ARE SUPER EXPENSIVE STREAMERS REALLY WORTH IT


Folks I am confused why some streamers need to be so eye wateringly expensive. I appreciate the internal basics need to be covered such as a high quality, low noise power supply and a decent processor speed etc..  but that is not rocket science.

So my question is could a decent streamer outputting its data stream via I2S to a good quality DAC receiving the I2S stream be a more cost effective way of rivalling let’s say a streamer costing 5k upwards.

I have heard and digested the argument for expensive streamers quality being centred around the management of the data timing via a quality clock circuit but there are very reasonable in relative terms, DAC’s out there that have dual super high quality temp controlled clocks within, at least the equal or arguably even better than the say a 5k streamer with some sporting dual high end DAC chips etc.

So could utilizing a good quality streamer and a separate high-quality DAC connected via I2S indeed offer significant benefits and potentially reduce the need for a very expensive streamer.

I say this with the knowledge that I2S is designed to preserve and separate the Signals so avoiding the timing issues connected with multiplexing. I2S (Inter-IC Sound) separates the music signal from the timing signal, potentially eliminating jitter or at the very least greatly reducing the possibility for the pesky music killing jitter which we all could agree would lead to improving overall sound quality.

Wouldn’t this separation ensure that the timing information is more accurately preserved, even when compared to a high price streamer, leading as clean or cleaner and more precise audio data output. With I2S, the DAC can use its own high-quality clock/s to synchronize the data, which will reduce jitter and improve sound quality.

Could this possibly mean that even if the streamer has a less advanced clock, the DAC’s superior clock can take over, ensuring best  performance.

So bang for buck would it not be advantageous to investing in a high-quality DAC and using a good but not necessarily top-tier streamer to achieve excellent sound quality without the need for an extremely expensive streamer. Surely the DAC’s performance will play a crucial role in the final sound quality.

Play gentle with the pile on please....................

nubiann

Thank you, everyone. As I had hoped, there have been plenty of thoughtful, knowledgeable contributions from our community and not too much in the way of a pile-on.wink

Just a quick note to Jerry: Thanks for reading at least some of my topic. Of course, I wouldn’t purchase a component based solely on the I/O, Jerry, but I genuinely wanted to take advantage of the knowledge here and better understand the subject matter.

I’m sure I am a fairly typical purchaser. Like many here, I have a decent budget and a very understanding better half, but I don’t have unlimited funds either. So, I regard these purchases as consequential since music listening and enjoyment are important to me. As I look to add this relatively recent music resource to my system, I need to do some due diligence. I always believed in attempting to do this to the best quality I can afford. These will be substantial and, I hope, long-term investments.

I’m not a luddite; I do have a digital source in my system. But this whole discussion is about how we turn digital into analogue, i.e., music. I would add that a quality vinyl solution will remain a part of the equation for me, at least in the medium term.

I asked about I2S because my left brain needs answers. It’s far from clear what investing a substantial ratio of the streaming savings pot into a streamer, which in my case potentially constrains what I regarded as the more consequential part of this particular chain, the DAC.

If a streamer collects the data packets and establishes they are all there, it feeds this stream of data via I2S. Then surely it deals with the clock signal differently by isolating it and presenting a clean, jitter-free signal for the DAC. I have heard this work with a CD player outputting to a DAC via I2S, and there are audible differences for me.  I appreciate that there isnt a pin confiuration standard as yet but most DAC's with this connection can accomodate this by offering configurable I2S. So why isn’t it discussed as a possible game-changer? And why, when a quality DAC can and often does use separate super quiet regulated power supplies, one for the analogue circuit and another for the digital; heck I have even seen that they often utilize twin “high-end” DAC chips and two “high-end” temperature-regulated clocks?

Am I being unreasonable to suggest, at least to myself, that anything the streamer does regarding jitter/timing is pretty much redundant? As long as the stream contains all the zeros and ones that sum correctly, these amazing modern DACs take total control and will deal with jitter and noise very effectively. Therefore, possibly negating the need for a super expensive streamer beyond the implementation of a decent power supply, a well-thought-out motherboard, and ample processing power, allowing me to spend much more on the DAC.

This whole ethereal rabbit hole of what happens when obtaining data packets from a remote server before handing off the digital stream to analogue conversion is becoming more contentious an area than any part of the more traditional analogue chain.

I have to admit I’m leaning toward the influence of the DAC as more important than the data stream, as it should be pretty much error-free, as is most of the half a zettabyte per day that gets zapped around our world.

Most of what a high-quality DAC does, including the importance of the internal clock functions, is somewhat easier to grasp. So just how important is the data stream being clocked from the streamer, then re-clocked by the DAC before it becomes an actual music waveform? No one has really convincingly explained this.

High-quality DACs seem to equally emphasize the importance of stable power the internal clock functions, but in addition also how the DAC chips present the waveform to the analogue section ready for amplification. So just how important is the data stream being clocked from the streamer, only to be re-clocked by these powerhouse DACs before becoming an actual music waveform? No one has really convincingly explained this to me.

I am already getting from reading the great contributions here, that there are hugely differing experiences being shared.  So, in addition to what I have learned and still learning here, is that I need to and on listening to some streamers and DAC combinations, as well as DAC Streamer units in different price sectors and hopefully narrow a few down to audition in my not low end but certainly not esoteric £50-60k system.

Am I being unreasonable to suggest, at least to myself, that anything the streamer does regarding jitter/timing is pretty much redundant? As long as the stream contains all the zeros and ones that sum correctly, these amazing modern DACs take total control and will deal with jitter and noise very effectively…So just how important is the data stream being clocked from the streamer, only to be re-clocked by these powerhouse DACs before becoming an actual music waveform? No one has really convincingly explained this to me.

It’s like you never even read my initial response because I thought I provided a pretty clear explanation of what a streamer does and why it’s important.  The digital chain is only as strong as the weakest link, so if you choose to skimp on the streamer and it’s not on the level of your DAC it will be a bottleneck to the DAC’s performance.  Please go re-read my initial response more carefully as it does answer your questions.

 

Jitter has been a non-issue for a long time. There is no real advantage to use IS2 over SPDIF. In a controlled blind test an inexpensive streamer cannot be distinguished from an expensive one. This is reality. To believe otherwise is to be delusional.

The OP is overthinking this issue. Regarding DAC's: they as a category have been transparent to the signal for a long time. For a DAC to have a distinguishable "sound" it would have to be poorly designed. Practically all DAC's today are competently designed and are indistinguishable regardless of price. This is reality.

Yes,  it's the cheap DACs and streamers that have really been pushing I2S.  It's a shame people are basing their choice on a connection with no universal standard 

Ben of Mojo Audio has stated more than once that I2S is not his preferred scheme.  An excerpt from their site

"

I2S was engineered as an internal transfer protocol for inside of DACs and ADCs and is the language most DAC chips read. In most DACs all other transfer protocols are converted to I2S before they can be sent to the DAC chip. The official specification for I2S is that it should not be used for longer than 4”. This is why so few companies sell I2S compatible CD transports or DACs: it is not necessarily a good idea.

Think about it: all other transfer protocols are a bit stream with embedded clocking. Companies who boast about the performance of their I2S claim that the clocking in a single bit stream becomes corrupted. You see I2S has three wires: the data stream with embedded clocking, a bit clock which synchronizes with each bit, and a word clock which synchronizes with each digital word. If clocking in data streams can get corrupted, then why would it make sense to try to synchronize three data streams and clocks?

The only reason I2S sounds better on a specific DAC is because the other transfer protocols are of a lower level of performance. In a sense I2S saves the manufacturer money in that they are relying on expensive clocking from the component feeding their DAC rather than integrating such high-performance clocking.

So, which transfer protocol has the best sound? That would depend on the digital source (server, streamer, or CD transport), and the quality of the specific digital input on a specific DAC. Most DACs don’t have the same performance from all their inputs. Many DAC manufacturers will even state their best input is USB or Ethernet or S/PDIF. And even if you have the best input on your DAC, if you’re using a less than optimal digital source, overall performance won’t be all that good. So, once again, transfer protocols are not universal, but highly component dependent."