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

It is important to have clarity when posters discuss a "streamer" or a "server" in these threads. I believe there is sometimes confusion over a poster’s intent without clarifying whether they are talking about a server, a streamer, or a combined server/streamer unit.

If Roon is involved there can be a separate core/server and a separate "audio device" (sometimes called a streamer, endpoint, renderer, or network music player) playing Roon Ready. These two functions can also be located within the same device as with the Antipodes K50 or Oladra, Grimm Audio MU1, or Roon’s own Nucleus. Other devices like the Grimm MU2 might add a DAC and sometimes a preamp for a complete one-box digital source solution.

There are also pure streamers (some with file storage) that can run Tidal and Qobuz through their manufacturer’s own streaming platform, without using Roon. Examples would include Innuos Pulsar and Auralic ARIES G2.2, just to name two.

At the lower price end, Roon’s own Nucleus One offers a one-box solution that outputs directly to a DAC via USB or, you can connect it to your network and control an outboard streamer, which should arguably improve sound quality. The Nucleus One is basically a computer, as are all of these streamers/servers, it has an internal fan, and it costs only $500.

Amazing to me is the contrast between the detailed discussions on these threads (and folks spending $10K+ on server/streamers) vs. how esteemed reviewers such as John Atkinson and others at Stereophile are conducting reviews of expensive DACs connected directly to the USB output of their Roon Nucleus+, which is basically a computer with an i7 processor. Reviewer Srajan Ebaen at 6moons uses his iMac as a server in his main system, but at least he routes the output into the Singxer SU-6 prior to the DAC.

I have had multiple music servers, and a couple that were one-box server/streamers (from Antipodes and Mojo Audio) and I have yet to hear a difference between any of them. When I did start to hear differences was when I separated the "server" from the "streamer" by connecting the server to my network in a separate room away from my system, and then connecting the network to a streamer (currently via optical fiber) in the same room as my music system. My first ah-ha moment was when I started using Sonore’s Signature Rendu SE Optical flagship streamer. I was surprised at the level of difference/improvement that provided over the Metrum Acoustics Ambre streamer that I was previously using. The Ambre is based on a Raspberry Pi board and should be no slouch because of its onboard linear power supply and femto clocking, but the Sonore was clearly a step up to my ears.

I am currently using SGC’s sonicTransporter i9 (Gen 4), which is a computer, as a networked server and cannot hear any difference between that and the Antipodes or Mojo Audio servers that preceded it. The sonic improvement comes from routing that signal through an outboard networked streamer (Sonore) prior to my DAC. The next even bigger difference I hear is between different DACs, but that is a different topic.

Regarding DDCs, I have had the Gaia here previously, and I currently use a Singxer SU-6. I power the SU-6’s 7.5 million uf supercapacitor using a linear power supply and not the wall wart it came with. I began using the DDC solely for the flexibility of connecting multiple DACs via something other than the USB output out of the Sonore Sig Rendu SE O. However, the Singxer also provides galvanic isolation as well as reducing jitter to a low level. It certainly cannot hurt to send a lower jitter level signal into your DAC. In addition, optimized USB inputs can be pricy and not all DACs do a great job with their USB inputs. By having the ability to try multiple input connections to your DAC, you can select the input method that best optimizes the sound of the DAC.

IME, anybody expecting a significant sonic breakthrough by adding a DDC will probably be disappointed. But adding a good quality DDC certainly shouldn’t hurt the sound quality of a digital front end and might make a marginal improvement by isolation, lowering jitter, and optimizing the connection to the DAC.

@mitch2 Thank you for helping recenter and focus this thread with your excellent post, thorough and thoughtful like your ongoing DAC review series which I also follow.

Digital audio nomenclature is understood and used pretty loosely, resulting in reasonable people talking past each other when in fact they're talking about different things. Sometimes what's left out of an exchange matters as much as what's being said. Imagine two people arguing online about, I don't know, the fit of a pair of jeans. One says they're great, the other says they're horrible. One weighs 140 lbs, the other 280 lbs but neither ever says so.

Unfortunately, when it's like that, observers don't gain anything from the exchange besides confusion.

There really shouldn't be any confusion about these devices, every computer or purpose built audiophile computer I'm aware of is in fact a streamer or at least has streamer capabilities. Coupling these devices to a dedicated streamer ONLY device is what makes them servers. Streamer only devices also go by the name of endpoints, sometimes also called renderers . These devices don't have the capability of acting as servers since they don't have the computing power to process complex music player apps. Streamer only devices are also in fact computers, just optimized and simplified to run a simpler task of acting as endpoints.

There is a lot of confusion about streamers on this thread. The post by @mitch2 is one of the best at clearing the confusion. He is doing the same streaming thing as me except he has a DDC in the chain. I was considering adding one myself solely to have 2 DACs connected from the same endpoint, however, that need is now gone with my next office setup. I will be using Toslink directly out of the computer for my computer audio needs in my office. I just want to hear sound in the Toslink case not care too much about the quality.

My ROON core is still far away in another room on another computer.

BTW - my friend, for whom, I setup the same fiber based streaming setup as mine but using 100 feet of fibre cable for his shop/warehouse, is coming out with an open baffle speaker around December. It will be my new office desktop speaker (I will use stands). Photos at 11.

I have not contacted Mike Moffet via Head-fi web site to ask why he does not use a clock, but I do not have any concerns about Schitt DACs supporting a clock.

@yyzsantabarbara

dCS:

"In a dCS system, the DAC can act as the system master clock, but listening tests have shown that there is no substitute for a dedicated high quality master clock. dCS pioneered the use of external clocks in digital audio systems and this clocking technology has been continually refined so that our latest multi-stage Phase-Locked-Loop (PLL) system sets world-beating standards for accuracy and control of troublesome jitter from the incoming audio stream.

MSB:
"Why are external clocks sub-optimal for digital audio?

A clock signal is a fast moving precision electrical signal and is extremely sensitive to added noise or distortion. Each time it’s buffered or transmitted, a portion of its precision is lost. Even if a small amount of noise couples into the clocks, jitter will increase dramatically. It might still be an accurate clock, but accuracy is of little performance benefit to digital audio. A clock sent over an ultra-high quality cable will still increase its jitter considerably. The best solution is to create the lowest jitter clock as close to the DAC as possible.

You could figure out who’s telling the truth and who’s trying to sell more goofboxes and wires...

M. Moffat + J. Stoddard know their stuff and happen to make honest things. No goofboxes and wires will be peddled by them.