Any audiophile use computer (MacBook) as your audio streaming source?

Ok, well fine then. If it’s not the better clocking and noise reduction that makes a DDC make a DAC sound better as both you and I agree that it does, then what exactly is it? Magic fairy dust??? C’mon man

so now a different story.. our back and forth has never been about the what ( better clocking and noise reduction) but about the why it works.

people like you are the main reason I rarely participate in these forums. You say something, then when you are called on it, you change your story. You ignore what you said before and act like you never said it.

Fact: You said the "processor doesn’t have to work as hard" and "has to do less processing."

Fact: I said I agree the DDC is effective, it is just that your "work less hard" explanation makes no sense..I said you can’t say what "work" the processor is doing or say what "less processing" means so your WHY it works makes no sense. Not that it doesn’t work.

Fact: Now, since you can’t defend your why, you change your story and focus on the what instead of the why throwing in "better clocking" and "noise reduction"

Now that you have thrown it it into the mix, I agree it is completely logical that better clocks and noise reduction may play a part. But you changed your story.  It still doesn’t validate your statement about less processing or less work for the DAC.

I never offered an explanation why because I don’t have one. I just agree that it works and know that your explanation made no sense.

So again, people like you are the main reason I rarely participate in these forums. You are incapable of saying "I was wrong" so you keep changing your story in an endless quest to avoid doing so.

Apologies to the rest of the group

It has been fun but you keep changing your story so......

Good Day

I run Ubuntu Linux on a $125 PC I got from Amazon. My music library is on a USB drive I hang off of it. Of course it can stream. Linux is free. The Clementine music player looks a lot like iTunes, but I run JRiver for about $30.

I always laugh at all of the people with their $5000 streamers and such. More money than sense.

I do not have a $5k streamer anymore and use a cheap computer however, if you have a USB connection directly into your DAC and that USB is connected directly to your Linux computer, then the joke is on you. Same applies to Toslink, SPDIF, and AES connections.

I used to run JRiver and it works well. I have been running ROON for "free" for the past decade.

STREAMING 101. Do not stream directly from your computer into your DAC it is the worst way to stream and you can easily hear the grunge of that setup in the DACs output.

I use a $500 DELL PC to stream and it is nowhere close to my audio gear (different room different floor). I am not advocating an expensive solution. Use fibre optic cable ($40) before the DAC. This type of setup can be done for $1500 or less. I have one fibre setup for $700 (used gear)

BTW - the more expensive solutions mentioned here work well as does my Fibre based solution.

@yyzsantabarbara Interesting. Can you comment on your fiber setup? Toslink is fiber too, just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.

@herman  Here’s part of your prior response and the possible source of our disconnect…

The DAC is doing the exact same amount of processing whether the incoming signal has jitter or it doesn't. The DAC operates exactly the same either way. The DAC doesn't have a circuit that detects jitter or noise and then "does more work" when it detects it.

No it does not do the same amount of processing if it has to deal with a signal that has more jitter.  By definition if a DAC receives a more poorly clocked signal it must work harder to clean up the signal than if it received a better signal.  That is the DAC having to work harder.  A DAC receiving a better signal by definition has less work to do to clean it up and can do it more effectively.  Maybe it’s the term “work harder” that you’re having a hard time with, but if a DAC has a clock that can manage 98% of the jitter that comes into it and the incoming signal contains less jitter then the jitter left after it re-clocks that signal has less remaining jitter and the DAC sounds better for it.  So maybe it’s just a matter of semantics and we can just agree that the less noise/jitter a DAC has to deal with the better it will sound, otherwise a DAC would sound the same regardless of the quality of the signal it receives, which you and I both have found is not the case.  Frankly I’m just happy you and I had the openness to even try a DDC and that we were honest about that the thing actually did provide worthwhile improvements as opposed to some others who’d just rather bury their head in the sand in total denial/ignorance…

As for the dude saying adding a DDC is just adding another box so can’t possibly help and is just a way for a manufacturer to make more profit, well that’s just stupid and not even worthy of a response.  Many, many people here have added a DDC and/or external clock and realized substantial sonic improvements, and while all else being equal I’d also prefer to have fewer boxes in the chain, all else is not always equal so sometimes the additional hardware and cables are well worth it.  I’ll say again, anyone who has a DAC should at least try a DDC and external clock because IME they can be relatively speaking a very cost-effective way to realize significant improvements.  Ok, I think this dead horse has been beat enough, so peace out.