Those differences are measurable, though not necessarily quantifiable. They may not be massive differences, but they exist. This is because digital data is transmitted in an analogue wave form and cable geometry influences that transmission and introduces jitter. If you struggle with this test - then let’s exaggerate it. Try an analogue RCA cable in lieu of a 75 ohm digital cable for your S/PDIF connection. It will likely sound thin and cast a steely glare over everything, all while transmitting a bit perfect file. Jitter. Further, noise may not be primary, but it is an issue. All cables are antennas of some sort - both transmitter and receiver. Some are better insulated against this, but all are antennas of some sort. Computers tend to be noisy w/ EMF and RFI emissions from cheap power supplies and lots of other operating components not specific to audio. That’s why dedicated streamers with more attention placed on power supplies, etc. tend to outperform even high end computers. For instance, I had a souped up Mac mini dedicated as a streamer/server. 16 GB ram, solid state drives and everything not related to my music library turned off. That was its only function. It was handily outperformed by a modest streamer. Call me a fool or deluded if you wish. I wouldn’t go back to it. |
Like others, I cannot explain why you didn’t perceive differences. I already know you can explain why i do - you believe it confirmation bias. I have explored that in depth as I’m quite aware of that tendency in my own line of work so I try pretty hard to not fall into that trap and so I don’t think that is what’s happening. For instance, I’ve listened to a lot of quite pricey gear (amps, DACs, cables) in home which I’ve returned because even if I could perceive a difference - it wasn’t enough to merit opening my wallet. I’ve spent only when I felt it merited it. I took my streamer (some would say high end - others mid range at >$5k) to my local dealer (who’s now looking to consider the brand). I first auditioned his Simaudio 680 DAC using their built in Mind2 module. Then we played the same track sourced from my streamer (via USB input on the DAC). He was surprised at how much better it was than the onboard module. I was actually hoping to sell my unit and reduce boxes. My bias (strong) was to favor the 680 as DAC w/ streamer. I came away disappointed and kept my streamer and went another direction w/ the DAC. Yes, bits are bits. The data arrives fully intact. I will not dispute that. But the data is delivered in an analogue wave form with a slope to the rise and fall which affect when those 1 and 0s are registered (jitter). And, noise (not hiss) is carried along for the ride - affecting the same. Are differences night and day? Some would say yes. I would say no. But, for those of us pursuing higher performance, they were perceptible - and valuable. I perceive more spatial information (openness and depth as opposed to a flat soundstage). Tonally they are essentially the same. But, depth is significantly better w/ the better streamers. By the way, I had also auditioned the Bluesound Node 2i and Lumin mini streamers going into the Marantz reference player/DAC. I heard very little difference between those two unit against each other, and only minor differences between them and the Aurender N100H I owned at the time. Things have progressed since then and I’m comfortable w/ where I’ve spent - and not. I suspect others feel the same. Perhaps you should ask one of the better companies out there to explain why there are differences. You might come away confident in your current position. Or, you might begin to wonder if you’re missing something. Let us know what you find.
|
The only Bluesound product I have is their Powernode, which drives my outdoor speakers on the deck; I’m using the internal DAC cuz it’s obviously about as far as you can get from a critical listening environment. The Aurenders I’ve heard, because they’re ubiquitous these days, are all in dealer or show conditions, and have never been in A/B situations. My A/B experience is among my current crop of streamers, which include a Raspberry Pi, an iFi Zen, a Pro-Ject Streambox S2 Ultra, and the streamer portion of my Gold Note DS10. My experience is consistent with what the data and theory tell me, which is that I hear no difference between a $150 streamer and a $1000 streamer, with my DACs. At the high end, I spent an afternoon with a friend at a dealer comparing an Innuos Pulsar ($8000) to the streaming portion of a Simaudio 280D streaming dac ($3900), with a DCS dac. No difference. (This experiment was for my friend’s benefit, as he wanted to get comfortable with replacing his DCS with one of the new Simaudio North products - he chose the top of the line 891 - $25k!!) All of this is consistent with the lab measurements that paul miller at hifi news has been doing on streamers. I’ve put together a spreadsheet (sorry, I’m a recently retired finance guy) summarizing his results for a bunch of products, including Volumio Rivo (£1k), Aurender N200 (£7k), Melco N20 (£7k), Grimm MU1 (£10k), Aurender N30SA (£24k), and an Antipodes Oladra (£25k). He compared the SNR and jitter results from these streamers in conjunction with 3 different DACs - AQ Dragonfly, iFi Neo iDSD, and a Mytek Brooklyn (i.e., from really cheap to moderate price, but nothing expensive). His findings? Jitter measurements for the $200 Dragonfly ranged from 105 psec to 150 psec, with the highest number coming from the Aurender N200. Fear not though. Remember, a psec = 1/1000 nsec, and the general rule is that we can’t detect jitter unless it’s about 30 nsec, which is 30,000 psec! What about the iFi and the Mytek? Even better jitter rejection, with ranges of 9-18 psec and 5-10 psec, respectively. And the results on SNR tests were similar. There, the only material noise issue was with the Dragonfly. In summary, the science, my experience, and actual measurements tell me the same thing. A competent streamer should not be a source of audible noise; I am convinced that any differences we hear are either due to differences in signal processing (e.g., reclocking, up sampling, etc.), our DACs, or, yes, confirmation bias. I also believe that most of the niche companies in the streamer space like to bundle their products - server, streamer, dac - because then it’s awfully difficult to pinpoint where that great sound you’re hearing is coming from. I hope this is helpful. I’d be happy to give a better, more comprehensive summary of the hifi news methodology, but in the interest of brevity (lol!!)….
|
@mdalton I understand what you are saying. I don’t have all the answers. My bias was that the N150 would sound the same for all the reasons expressed and that was my technical opinion as well. Beyond that I did not want to spend the extra money for the N150. I liked my node and its software. In spite of that, it sounded better. If it is the different processing that occurs, that processing is part of the product that sounds better so I am keeping the one that sounds better. Maybe I could have bought a $2000 streamer that sounded just as good, but you would still say I got fleeced. Not sure where to draw the line between a fair price and fleecing. I think the Wiim can be had for $100. The extra cost also goes to product reliability, personal support services, software updates, and additional features. I find these aspects valuable. I wish there was more technical research on this topic because streamers sound different and if we knew why, then that knowledge might lead to other improvements. What has been your experience when comparing streamers like the Node to something in the Aurender lineup? |
I too appreciate the wife-was-stunned-by-the-diff factor. But if it’s after a spouse was known to be fidgeting with kit, that’s just another likely expression of bias. Clever Hans was an instructive fellow. No one seems to have an answer as to why data centers aren’t meaningful sources of perceptible signal degradation for music streaming services. Are all data centers imagined to be of equivalent quality and capability in a world where one streamer company can engineer several tiered devices that make sound remarkably different on the other end of the chain, based on whatever departs any given data center worldwide?
|
Not sure what your dac is, but any differences you hear may have to do with different processing. The N150 definitely reclocks, for example. In addition, if the n150 is upsampling, but the Node isn’t, you’ll definitely hear a difference. May not matter to you, since you like it better, but for purposes of lessons learned, it’s important to filter out (pun intended) any differences in processing going on. |
yes, it’s the combined system, precisely. We don’t care what a streamer sounds like without a dac or source, because it has no sound. So if you say it adds noise to the system - i.e., it conveys noise that manifests thru the dac that can be heard - then you have to test it in the context of the system. There is no alternative. And that’s what the tests I’ve seen do. The results of those tests demonstrate that noise from a streamer can carry thru to the dac, in certain cases, but even in those, it is a question as to whether any marginal increase in noise from a streamer was audible, relative to the noise that was coming from the dac. In most cases that I’ve seen, with any decent streamer and dac, there is virtually no additional noise that comes from the streamer. Candidly, I find extraordinary the reluctance on the part of so many sophisticated audiophiles to follow this basic level of logic and analysis when contemplating spending thousands of dollars on what is really just an accessory (again, putting advanced processing like dsp, reclocking, and upsampling aside). And as a result of this reluctance, a number of firms have dived into this niche market and, imho, are fleecing their customers. Don’t get me wrong: their stuff can be beautiful and well-engineered, but without significant sonic benefit. The only reason anybody should spend alot of $ on these niche players is if they think the UI is worth it (again, imho). But I’m a Roon guy, so spending another dollar for somebody else’s UI is akin to pouring that dollar down the drain. |
I am curious at what point a typical digital signal is subject to being processed, changed, or influenced by noise as it travels from a streaming service via modem/router through to the DAC? How about in the case of the following digital streaming set-up:
Obviously the DAC converts the digital signal from digital to analog but which of the other preceding steps has a significant impact on the digital signal? |
@delmatae I felt the same as you give my technical background. Same exact data should be delivered to the DAC. I went from a Node to an N150 and it was easily noticeable and an improvement. Wife picked out in blind tests. I kept the N150. My expectations that it would be the same sound were wrong. It is true that you have to have a system resolving enough to present the differences and sufficient hearing to detect it - but I did and I don’t have golden ears. Based on what I know, it is my opinion that it reduces noise introduced into the DAC, perhaps due to the linear power supply or other factors. Again, small noise on a digital signal should not matter - but the improvement in sound is typical of what I have experienced with less electrical noise in the chain. I spent about 5% of my system cost on my streamer. I bought Aurender because my buddy goes to the audio shows and said he mostly sees Aurender’s being used. I figured those guys know best. |
@mdalton - I agree that it would be possible to measure differences between streamers in a test environment that includes a known source and known DAC. But this isn’t really measuring the streamer - it’s measuring the combined system. This could still be useful, but I’m not sure how relevant the information would be for other sources and other DACs. Still, I’d love to see someone do this kind of testing. But I think for this to be broadly meaningful, a variety of sources (and source content) and a variety of DACs would need to be used, and then a concerted effort made to correlate the resulting measurements with the way the combination sounds. All possible, of course, but probably not very practical. @carlsbad2 - I assume you are talking about data errors between the streamer and the DAC. As other’s have mentioned, the data from the streaming servers (whether across the internet from the likes of Qobuz or from a local server) is transferred to the streamer using the TCP/IP protocol which will fix any data errors. If the connection is so flawed that this is not possible, the music will skip or stop playing. No streamer that I am aware of will attempt to fix network data errors. It is possible to have data errors internal to the streamer or between the streamer and the DAC since these signals (I2S, AES, SPDIF, Toslink) do not include any error detection (let alone correction). USB does include error detection, but no error correction for Isochronous audio data transmission. I doubt very much that any decent streamer has data corruption problems within the streamer itself, but I do think it is possible that data errors could occur between the streamer and DAC, particularly if the streamer output connection has high signal noise, if long or poorly shielded cables are used, and/or if there is a lot of EMI/RFI present in the environment where the system is located. I still believe that the larger difference between streamers is caused by timing issues and electrical noise transmitted to the DAC, but this is speculation on my part. |
Thanks again Jerry @carlsbad2 |
I think you misunderstood me @cleeds I wasn’t talking about A specific service. I was talking about streaming in general, since there was so much confusion here. I was actually proving the exact same bit-perfect point but had to go off to a tangent for what to do with not bit perfect transmissions. But please call me silly if it makes you feel any better 😂 |
@nigeltheflash I read it quite a while ago and wish I had bookmarked it as it was quite the revelation to me. I too struggled with explaining why if the excel spreadsheet you send me is perfect, why is the streamed music file imperfect. I'll find it again someday but I'm pretty tied up right now. It was in the public domain, it was a thread on a forum, not this one I don't believe, where some industry people participated. Jerry |
Don’t be silly. Spotify is a compressed, lossy service. As I mentioned, services such as Qobuz and Tidal are lossless, and use TCP/IP protocol to send bit perfect copies of the files provided to them by the record companies. Note that Tidal’s MQA files are not lossless, but MQA is a whole ’nuther kettle of fish. Tidal’s FLAC files are lossless. |
Thanks Jerry @carlsbad2. Any materials you can point me/us to? I presume this is in the public domain. Best, Nigel |
@nigeltheflash My understanding is from streamer manufacturers. I referenced googling because I thought YOU would believe it better if you read it on the internet. Indeed it is hard to find this info. Jerry |
As @cleeds said most streaming services use TCP/IP protocol which delivers bit perfect data/files. Now why streamers sound different (if they do) is another story. |
What algorithms do you imagine exist? Services such as Qobuz and Tidal use TCP/IP protocol to send bit perfect copies of files provided to them by the record companies. It's as simple as that. |
that's because of the business rules. Playing via streaming (putting packages together as they come in vs having it all at the door) is different because of their algorithms for how to cut corners - to deal with missing/delayed packets. It's not because noise creeps in along the way. That's my understanding |
@grislybutter What I meant was from the source (Spotify, Quoboz, Tidal, Apple, etc.) to the endpoint: you and your system. Those here who have/use local files on their own storage they stream from have commented on how much better it sounds compared to some online sources, going even further to say it sounds even better on their CDPs but it's getting really close to practically indistinguishable nowadays. All the best, |
@mdalton I wasn't talking about losing or dropping packets and the tech used to ensure it all gets there. I was talking about noise creeping into the many places it can from sender to receiver and that it can corrupt what can be heard. The analogy of the CDP should have made that clear, having such short distances being all handled internally. Apologies if I wasn't clear on that. On another note, please check for those errant flies before volunteering. All the best,
|
Streaming is not a new technology. I for one have been streaming since about 2004 (starting with the original Yamaha Musiccast system). Moreover, the fundamental job of the streamer, moving a data stream from server to dac, is rather simple. And sorry to be a skipping record, but even most high $ streamer proponents agree it’s just about jitter and other noise. So measure it! Btw, I volunteer for the reassembler chamber… |
so, to be potentially off topic, from a software point of view, streaming is a method. It has nothing to do with data loss, error handling, the quality of the data, etc. The content (5 seconds of a cat video, pdf file or song) is converted into bytes and sent from one endpoint to another. The client endpoint will receive it and convert it back to "content". In between there is "networking stuff" that I know little about and won’t google it (so that e.g. I still don’t say stuff that would embarrass my offspring who spent 4 years in College to understand the "networking stuff".) If you want to play 5 frames of the cat video, 5 seconds of a song, you will need to receive the data that comes in a form of a stream. It has the beginning and end, x amount of bytes. The programmer writing the software that handles the data assumes it is 100% the same data the server sent. What we also call streaming is the concept that we don’t need to receive the 6th seconds of a song to play the first 5. We just assume that we will have it in time, before the 5th seconds of the song has played. We can add business rules to our playing procedures such as we won’t play the song unless the entire song has completed streaming (in which case, it’s not really streaming but downloading.) I feel these concepts are easily confused - as shown in this thread. I would go on about lossless and lossy formats and compressions and how Spotify changed business rules to get around receiving all the data that was sent and "just move on and play something" and never wait for the lost pockets - if I had know more than I can google. But I don’t, music streaming is a different animal than streaming data for maps and location data that I work on. Still, this is a very educational thread despite our different understanding/ misunderstandings of various issues around streaming...
|
