Really? Explains what exactly, no difference between the raspberry pi or the Bel Canto or Aurrender or Innous etc.. ? |
Don’t bite @djones51
Audiofools don’t like blind tests.
I once took a Chinese DAC board I’d bought from eBay to a “bake off” (not sure what you call Hifi meet-ups in US?).
It was hooked up into the same Pre amp as a fancy milled Aluminium Chord 64. Track played & Preamp selector switched from one to the other.
12 guys & 2 women in the room.
The only two who said they heard a difference were the 2 women.
Guess which they preferred?
It wasn’t the Chord...
|
Let me answer that for you Dow Jones 50. It explains one thing: you are rucking deaf low life bottom feeder imbecile 😘 |
Audiofools don’t like blind tests.
I once took a Chinese DAC board I’d bought from eBay to a “bake off” (not sure what you call Hifi meet-ups in US?).
It was hooked up into the same Pre amp as a fancy milled Aluminium Chord 64. Track played & Preamp selector switched from one to the other.
12 guys & 2 women in the room.
The only two who said they heard a difference were the 2 women.
Guess which they preferred?
It wasn’t the Chord... There are so many unmentioned variables within your anecdotal story of a "blind test". If you're going to make a statement, why not put in the effort to describe the rest of the system components, how the DACs were connected, what source was used for the digital signal and with what connection, et al. Most audio fools don't take the time to do the work to even know how a blind test is conducted, resulting in meaningless anecdotes like yours, containing information of no value to anyone. |
Really? Explains what exactly, no difference between the raspberry pi or the Bel Canto or Aurrender or Innous etc.. ? It explains a number of potentialities, a few of which are - - Your comparisons may have been made using a flawed method of evaluation
- There may be a technical limitation in the system being used to make the evaluation, masking any ability to determine a performance difference
- You've not spent sufficient time learning how to actively listen
- You might not be able to hear very well?
- You may not have ever made any of the comparisons you've claimed
As far as the technical reasons why different streamers can sound different, there are many. I've hinted at some of them elsewhere on the forum, but a few of them are: - What protocol(s) the device is using/can use on the network
- How well the player software decodes the audio information from the file for delivery to internal digital buses
- How well internal digital bus processes (e.g. USB, PCI Express, SATA, RAM, Southbridge/Northbridge, etc.) and other DSP (filters, digital EQ, etc.) are implemented and performed before delivery as audio data to an output
- What output or interface is used to translate the digital audio data to PCM for use by the DAC (whether internal or external)
- How the DAC clocks synchronize the PCM audio data between the sending device (player software and digital bus transport) and the receiving device (DAC interface/input) which can be done a number of ways including Asynchronous/Isosynchronous via USB, a Phase-Locked-Loop using SPDIF connections (Toslink, Coax, or AES/EBU), or an I2S process in which the DAC and Streamer share the same clock. On this note, high performance streamers will typically have multiple clocks on board, one for each word length and sample rate the device is capable of. Some devices like the Aurender W20 have a word clock input for sharing an external word clock between the DAC and Streamer.
Anyway, if you are still convinced there is no difference between streamers after a somewhat succinct and yet technical accurate analysis of why in fact there is, none of this will be any help to you. |
