DACless streamer

[steve_1979]

Well I'd say Steve you are welcome to come round to mine (Sussex ) and check out the difference of one streamer compared to another and I will convince you.

Thanks for the offer but I'll give it a miss.

The proof is always in the testing.

If a DAC is receiving a 100% bit perfect data stream it already has 100% of the information required to reconstruct a 100% perfect analogue wave. There is nothing else to send. It's irrelivent whether the 100% perfect information comes from a cheap computer or a mega bucks hifi streamer so long as all of the information is there.

Jitter isn't an issue either because modern DACs now have jitter rejection hardware built into them. Basically what this does is take the incoming data stream and re-clock it to remove any jitter before the digital to analoge process takes place.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Even best dacs can't deal with all jitter by reclocking circuits as far as I understand. That's why a £30 chromecast sounds terrible compared to better streamers. But ask any dealer and they will say the same, then listen to a cca on a really good system versus say a naim streamer, and you will hear a difference. There is a lot of dimishing returns in better streamers but it's a decent difference

I've never understood why people don't trust own senses and go out and try, first and foremost, rather than use technical explanations that get banded around that are often incorrect, to try and put down an idea or hi fi component, even before they've tried. A myriad of reasons for this such is human nature, and ones experiences too. Am always amazed at how much you see this in hi fi. Hi fi is fickle so you can't easily apply explanations too.

 

[grimharry]

I'm free next weekend*biggrin*

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Nah wouldn't invite people around who call me what you did.

 

[grimharry]

Oh and I was going to bring a cake

 

[Gray]

x wrong thread! no way to delete all?

 

[grimharry]

Least said soonest mended*good*

 

[Andrewjvt]

Oh and I was going to bring a cake

Been nice
........

 

[steve_1979]

Even best dacs can't deal with all jitter by reclocking circuits as far as I understand...

Jitter error has to be very very severe for it to be a problem. Under normal operational circumstances the data stream can be reclocked by the DAC without any issues.

I've never understood why people don't trust own senses and go out and try, first and foremost...

Been there. Done that. Several times already.

Using proper blind comparisons too so that there's no bias creeping in.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I think you are taking a position Steve on the normal stuff that gets banded around on hi fi forums. It all comes down to experience of the differences in say a chromecast audio and better streamers that perform better IN THE RIGHT SYSTEMS.

Don't you think it's reasonably conceivable or possible, if you can't hear any difference someone else may do so depending on how their different system fits together, compatibility, and how revealing their system is. Id be interested to know what system you own, and if you are nearby I'd still keep my offer open to come around and listen to the music we were chatting about.

The easiest way to show you would be to flick between the inputs of the chromecast and my other streamer, playing the same track off say tidal.

 

[steve_1979]

Id be interested to know what system you own

PC > AVI DM10

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Im surprised in your systems you can't hear a difference between different streamers, if I've got that right. What streamers have you tried with your avi speakers.

 

[steve_1979]

PC, SBT, various phones, Sony MP3 player.

A basic understanding of how data transfer works in computers will let you know thet an expensive hifi streamer is of no benefit over any basic computer that has a a bit-perfect output. In the same way a basic understanding of physics will tell you that a perpetual motion machine can't exist.

To argue otherwise just shows a lack of understanding of how computers work. Sorry.

 

[davidf]

If everyone had a closed mind, and ignored what was thought not to be possible, nothing would ever get invented.

 

[Pedro2]

Logically, I fully agree and the idea that 'bits are just bits' no matter how they are transferred seems obvious. What is strange, however, is that a Linn DSM sounds 'different' to a Naim streamer of similar (high?) price. You could argue that it's down to the different DACs but even feeding a separate DAC and used purely as a renderer of digital files, Linn would (probably) state that their hardware will still sound 'better' than a laptop/pc etc used as a source. I'm sure that many would beg to differ on this point.....

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

PC, SBT, various phones, Sony MP3 player.

A basic understanding of how data transfer works in computers will let you know thet an expensive hifi streamer is of no benefit over any basic computer that has a a bit-perfect output. In the same way a basic understanding of physics will tell you that a perpetual motion machine can't exist.

To argue otherwise just shows a lack of understanding of how computers work. Sorry.

thats where you are going wrong I think, because you maintaining a line of argument without trying and where it's far from a basic understanding that determines why hi fi can sound better than other at different price points. Hi fi is very complicated indeed, and it may not even be the things you talk of that discern why a naim streamer sounds better than a chromecast audio in the right system.

So in effect, unless you have serious understanding which, with respect, you probably don't if you are an average hi fi bod like me and enthusiast with no trained technical knowledge, it comes down to comparative listening. But you've said in a previous post you don't believe it because of its price, you are sceptical because it's so expensive. Also by apparently not trying to listen to other streamers. So that's your reason it seems, which you are entitled to - pessimism around the product. But it doesn't really qualify anyone on that basis to say that a steamer is not as good as another or not or they are all the same as digital transports. By all means you can say I don't think a different streamer in my system would make such difference, if that's the case which I suspect you think it is, but what is a stretch is to say a product doesn't stand up to its price when in another system it may be fantastic with diminishing returns factored in as price goes up.

 

[Gazzip]

I'm with you on this. Without a DAC you may as well get really good software and hook your PC up to a DAC. No need for a separate streamer.

AES/EBU output, a 240V IEC input (probably some kind of linear PSU in the chassis?), Bluetooth and WiFi (on separate aerials/circuits), Passively cooled with no fans or other noise, Plug-n-play (no driver issues), a rock solid control app, a "proper" remote control handset so not entirely reliant on a tablet/phone, seemless integration with the rest of the SimAudio suite.

I agree that £1700 is quite punchy when one considers the original Moon Mind streamer sold for less than half of that, but if you think this is just a Raspberry-Pi or a simple PC in a fancy aluminium suit then you are talking complete balls. Yes you can build a PC music server which does all of this and more, but it will cost you approaching that amount if you want to get close to the spec of the Moon Mind.

Does it sound any better than a Raspberry Pi? I don't know, I havent heard them up against one another, but to assume/deride without even listening to it goes beyond farcical.

 

[cheeseboy]

if you are an average hi fi bod like me and enthusiast with no trained technical knowledge,

yet you are willing to make statements that aren't true. Steve is correct in what he says. The data side of a streamer is a computer. We know all about computers because we invented them, designed them and continue to improve them. However, without the current computer knowledge we have, and the design and rules that computers work under, I would not be able to talk to you as I am now. Please remember that until the data hits the dac, it's not music, it's just data. it could be anything, the computer doesn't care.

If everyone had a closed mind, and ignored what was thought not to be possible, nothing would ever get invented.

works both ways that. Ignorance is not an excuse when there's enough information out there to back up what steve et al are saying. It's lines like this that give rise to magic pebbles and that stupid ******* clock thing.

 

[Pedro]

PC, SBT, various phones, Sony MP3 player.

A basic understanding of how data transfer works in computers will let you know thet an expensive hifi streamer is of no benefit over any basic computer that has a a bit-perfect output. In the same way a basic understanding of physics will tell you that a perpetual motion machine can't exist.

To argue otherwise just shows a lack of understanding of how computers work. Sorry.

+1

Previously I said jitter are timing errors that occur in nanoseconds, but I got it wrong, because the measurements I was able to find online show that they actually occur in PICOSECONDS. One picosecond= 0.000 000 000 001 seconds. DACs have buffers.

It's interesting that people keep debating jitter but I've never read anyone giving a real example of a jitter artifact that someone was able to spot, something like: "while I was listening to Beethoven's moonlight sonata and I heard background noise at 1m20s of playing", let alone record it and show us the evidence.

Unless the PC/streamer/digital transport is design flawed or defective, those jitter artifacts (FM sidebands, noise like artifacts) will be more than 100db below the music. Anyone claiming to spot noise of 110 or 120db below music playing is a quack, because we're talking about something lower than a CD noise floor. Instead people resort to the usual go to audiophool clichés, like detail and so on.

People seem less preoccupied with room acoustics, by far more important or wow in record players. I just opened the Rega website and picked a turntable randomly: RP10. There's the description, product details, yada yada yada. Tech specs: no wow and flutter figures (also timing errors). Is anybody betting on picosecond timing errors? But digital jitter seems to be the devil's work for some obscure reason.

About comparing digital transports and the hearing is believing argument, the effects of expectation bias have been studied for a long time and are well known, except in hifi forums, so it seems.

If someone claims the A brand digital transport sounding better than the B brand one, I say take measurements and have people do a proper blind test.

Let me try to use my senses to measure my blood pressure, or weigh stuff at the supermarket, measure atmospheric pressure and so on.

 

[cheeseboy]

But digital jitter seems to be the devil's work for some obscure reason.

audiophile nervosa. There *has* to be something to improve. Sometimes these things get invented in order to sell a solution. Sometimes a solution is made when there isn't a problem! Remember audiophiles listen to their equipment using music. Most other people use equipment to listen to music.

 

[cheeseboy]

I agree that £1700 is quite punchy when one considers the original Moon Mind streamer sold for less than half of that, but if you think this is just a Raspberry-Pi or a simple PC in a fancy aluminium suit then you are talking complete balls. Yes you can build a PC music server which does all of this and more, but it will cost you approaching that amount if you want to get close to the spec of the Moon Mind.

I'd respectfully disagree. I think you could build the same/better for a lot less.

Edit - Not saying one should, just that one can btw. I've no problem with people charging loads of money, I mean it's probably a little tin pot company, they have pay wages, recoup the money for research, building/milling/machining costs as the case looks bespoke so I understand the cost. However, doesn't mean it's acutally any better than other things on the market, or because it's a high price that it somehow contains some kind of magic that cheaper options don't. It's generally down to economies of scale.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Ok well can anyone tell me why then a £30 chromecast audio sounds rubbish against my £1300 cyrus stream x signature, both digital transports into my cyrus dac xp signature.

and if you say its to do with me, bias, or any other human factors, and I'm not hearing a difference, im sorry but that lacks all credibility.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

if you are an average hi fi bod like me and enthusiast with no trained technical knowledge,

yet you are willing to make statements that aren't true. Steve is correct in what he says. The data side of a streamer is a computer. We know all about computers because we invented them, designed them and continue to improve them. However, without the current computer knowledge we have, and the design and rules that computers work under, I would not be able to talk to you as I am now. Please remember that until the data hits the dac, it's not music, it's just data. it could be anything, the computer doesn't care.

If everyone had a closed mind, and ignored what was thought not to be possible, nothing would ever get invented.

works both ways that. Ignorance is not an excuse when there's enough information out there to back up what steve et al are saying. It's lines like this that give rise to magic pebbles and that stupid ******* clock thing.

its not a computer, it's a hi fi and as I understand from others a digital transport can have analogue effects. Something not mentioned here, probably out of our knowledge.

Maybe we should ask the manufacturer of the £1700 gadget. I'm tempted to phone them up.

 

[cheeseboy]

its not a computer, it's a hi fi and as I understand from others a digital transport can have analogue effects. Something not mentioned here, probably out of our knowledge.

Maybe we should ask the manufacturer of the £1700 gadget. I'm tempted to phone them up.

no, it's a computer. the very fact it's on the network using tcp/ip means it has to run software. You can't run computer software without a computer.

 

[cheeseboy]

Ok well can anyone tell me why then a £30 chromecast audio sounds rubbish against my £1300 cyrus stream x signature, both digital transports into my cyrus dac xp signature.

Would need to look in to it. Are they both using the same connection or is it different connections? What software does the chomecast use to playback, is there anything in the chromcast software that would alter the sound such as an eq etc? Do you know if the chromecast is outputting a unfettered bit perfect signal and vice versa?

and if you say its to do with me, bias, or any other human factors, and I'm not hearing a difference, im sorry but that lacks all credibility.

why does it? There's mountains more research papers, evidence and proof that bias, human factors etc do exist and how they affect things. To dismiss them would actually mean you lack any credibility in what you say.