Do high-end streamers make an audible difference?

Batty · January 27

Ears are like opinions, they are ours, may differ from others, and we all have them.

Almaz · January 27

I thought since this thread has drawn a little bit of attention that it was encumbent on me to

ensure I gave a good evaluation of the Aurender ACS100 versus the Cambridge CXN V2 streamer.

Is the extra expense of the Aurender over the Cambridge worth it?

Firstly as I mentioned in my thread I am looking for an audible difference to justify the price tag of the Aurender.

The only reason I even contemplated changing the Cambridge wasn’t because I didn’t feel it wasn’t delivering a clean digital signal into the my dac as it was intended to do. I think at the price point of the Cambridge and the features it offers is truly a wonderful streamer. A very user friendly app. and exceptional build quality. There is only one feature missing that I thought

might give me a sonic edge, and that was a USB output. I know I could have remedied this with the addition of an other box, but my intention is to limit the number of components, not add to them.

My integrated amplifier is a Gryphon Diablo 300 with what I think is a very special dac module.

One of the reasons I choose the Gryphon Diablo 300 with the dac module fitted was to lessen the amount of connections and cables which the Diablo does seamlessly. The dac also offers a pretty special USB input. I won’t go into the engineering of this as this thread is about the streamer not the dac. However I thought it would be remiss of me not to mention the steamers signal destination.

The Cambridge used a digital coax cable into the dac The Cambridge was connected using a Lan connection. My speakers, Martin Logan ESL which are a very revealing speakers leaving nowhere for a substandard component to hide. The Cambridge CXN does a brilliant job of delivering a clean digital stream, but no USB out.

Not that I think the Aurender delivers a better digital path to the DAC. The answer is no I don’t.

The slight difference in sonic performance is not in the delivery of the digital information it’s how it delivers it. The Aurender only has one solitary output USB. The marriage of the USB out of the Aurender into Diablo dac just works, and works well, very well. As mentioned many times in this thread and many other threads, sometimes it’s the synergy between components that makes a difference.

So in answer to my to my original question “ Do high end streamers make an audible difference “

In this case yes if only purely for the way it connects to the dac. Would I pay the price of the Aurender to achieve this slight audible improvement no I wouldn’t. Again I agree with a lot of comments on this thread that changes in other areas of the music chain ( speaker placement, room acoustic treatment ) will make more of a substantial difference, which I have already proven in my setup.

As it turns out my friend wanted something I had, not music related. So he parted with something he wanted and I ended up with the Aurender. The Aurender also has other features that are important to me, but they are not part of the original thread question.

Are there others streamers on the market that may deliver a audible difference, I can’t say but if we are simply talking about a means to deliver a clean digital stream into a dac, I would have to say the performance of the dac is where the magic happens.

The Mad Scientist · January 27

On 26/01/2025 at 11:04 PM, El Tel said:

Whilst I am largely in agreement with you, the eye-candy factor still wants satisfying from time-to-time. My AV41 is a workhorse and is a bit of an ugly duckling in comparison to my McIntosh amps (no, I really can't defend those in terms of cost or performance against brands like Benchmark, for example).

Just like furniture, cars, watches, clothing etc, a lot of purchases are made in audio too, where form is allowed to lead function in the interests of aesthetic.

I guess my willingness to try stuff with no expectation either way, despite an analytical approach to most things and a history of testing for myself, means I would re-run my experiment again in the future with another streamer. Just because.

I'm not sure of the merits of listening to a system that one is not familiar with and to expect to be able to gauge the performance of a single part of its chain. I'm not convinced one is likely to learn much from that situation. I tend to agree with @Bass13that to properly evaluate something, it needs to be in your own system and environment, with the ability to swap the item back with your original item for comparison.

I'll also mention @Hydrology and his experiences of many years in the trade. My interest is piqued when someone with credibility that has access to a vast array of equipment makes a claim.

There's no disputing that people hear differences with different streaming sources. It's the source of those differences that's of interest. And it can't be that streamer X is somehow "better" than streamer Y. The streamer serves up digital data for the DAC to convert. Provided it does so correctly, and the DAC is competently designed (any half-way decent DAC can keep noise and distortion to better than -110 dB and jitter artifacts to better than -120 dB), there are only 2 possible explanations which could account for an audible difference:

1. The streamer is applying some "special sauce" via DSP to provide a "house" sound.

2. The streamer produces a slightly higher or lower output level which is perceived as a difference in sound quality. Higher levels will generally be perceived as sounding "better", although conversely could introduce a higher risk of "inter-sample overs" in a DAC that isn't equipped to handle them.

Science dictates that there must be a difference in the analogue output of the connected DAC for an audible difference to exist. It is therefore measurable and can be captured by comparing levels, normalising if necessary and performing a null test.

These types of tests are rarely ever carried out. It's not in the interests of any entity with a commercial stake in the industry to do so.

As a slight aside, there has been a long running debate on the Naim forum about the Naim App sounding better than Roon on Naim streaming hardware. One user did a capture of the analogue stream of the same track fed by the Naim App and by Roon and made a proper comparison. It turned out the Naim App stream was slightly "hotter" (higher in level) than the Roon stream. After level normalisation, there was no measurable (or audible) difference between them.

As another aside, going back to the comment that pulled me into this thread, if you look at the marketing literature for the English Electric 8Switch, they claim a 90% reduction in network jitter from their 0.1 ppm TCXO clock.

This must be true, otherwise they're opening themselves to being canon fodder for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Of course what they don't state is that this reduction in jitter has no impact on the TCP/IP data packets, or what is fed to the streamer and therefore has no audible effect.

They just leave it to the uninitiated reader to jump to the inevitable conclusion.....

Edited January 27 by The Mad Scientist

aussievintage · January 28

1 hour ago, Almaz said:

So in answer to my to my original question “ Do high end streamers make an audible difference “

In this case yes if only purely for the way it connects to the dac. Would I pay the price of the Aurender to achieve this slight audible improvement no I wouldn’t.

Thanks for posing that evaluation (summary portion quoted above only).

btw. I agree that the output connection to the DAC is important and could make a difference, depending on the circumstances.

Satanica · January 28

5 hours ago, The Mad Scientist said:

1. The streamer is applying some "special sauce" via DSP to provide a "house" sound.

I don't think this happens, not out of the box anyway.
But if anyone could provide an example, then this is very important information to be shared.

5 hours ago, The Mad Scientist said:

2. The streamer produces a slightly higher or lower output level which is perceived as a difference in sound quality. Higher levels will generally be perceived as sounding "better", although conversely could introduce a higher risk of "inter-sample overs" in a DAC that isn't equipped to handle them.

Again I don't think this happens, not out of the box anyway.
But if anyone could provide an example, then this is very important information to be shared.

But, many streamers have digital volume attenuation, and it is presumably quite easy to hit the wrong button on the remote and engage it.
I remember there being one example on here where someone did just that.
The thread was about one digital source sounding different than another and after I asked a few questions the thread starter mentioned that one is louder than the other.
Once corrected, the differences went away.

It's quite easy to make mistakes or make assumptions that are wrong.

I've done them and will probably do so again in the future.

Edited January 28 by Satanica

Assisi · January 28

7 hours ago, The Mad Scientist said:

There's no disputing that people hear differences with different streaming sources. It's the source of those differences that's of interest. And it can't be that streamer X is somehow "better" than streamer Y. The streamer serves up digital data for the DAC to convert. Provided it does so correctly, and the DAC is competently designed (any half-way decent DAC can keep noise and distortion to better than -110 dB and jitter artifacts to better than -120 dB), there are only 2 possible explanations which could account for an audible difference:

1. The streamer is applying some "special sauce" via DSP to provide a "house" sound.

It is not a special sauce per se. The role of the network components that serve up the digital file to the DAC file have an impact with their respective processing or management of the file. As you and others have noted that the supposed early audio switches were just rebadged boxes. Today there are some specially designed switches with serious audio capabilities. It is the same with Players/Streamers. The performance of some is better than others for obvious reasons.

What ever happens in the networks with serious components with the treatment of the digital file is therefore reflected in the outcome from the DAC. Why the outcome from the DAC can be better with some network components is beyond my technical understanding. Whether the file is coming from low or high level components the integrity of the data is not impacted. It is correct. It is about one of two things. It is all about what also accompanies the file with Low level components. Or it is High end components and that cables mitigate and deal with the unwanted file content before it gets to the DAC. That is the important question?

I do not expect you and others to believe me about my perspective on this topic. To paraphrase “Hearing is believing.” I know what I hear and sometimes when changes and benefits happen, they are very obvious. Especially so lately with the two WEISS MAN 301rs. I am still bewildered when I turn my system on. Why the profound listening benefit?

John

The Mad Scientist · January 28

4 hours ago, Satanica said:

I don't think this happens, not out of the box anyway.
But if anyone could provide an example, then this is very important information to be shared.

Again I don't think this happens, not out of the box anyway.
But if anyone could provide an example, then this is very important information to be shared.

It's more than just a streamer (rather a full streamer/DAC endpoint), but the Mytek Brooklyn Bridge II has, and I quote straight from the horse's mouth:

"HAT tm function which increases DAC 2nd and 4th harmonic content (2nd by about 12 dB) ......" "HAT makes DAC sound warmer by increasing even harmonics in the DAC current source output stage- the effect is same resolution and sound stage but groovier sound)."

It wouldn't be difficult to bake a similar seasoning into a streamer.

a.dent · January 28

8 hours ago, Almaz said:

I thought since this thread has drawn a little bit of attention that it was encumbent on me to

ensure I gave a good evaluation of the Aurender ACS100 versus the Cambridge CXN V2 streamer.

Is the extra expense of the Aurender over the Cambridge worth it?

Firstly as I mentioned in my thread I am looking for an audible difference to justify the price tag of the Aurender.

The only reason I even contemplated changing the Cambridge wasn’t because I didn’t feel it wasn’t delivering a clean digital signal into the my dac as it was intended to do. I think at the price point of the Cambridge and the features it offers is truly a wonderful streamer. A very user friendly app. and exceptional build quality. There is only one feature missing that I thought

might give me a sonic edge, and that was a USB output. I know I could have remedied this with the addition of an other box, but my intention is to limit the number of components, not add to them.

My integrated amplifier is a Gryphon Diablo 300 with what I think is a very special dac module.

One of the reasons I choose the Gryphon Diablo 300 with the dac module fitted was to lessen the amount of connections and cables which the Diablo does seamlessly. The dac also offers a pretty special USB input. I won’t go into the engineering of this as this thread is about the streamer not the dac. However I thought it would be remiss of me not to mention the steamers signal destination.

The Cambridge used a digital coax cable into the dac The Cambridge was connected using a Lan connection. My speakers, Martin Logan ESL which are a very revealing speakers leaving nowhere for a substandard component to hide. The Cambridge CXN does a brilliant job of delivering a clean digital stream, but no USB out.

Not that I think the Aurender delivers a better digital path to the DAC. The answer is no I don’t.

The slight difference in sonic performance is not in the delivery of the digital information it’s how it delivers it. The Aurender only has one solitary output USB. The marriage of the USB out of the Aurender into Diablo dac just works, and works well, very well. As mentioned many times in this thread and many other threads, sometimes it’s the synergy between components that makes a difference.

So in answer to my to my original question “ Do high end streamers make an audible difference “

In this case yes if only purely for the way it connects to the dac. Would I pay the price of the Aurender to achieve this slight audible improvement no I wouldn’t. Again I agree with a lot of comments on this thread that changes in other areas of the music chain ( speaker placement, room acoustic treatment ) will make more of a substantial difference, which I have already proven in my setup.

As it turns out my friend wanted something I had, not music related. So he parted with something he wanted and I ended up with the Aurender. The Aurender also has other features that are important to me, but they are not part of the original thread question.

Are there others streamers on the market that may deliver a audible difference, I can’t say but if we are simply talking about a means to deliver a clean digital stream into a dac, I would have to say the performance of the dac is where the magic happens.

Thanks for reporting back.

The slightly different SQ could easily be the USB v SPDIF connection difference between the two streamers. The difference would likely be measurable as well.

It’s great to hear you’re happy with the Aurender. Well done.

Keith_W · January 28

Perhaps an analogy is in order. Imagine you have to catch a flight. Your DAC is the airplane, the airport is the buffer, and the streamer is your transportation to the airport.

Because the departure time is determined by the airplane, it does not matter how you get to the airport. As long as you are there before the plane leaves, the outcome is exactly the same. You depart when the plane takes off.

But this does not mean that the journey is the same. You could be transported to the airport in a miserable bus like us poor Melbournians who have to catch the execrable Skybus. Or you could arrive in a chaffeur driven Rolls-Royce.

In the same way, as long as your streamer delivers the same bits to the DAC, the outcome is exactly the same - it is determined by the DAC. But some streamers are "nicer" than others. More streaming services may be supported, the app experience is better or more stable, there are no Sonos-type shenanigans, etc.

aussievintage · January 28

2 hours ago, Keith_W said:

In the same way, as long as your streamer delivers the same bits to the DAC, the outcome is exactly the same - it is determined by the DAC. But some streamers are "nicer" than others. More streaming services may be supported, the app experience is better or more stable, there are no Sonos-type shenanigans, etc.

Analogies are frought with perils, but this one holds together fairly well.

Taking the bit I quoted above, it's fine, as long as you don't think it sounds better because you enjoy using it more. That's the "audible difference" asked about by the OP. It may still be worth the higher cost however, depending...

Assisi · January 28

4 hours ago, Keith_W said:

as long as your streamer delivers the same bits to the DAC

What do you mean when you say “…as long as your streamer delivers the same bits to the DAC… “? What do you mean by “bits.” My position is that whatever a Streamer delivers will vary from different streamer to streamer. In fact I am told by others, that strangely it can vary from one streamer compared to one streamer from the same brand for reasons that are well beyond my understanding.

I consider that different streamers will deliver a different file to the DAC. Therefore the outcome from the DAC will be different depending on what is in or not in the file besides the music information that it receives from different streamers.

John

Keith_W · January 28

If a streamer is bit perfect (all of them are) then it does not matter what streamer you use. Some streamers are intentionally not bit perfect - they may resample, or manipulate the signal with DSP.

Addicted to music · January 28

7 hours ago, Assisi said:

What do you mean when you say “…as long as your streamer delivers the same bits to the DAC… “? What do you mean by “bits.” My position is that whatever a Streamer delivers will vary from different streamer to streamer. In fact I am told by others, that strangely it can vary from one streamer compared to one streamer from the same brand for reasons that are well beyond my understanding.

I consider that different streamers will deliver a different file to the DAC. Therefore the outcome from the DAC will be different depending on what is in or not in the file besides the music information that it receives from different streamers.

John

It's the audio circuitry output of the DAC that handles data differently. The 'BITS" do not change as long as the algorithm in error correction determined that it's intact. if the error was that bad in the transmission TCP/IP has protocol built in to resend the packet( @The Mad Scientist has outlined in his post). If the error is so bad in the transmission it gets terminated and an error code logged. Every streamer manufacturer and phones, TV etc will have physical RAM buffer built in for reception, so if there's a pause in transmission it's then joined together so its seamless, however if that pause was long enough the transmission will cease.

Every DAC will have different power supplies, different audio buffers etc at the analog output that can have an impact in SQ. Digital data bits don't change if the receiver doesn't see the conditions met it take the steps necessary to get readable data.

Edited January 28 by Addicted to music

sir sanders zingmore · January 28

Taking the plane analogy to new heights. Once you get to the airport, you need to clear passport control before you can board the flight. As long as your passport is valid, you can get on. It doesn’t matter if it isn’t in shiny brand-new condition. It can be a bit dog eared and tattered, but as long as it’s good enough to “error check” that you are you, you’ll get on board.

ENIGMA · January 28

Provided your DAC is up to it, getting to the airport or on board may be the least of the issue.

Edited January 28 by ENIGMA

sir sanders zingmore · January 28

1 minute ago, ENIGMA said:

Provided your DAC is up to it, getting there may be the least of the issue.

Everyone knows that those vintage single prop DACs sound so much more analog than their modern multi-jet engine counterparts.

ENIGMA · January 28

That would be subjective.

sir sanders zingmore · January 28

5 minutes ago, ENIGMA said:

That would be subjective.

KillerDAC?

POV · January 28

Starts madly hunting the web for jet powered DAC options....

aussievintage · January 28

20 minutes ago, ENIGMA said:

Provided your DAC is up to it, getting to the airport or on board may be the least of the issue.

at least we are through the burn-in break-in period

13 minutes ago, ENIGMA said:

This one may have some more years before it sounds it's best

aussievintage · January 28

Just now, POV said:

Starts madly hunting the web for jet powered DAC options....

I am thinking of being reactionary, and getting a steam powered DAC.

POV · January 28

1 minute ago, aussievintage said:

I am thinking of being reactionary, and getting a steam powered DAC.

Vintage! Respect.

Edited January 28 by POV

aussievintage · January 28

1 minute ago, POV said:

Vintage! Respect.

Found it, not steam but it has the look

Edited January 28 by aussievintage

sir sanders zingmore · January 28

20 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

Found it, not steam but it has the look

Thomas the Decoding Engine.

Almaz · January 28

Dac, smack, you guys crack me up. Well done indeed.

Haven’t laughed so much having my morning coffee in weeks. Nothing wrong with the minds on this site.

Sharp as a tac.

Edited January 28 by Almaz

Sign In

Do high-end streamers make an audible difference?

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

pete_mac

rantan

a.dent

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content