Do Streamer only devices really impact sound quality?

OK. Lots of people try to explain this and the only argument that I find compelling is to discuss the difference between streaming and file transfer. Digital files are perfect, aka, "bit perfect". your bank couldn’t survive if it dropped bits. So when you download a file, even a song file (not a streamed song, totally different), it will be checked with error correction until it is perfect. 100%. zero bits dropped. That is why a corrupted file may set there forever with the hourglass. It is trying to correct the errors and get it right and finally gives up.

When streaming music you don’t have that luxury. There can be no delay. dropped bits have to be filled in by best guesses by the streaming protocol. Dropped bits happen and are degrade sound quality a lot on an audiophile system. This is not really a problem for a teenager streaming Spotify on Alexa which is 99% of the streaming market. But on our systems it is the difference between good soundstage, tight bass, delicate highs, and an expensive sound system that underperforms.

So we have to spend a lot of money on streamers, cables, and ethernet switches. Timing is important too. Now the good news is you can get adequate (not great) performance from relatively inexpensive streamers. A $300 to $500 streamer will tremendously outperform a computer.

And of couse don’t forget the DAC which is the heart of the system. Unlike a streamer, you can’t go cheap on a DAC.

And don't even think about wireless streaming.

Jerry

@erik_squires 

At the end of the day though your DAC is going to be subject to the clock of the streamer

Only a boob would believe that.

Not my DAC.

Only a boob would believe that.

I did write that too fast, and I'm sorry but let's be nice to those just starting to learn.

Even the best asynchronous DAC's can be impacted by really bad streams/streamers, especially streaming radio.

For the most part, a good low noise clock on a DAC with asynch USB is pretty awesome but they can't do magic, and if things upstream get bad enough, including if a digital ground loop occurs the DAC could be subject to less than ideal performance. 

Another reason I chose the N200, I can use either it's USB or Coax.    I think my DAC sounds better via Coax .  I think the clock in the Aurender is better than in my DAC,  this would explain why I think the Coax connection sounds better.   My other DAC uses it's internal clock whether you use USB, Coax, or Tos so I can't make any comparisons.  Maybe down the road I'll have a DAC that sounds better via USB, who knows  ut it's good to have both outputs.   I run the USB out of the N200 to my headphone rig , a RME adi2 .   

For many devices recently on the market, the streamer is integrated with a DAC and possibly preamp capabilities (volume control, source selection, or both). So chances are, you won't be hearing the "streamer itself" in isolation from one or more of those other functions. Furthermore, streamer A and streamer B may be delivering different combinations of software effects (DSP) or source content, which all color the output. FWIW, Stereophile does not have a separate category for "streamers" in its annual list of recommended components. They have a "digital processors" category, which mostly covers DACs (many of which have integrated streaming or preamp capabilities, equalization, DSP, etc.) 

So, while In theory "everything is important", I doubt that anyone here has done controlled, volume-leveled A-B comparisons among multiple streamers in a way that focuses solely on the streaming functions, per se, of all the compared devices.  I'd venture to say that the impact on SQ of the streaming capability, per se, probably is somewhere between negligible and unobservable compared to the impact of the DAC and especially the preamp effects.  But I don't really know for sure, and would welcome anyone to point out a good comparison of multiple streamers, one based on some credible combination of metrics and expert observation.