Point of higher priced streamer?

It seems like for a bunch of enthusiasts, no one really knows what they are talking about around here...

Allow me to provide a hint - anyone who thinks that AirPlay is "indistinguishable" from other methods of data delivery on a network has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You should not listen to these people, they have no insight to offer, and your enjoyment of music will suffer as a result (I'm speaking as someone who listens to music. not gear).

To also slightly illuminate your awareness as to why purely rational, knowledgable individuals are willing to part with hard-earned cash to improve their listening experience in this particular arena, I offer the following sliver of technical analysis as to what is really happening with audio and streaming.

AirPlay is flawed because it is using kernel-layer audio processing on the device one is using to play back the audio. This alone means the signal itself is suspect as it may not be bit-perfect (and usually isn't). Not to mention, sample rate conversion on the device and in the player/playback software (which itself may be considered as a "component" in your digital audio system, much like a CD transport - it's just virtual so most pay no attention to it) can dramatically affect sound quality before it is delivered over the network to the endpoint. Sure, it works (meaning, the 1's and 0's sent by the device arrive at the endpoint intact as they were sent) but most have no idea of flaws in the playback software (application layer) they are using, let alone the fact that the device uses kernel audio post-software (so there are two competing processes at work).

This is why so many "audiophiles" use bit-perfect programs such as Audirvana on their Mac or PC (I also remember Amarra, and personally used programs such as this one when I was using a Windows machine to play digital music: https://sourceforge.net/p/playpcmwin/wiki/PlayPcmWinEn/)

The answer for the OP should be - please don't play music from your iPad at all. Use your iPad as a control point, not a playback device, and buy a computer or device that provides bit-perfect output to your DAC (or better yet, has a high-quality DAC built in). Those suggesting a Raspberry Pi are on the right track, but much of their reasoning is flawed (digital is digital).

As an analogy, very few in the digital video or imaging world would have any problem acknowledging the dramatic affects software processes (embedded or otherwise) can have on the final image results. The idea that audio is somehow different is simply ludicrous.

As you have discovered, you will get different opinions on ASR and Audiogon in response to your question about whether there is a point to buying a higher priced streamer.

Here on Agon, you have heard either that (1) all streamers should pretty much sound alike (so buy based on cost, features, and ease of use) or that (2) some streamers sound better than others and you should listen to enough of them to decide what sound differences matter to you. Most of the technical discussions about why streamers can sound different focus on issues of noise, jitter, memory buffers, and software implementation, and it is critical to recognize that existing methods for measuring equipment may not do a good job of evaluating differences in streamer sound quality.

On ASR, you have heard that streamers cannot sound different because they are digital devices that only process 1's and 0's. (For a differing opinion, check out Darko's discussion of this issue, if you haven't already.) The ASR approach is typically to measure first and then listen later (or even not at all), without making an honest attempt to overcome the confirmation bias of "sameness" for digital devices. ASR also makes assumptions about how small differences in noise or distortion can be used to judge the sound quality of equipment even in the absence of data to establish that correlation reliably (e.g., ranking DACs primarily on SINAD measurements). 

If the ASR approach works for you, that's your decision to make, but it's not actually science-based because audio science does not yet have valid measurements for everything the human brain-ear can process. I would instead take the approach of many others on this thread and urge you to listen to different streamers and confirm whether you can hear any differences that matter to you. If you've already done enough listening and don't hear differences under similar conditions, then you can buy whatever inexpensive streamer is reliable and easy to use. Given the reasonably generous budget you describe, however, it would make sense to do a bit more comparative listening before wholeheartedly embracing the "flat-earth" opinions voiced by our friends at ASR.

Bet if you did a blind test, most people would buy the BlueSound Node2i.  I added a DAC and had to sell it on Audiogon.  The BlueSound sounded better on its own.  I call it the Emperor's New Cloths syndrome.  If you spend more, you convince yourself it sounds better.  However, I am sure streamers costing $3000 to $5000 must sound better.  How much better is the real question?  Do they sound $2,500 to $4,500 better?  

Most of the technical discussions about why streamers can sound different focus on issues of noise, jitter, memory buffers, and software implementation, and it is critical to recognize that existing methods for measuring equipment may not do a good job of evaluating differences in streamer sound quality.

I agree with this sentiment, I would also add that the final litmus test is (and must be) the listener, so for people to go on measuring things without listening to them, and somehow being able to extrapolate how the component will sound, is a futile approach. 

However, I will say that there are absolutely no audio components I've personally owned which would not be able to withstand the scrutiny of detailed measurements, whatever those are worth. I've listened to plenty of components which were merely ho-hum and boring with no musical enjoyment, and upon inspecting these components' measured results, over time it wasn't surprising to find the pattern - components which measure well do tend to sound better than components which do not.

That being said, just because a component measures well, does not mean it will sound good in your particular application or environment. Too many audiophiles/enthusiasts pay little attention to synergy and integration between components (particularly the room). I laugh every time I see gigantic loudspeakers in rooms entirely too small to support them. The purpose of this pursuit is to enjoy music - the gear is a means to that end. I've listened to countless high end systems and the few that actually play music always stand out - and it's usually because an industry guru spent hours fine-tuning each and every detail in a methodical, logical manner. 

As a tangent, next time someone is trying to convince you of a particular direction to take your audio system (i.e. sales person, reviewer, industry maven) I'd suggest asking that individual if they have ever spent any significant time either performing live music as a musician (surprisingly, many have) or has any experience with professional audio engineering (again, many have). In particular, an audio engineer should have some live music experience with sitting behind a mixing desk/console and running a live show (I know some recording guys who are deathly afraid of this which is why I mention it). 

The reason I mention this is that the professional audio world tends to have a deeper knowledge of the inner workings of questions like this, which the consumer and "high-end" audio world tend to obfuscate and avoid. The answers are there for those willing to put in the time and the work; if you really want to learn, consider spending the money to obtain an AES membership and delve into the plethora of white papers which can "technically" describe what is happening under the hood with all of these various processes. Unfortunately, what I've seen is that most enthusiasts are simply not interested in this level of research and would prefer to regurgitate misleading or plain wrong information. It's not surprising to me when I've listened to the systems many of these types of folks assemble have absolutely no meaningful communication of the program material and instead represent some fanciful interpretation which seems to suck out the very soul of the music, leaving an anemic shell of a presentation.

Meandering back to the point I originally wished to make - when people provide blanket statements such as "digital is digital" or "as long as it achieves this and that measured spec, it will be fine" simply put their ignorance on display to those who actually know how to assemble a proper music playback system. If they wish to continue to enjoy piss-poor music quality while spending loads of cash on nonsensical ideas, it is their prerogative, but they disservice others wishing to enjoy music at a truly elevated level. I've seen it at each and every level of the HiFi industry, and I won't be surprised when many of the "me-too" brands fade over the next few years while the innovators and pole position brands continue to press ahead and leave others in the dust.

Quote larry5729
Bet if you did a blind test, most people would buy the BlueSound Node2i. I added a DAC and had to sell it on Audiogon. The BlueSound sounded better on its own. I call it the Emperor's New Cloths syndrome. If you spend more, you convince yourself it sounds better. However, I am sure streamers costing $3000 to $5000 must sound better. How much better is the real question? Do they sound $2,500 to $4,500 better?  

—————

It’s called expectation bias.   I saw a good friend show himself up in front of a room full of guys comparing his £6000 mains cable Vs a £3.50 kettle lead.
The lad doing the switching had double bluffed.   My mate was claiming “night & day, you’re all deaf”.    Embarrassing.

Thing is, he’s never learned from that experience.   He’s too emotionally invested.   He believes reviews or anything a dealer tells him, but is oblivious to that real life lesson.   Oh well, it’s his money.