Considering an upgrade


I've currently got a small Windows PC dedicated as a Roon server, with a Bryston BDP-2  streamer feeding an Yggdrasil DAC (gen2). I play everything through Roon - probably 60% Tidal, 40% locally stored content. There isn't anything in particular that I'm unhappy with, but I'm wondering what options I might have without spending too much more (maybe $4K to $5K more) than I could sell the streamer and/or DAC for.  

I listen mostly to female vocals (classic rock, folk, alternative), jazz, electronic. I probably value vocal smoothness, naturalness and clarity above all else, but I wouldn't want to give up much if anything that my system does well now. 

I'm curious about something like the W4S Music Server which would replace both the PC and streamer, or using a DAC with a built in streamer such as the PS Audio Direct Stream. But I'd also consider just doing a DAC upgrade if there is something in the $4-$6K range that is a significant upgrade over the Yggy. I'd consider new or used.

Also wondering about upgrading my Bryston BDP-2 to a BDP-3. Not sure what kind of SQ improvements I'd see.

Thanks,
Jay
128x128jaytor
Thanks for your reply. Have you used one or the other of these? The CPU performances seems fairly low. How do them do running Roon driving multiple zones, and/or using DSP functionality? Are these generally used as streamers (using the USB output) or just as servers?

Thanks.
I don't know why but every time I post a link on this forum they never work? You may have to just copy and paste the address into your browser.
Jay: your DAC is fine. Get an Innuos, either ZEN or ZENith MK3, and run Roon there. You can also use it as Roon endpoint, feeding your DAC via USB.

Innuos is low powered on purpose. Basic DSP and relatively big size DSP work fine. It will choke with heavy DSP and huge library. I have the ZENith MK3
@sonicjoy, the links don’t work because the second occurrence of "http" in each link (or "https" in some cases, in that position) is not followed by a colon.

Also, the first occurrence of "http://" in each link should not be there, although it is not present in the actual URL underlying the visible link, which is what is used by the web browser program. That first "http://" appears in the visible link because the "insert URL" button above the response box inserts it by default (as you can see when that button is clicked), but although it is not the reason your links don’t work it would be best to delete it before pasting the URL into that box.

And in fact with modern browser programs it isn’t necessary to even use that box, unless you want to highlight some text in your post and make it clickable, like this. Otherwise, just paste the URL directly into the post.

Regards,
-- Al