2. digital
  3. 190959-84411

Are all streamers the same?

Dogma says they’re all the same. Experience suggests otherwise. Price may or may not be guide. Are there solid tech reasons such as bleed of noise into the digital signal? What does “it’s all about the ‘implementation’”really mean? How come power cords and interconnects make a difference? For example, there are numerous USB cords that separate the power from the signal cables to minimize interference and noise transference.

Why don’t we have an accepted science of audio, as yet? Where’s the research compilation esp at textbook level? Yes I’m happy just listening and using my ears and my biases to make judgments; no problem.

Yet I continue to see dogma, from the USA and Europe, indeed everywhere, that remains steadfast in their disbelief in variances. It becomes tiresome at times. But hey what do I care? Lol, my pursuit of fidelity and knowledge remain equally strong.

128x128johnread57
tubeguy80
59 posts
 

I think it depends. When things start as a streamer, and then the DAC part gets added, it always seems like a compromise to me. This is how I felt about all the Aurender models I've ever tried with analog outputs. Not that they sound bad, just not on the same level as using a separate DAC with an existing Aurender unit (with digital outputs only). 

When they obviously started life primarily as a DAC, then added the streaming part, that tends to work better imho. That would be some of the newer dCS DACs, certain Bricasti Designs models, the Matrix Element series, the Bryston 3.14, and others like that. I guess one could argue if these fit the definition of a really "high end" device but I have a hard time excluding the Esoteric N-01XD SE or dCS Bartok Apex as not qualifying.

It might have to do with streaming requirements being simpler these days. I just want integrated Roon bridge functionality, I don't need an entire music server with disc ripper and built-in album art editor etc. So it's easier to add the network bridge to a DAC than the other way around. 

jssmith
310 posts
 

Bits are bits. But sometimes DAC designers screw that up. Floyd Toole's book is considered the science of audio.

johnread57's avatar
johnread57 OP
227 posts
 

The phrase “bits are bits” suggests that digital audio data, once encoded, remains unchanged and should theoretically sound the same regardless of the playback system. However, the reality is a bit more nuanced.

Digital audio quality is influenced by several factors:

  1. Bit Depth: This refers to the number of bits used to represent each audio sample. Higher bit depths allow for more detailed and accurate representation of the audio signal, reducing noise and increasing dynamic range1. For example, 16-bit audio is common for CDs, while 24-bit or higher is used in professional audio recording1.

  2. Sample Rate: This is the number of samples taken per second. Higher sample rates can capture more detail and higher frequencies, but they also require more storage and processing power2. Common sample rates include 44.1 kHz (CD quality) and 96 kHz or 192 kHz for high-resolution audio2.

  3. Digital-to-Analog Conversion (DAC): The quality of the DAC can affect how accurately the digital signal is converted back to analog. Poor-quality DACs can introduce noise and distortion3.

  4. Jitter: This is a timing error in the digital signal that can cause distortion. High-quality digital audio systems aim to minimize jitter3.

While the digital data itself (the bits) doesn’t change, the processes involved in recording, storing, and playing back digital audio can impact the final sound quality. So, while “bits are bits” holds true in a strict digital sense, the overall audio experience can be influenced by the factors mentioned above.

More to discover