Streamers without Dacs..Sound Quality Differences?

[manisandher]

I would prefer, for no reason other than just historic personal observations to have a unit with a coax out rather than USB. They've always just sounded better to me. 

Looks like the new iFi Zen Stream would be a good option for you - it has both USB and spdif outputs.

I currently use a SOtM sMS-200 Neo in my office system (powered by a Paul Hynes LPS), which works perfectly as a Roon Bridge and sounds great. I have a Zen Stream arriving next week. Happy to share my thoughts once its here...

Mani.

 

[2010*zuma]

I know Hifi encompasses all things and  to rest of my family is a hobby for nerds I can’t for the life of me understand why some enthusiasts make it so complicated ..A box to do this a box to do that , a box in between this and a box I’m not sure what it is .
Less is more ..
If you buy matching components you don’t need stacks of boxes cluttering up the music
The best systems I’ve ever heard have been
Source , Amplifier, speakers ..that’s it no more no less ..

they can be a bizzare bunch on here I'm quite often left scratching my head[emoji3]... keep it simple. 

 

 

[Duckworp]

Interestng result given that the Stream box S2 Ultra is based on a Pi. Suggests that those who tweak their Pis could achieve the same result.

https://darko.audio/2019/03/have-your-pi-eat-it-pro-jects-stream-box-s2-ultra/

Yes I think the difference is in what designer John Westlake did with isolating the PS and other noise-reducing tweaks. 

 

[Duckworp]

I know Hifi encompasses all things and  to rest of my family is a hobby for nerds I can’t for the life of me understand why some enthusiasts make it so complicated ..A box to do this a box to do that , a box in between this and a box I’m not sure what it is .

Less is more ..

If you buy matching components you don’t need stacks of boxes cluttering up the music

The best systems I’ve ever heard have been

Source , Amplifier, speakers ..that’s it no more no less ..

All this is about though is the source, and separating the DAC from the computer (the streamer function) within that source.  There is good reason to do this as computers are really noisy things so having a DAC stand-alone separately from the streamer (computer) is really sensible.  And it allows you to invest in the DAC for the long-term and keep the cheaper computer bit, which is more likely to go wrong and possibly be superceded, separate.  It’s only one extra box.  

 

[DomT]

I know Hifi encompasses all things and  to rest of my family is a hobby for nerds I can’t for the life of me understand why some enthusiasts make it so complicated ..A box to do this a box to do that , a box in between this and a box I’m not sure what it is .

Less is more ..

If you buy matching components you don’t need stacks of boxes cluttering up the music

The best systems I’ve ever heard have been

Source , Amplifier, speakers ..that’s it no more no less ..

I tend to agree. I have a one box solution with my Auralic Altair G1 but I also like the flexibility that separates can give to shape the sound the way you want it and it’s great for learning about what works and which parts are contributing what. Mind you my separates are tiny. Auralic Aries Mini and Benchmark DAC 2 and Luxman DA100 DAC. 
 

 

[Griff500]

I know Hifi encompasses all things and  to rest of my family is a hobby for nerds I can’t for the life of me understand why some enthusiasts make it so complicated ..A box to do this a box to do that , a box in between this and a box I’m not sure what it is .

I don't think separating these two functions into two boxes is making it particularly complicated and there are valid reasons for doing so.

I find it quite interesting to see the different approaches taken, different systems that are put together, etc.

It's also great that you can get a streaming DAC, connect it to some active speakers and you've potentially got a great sounding system (I say 'potentially' as I've only heard a five-figure version of this approach, but it did sound fantastic for such a simple system and I don't doubt that a cheaper version could sound very good).

Anyway, my point was, I think, that there's room for everyone and I don't think the subject of this topic is making things particularly complex.

 

[Griff500]

I have demoed a number of streamers without  DAC (network bridge seems to be the term many use). My experiments have determined that the sweet spot is a sub £1000 bridge from someone like Pro-Ject (Stream box S2 Ultra) or SOtM (SMS-200 Neo Ultra) or Stack Audio (Link 2). These all sounded identical to me and identical to a £3k Auralic Aries G1. But they all did sound significantly better than a cheap home-built Pi or a Chromecast Audio (which, I would add, at £25 is still the biggest bargain in Hi-Fi ever).  A Hi-Fi buddy compared the micro rendu and the SOtM and found the SOtM better.  They are all USB only though.   My favourite at the time was the Pro-ject due to its nifty tiny size.  
However, I then got the SOtM to improve further by adding the SOtM sps500 power supply and the SOtM external clock, but the latter makes it crazy-expensive.  Another small uplift came replacing the SOtM sps500 ps with a Sean Jacobs lps.  

in my view the differences between network bridges are marginal once you get beyond a home made pi, even with the small improvement from external power supplies and external clocks.  With a limited budget I’d say you get a much bigger SQ improvement by investing more in a better DAC. In my demo experience moving from a £600 Pro-ject streambox S2 Ultra to a pricey Auralic   or SOtM plus PS plus clock will give marginal improvements compared to moving from a £600 DAC to a £4K DAC.
 

In the interests of accuracy, the Aries G1 is £2K (not £3K), and that's before negotiating. 

Perhaps with a £4-8K DAC then the more expensive streamer becomes more worthwhile and the improvements become more apparent? Or not. It's all in the ears of the beholder.

I do think, as a general rule, that you get more as you spend more, but it depends on your ears and your system. It seems logical to me that the quality of the source is important, assuming that the rest of the system is sufficiently revealing.

 

[Bigwig07]

I stream wirelessly, and so far for me a Chromecast Audio puck via optical cable into a good DAC (My Chord 2Qute or Marantz SA14S1SE) is as good as anything.

I've tried Cambridge CXN V2 & 851N but couldn't really get on with them, and preferred my other DAC's. 

 

[Griff500]

I stream wirelessly, and so far for me a Chromecast Audio puck via optical cable into a good DAC (My Chord 2Qute or Marantz SA14S1SE) is as good as anything.

As good as anything? What have you compared it to?

 

[Southeastern]

I stream wirelessly, and so far for me a Chromecast Audio puck via optical cable into a good DAC (My Chord 2Qute or Marantz SA14S1SE) is as good as anything.

It's really not. But if you're happy with it, then thats all that matters.

 

[Fourlegs]

I stream wirelessly, and so far for me a Chromecast Audio puck via optical cable into a good DAC (My Chord 2Qute or Marantz SA14S1SE) is as good as anything.

I've tried Cambridge CXN V2 & 851N but couldn't really get on with them, and preferred my other DAC's. 

As good as absolutely ANYTHING? or do you mean as good as anything in the same price bracket? or do you mean as good as anything else you personally have heard?

I did own a Chromecast Audio and thought it was remarkable for the price but was easily surpassed by other admittedly much more expensive devices.

 

[DomT]

I can’t remember if this has been brought up in this thread but power supply is critical in removing hash that you don’t necessarily know is there until you try a better streamer with a proper power supply or you add an external one. In terms of listening fatigue this is a key point for me and ai would focus on this more so than before. This may mean that it’s easier to get good power supply with a separate streamer but It’s just a hunch right now. 

 

[Blackmetalboon]

I’m guessing I am in the minority, but isn’t part of the point in buying an expensive/well engineered DAC is that steps have been taken to minimise or exclude well known issues that could affect it?

IME a decent DAC is agnostic to the source and certainly doesn’t need all the associated band aids to produce music. 

 

[DomT]

I’m guessing I am in the minority, but isn’t part of the point in buying an expensive/well engineered DAC is that steps have been taken to minimise or exclude well known issues that could affect it?

IME a decent DAC is agnostic to the source and certainly doesn’t need all the associated band aids to produce music. 

A brilliant point. I use a Benchmark DAC 2 HCG. Most people would agree that this is a technically brilliant DAC and deals effectively with whatever is plugged into it. But. And it’s a big but. My Auralic Arie Mini sounded significantly different when I added an SBooster to the Auralic. And now that I have an Innuos Zen Mini mk3 it sounds very different than when using my Auralic (I have them side by side).

I don’t pretend to understand why this happens, especially given my DAC, but the differences are very obvious. Whether you would want the hassle of more boxes is one thing and secondly if you think any gains are worth the extra money. I am perfectly happy with where I am at now with this digital front end save for a new power supply. Fourlegs has gone a lot of further but for what I listen to I am at a sweet spot.

 

[andrew s]

I’m guessing I am in the minority, but isn’t part of the point in buying an expensive/well engineered DAC is that steps have been taken to minimise or exclude well known issues that could affect it?

IME a decent DAC is agnostic to the source and certainly doesn’t need all the associated band aids to produce music. 

You would have thoughts so but for many this hobby is about enjoying the chase and if the reports are to belived few items are sufficiently well engineered.  That's one of the reasons I went for Benchmark. I have never noticed any difference when giving it different digital feeds.

It's a hobby and for many the game is as important if not more so than the result. 

Regards Andrew 

 

[Griff500]

It seems logical to me that improving what goes into the system (the source) would improve what comes out of the speakers. 
 

I can’t think why anyone would think it doesn’t matter unless they think it’s just 1s and 0s.

 

[DomT]

You would have thoughts so but for many this hobby is about enjoying the chase and if the reports are to belived few items are sufficiently well engineered.  That's one of the reasons I went for Benchmark. I have never noticed any difference when giving it different digital feeds.

It's a hobby and for many the game is as important if not more so than the result. 

Regards Andrew 

Seriously? I am using £250 speakers (ok and Audio Research pre and power) and the differences are very clear to me. Repeatable and could easily pick the two streamers out in a blind test. Very distinct differences to my ears. 

 

[andrew s]

It seems logical to me that improving what goes into the system (the source) would improve what comes out of the speakers. 
 

I can’t think why anyone would think it doesn’t matter unless they think it’s just 1s and 0s.

Totally logical but it is assuming the changes do improve what is going in and if they do it makes an audible difference.

I know this is not popular on this site but without unsighted trials reported differences are potentially open to psychological bias.

That comment should not of course be seen as a criticism of anyone or what they choose to do or believe it just my opinion.

Regards Andrew 

 

[andrew s]

Seriously? I am using £250 speakers (ok and Audio Research pre and power) and the differences are very clear to me. Repeatable and could easily pick the two streamers out in a blind test. Very distinct differences to my ears. 

I take you at your word so I thought you might extend the same courtesy to me. 

I swapped from an old Cambridge streamer to  direct USB feed  from a Surface Pro then vis Stack Audio link II in clean USB  mode to NUC i7 into the Link II via ethernet. The Link II was powered initially from my bench (smps) then the supplied SMPS and finally their linear supply. In my system with my ears they all sounded the same.

If subjective sighted comparison is king then my experience is as valid as any other. You may well have better hearing or more experience than me but that does not invalidate my findings.

Regards Andrew 

 

[Blackmetalboon]

You would have thoughts so but for many this hobby is about enjoying the chase and if the reports are to belived few items are sufficiently well engineered.  That's one of the reasons I went for Benchmark. I have never noticed any difference when giving it different digital feeds.

It's a hobby and for many the game is as important if not more so than the result. 

Regards Andrew 

Shiny New Box Syndrome (SNBS) is prevalent in this hobby. 
 

I have used USB, optical and coax between various sources and DAC’s and been able to compare them. My experience echoes yours.

It seems logical to me that improving what goes into the system (the source) would improve what comes out of the speakers. 
 

I can’t think why anyone would think it doesn’t matter unless they think it’s just 1s and 0s.

That is old school thinking, relevant to analogue sources, but less so with digital.

It is “just 1’s & 0’s”, that is the musical information. What unwanted noise/distortion that also gets introduced between components seems to be problem, again, steps should be taken to reduce the audible affects of these especially when you are paying good money.

To me, it seems that using components that are highly susceptible to external influences is seen as a virtue. That’s just crazy.