Ethernet streaming

your argument is somewhat specious

@antigrunge2

Nothing like being called specious to end my day.

I make similar arguments you do to the benefits of a single unit but I guess you decided to ignore my post after you decided I was specious.

Look, I am sure those companies you named are fine organizations, but we’ve all seen organizations we thought would be around for a long time suddenly go poof or decide a particular market was no longer worth it, or, often, they decide that a previous device has reached end of life, or take too long to add a service we could find with a new streamer.

So, I take the word specious and throw it back in your face with prejudice.

My original post pointed out good and bad points of each approach.

I didn’t refer to you but to your argument as specious. That’s not the same thing. The demise of manufacturers of DACs and streamers seems about equally likely.

Nothing to add.

I was expecting and hoping to see more about the dCS Bartok.  I recently visited a dealer that was over the top of how amazing they are.  There seem to be a fair share on the used market so that could be good or bad as they have a few levels up from there.  If I remember correctly they developed a new design DAC, called ring.  I haven't read too much but have been very curious about having that combined DAC-Streamer.

Is this a better way to go than adding a separate streamer to feed the dac? 

It’s a trade off- cost vs performance

Cost savings: keeping multiple functions (streamer, DAC) within a single box saves on additional casework costs and extra cabling 

Performance: it’s usually better to separate functions to separate boxes minimize electrical noise.  Streamer quality also impacts sonics.  Also, upgrade path easier as you only have to replace one component’s function 

If funds were available, I'd go with the dCS Lina and a separate streamer. 

Lots of good streamers now, lots.