@nubiann +1 with those posting that each component of the entire digital chain from router to DAC matters. Just pause for a moment and really think about that and all the analogous instances where that logic from an engineering perspective is incontrovertably true - it has most definitely been true with respect to building out my digital source chain. With respect to I/O interfaces, it is the component quality that takes precedence; an example is the Grimm streamer some posters here have mentioned, it is fantastic and uses AES/EBU instead of I2S. I will end by saying the most noticeable sound improvement in my system came from going from ethernet to fiber optic.
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....................
- ...
- 118 posts total
I just had a I2S streamer bake-off between an PS AirlLens and a Matrix Element S. Neither are either cheap or expensive. The dac is a Holo May KTE. The Holo May has two I2S inputs which was handy for testing. Turned off the May's own reclocking PLL circuit so the streamer's clocks were used. Tested with both Tubulus Libentus and Phasure I2S cables. Regardless of configuration or what was playing, I (+ discerning wife) thought the Element had the best sound and certainly the best soundstage. This opinion persisted even when the PLL clocking in the Holo was turned back on again. That was a great surprise. The main difference between these two streamers? The AirLens uses a VCXO clock while the Element is using TCXO clocks. I remember talking to the designer of the Musica Capella III and he said that he worked very hard to get the clocking right in his design. I had a Capella for several years and couldn't agree more - perhaps that's what sets the streamers apart. I don't know if USB or I2S is better, it really comes down to your system. There are lots of Holo owners who prefer USB. I've tested both from time to time and have always ended up on I2S. |
@kairosman Well said. What other components are you using in your streaming/fiber optic setup?
|
This question can’t be answered without a look at the software and the particular streaming configuration you are using. You might as well ask whether a Porsche or a pickup are better...if you’re hauling landscaping supplies the answer is different than if you’re showing up to the high school reunion. If you are using the streamer to pull music from the Internet or your network (or internal storage) and decompress it, add DSP, and output directly to a DAC, then you need a fair amount of processing which means more power consumption which means you need someone to engineer that to the electrically quietest possible which means some $$$. At least theoretically albeit many DACs will reject the vast majority of any possible noise anyway. If you are using a server->streamer topology where the server does all the processing and sends a decoded, post-DSP signal to a dumb device that only takes the signal in by network and outputs via USB or other digital, then what you want is a very quiet low power device and those aren’t nearly as expensive to build. Someone who knows computers could build a Pi, a linux device, etc. that will perform quite well. Secondarily some of the more expensive boxes may have more featured software and/or be compatible with more streaming services and protocols. It depends on how much you know what you are doing. If you’re really good with building IP-computing devices and networking, you can achieve the same as the expensive stuff much more cheaply. But you do need the knowledge.
I find this logic fascinating. |
- 118 posts total