Music Streamer or Wireless DAC

[Timo]

Spotify is getting more and more important in my daily listening habits -- in fact I am listing to Spotify music as I write this posting. It is so convenient with the app on the iPad...

That is why streaming online music is a major issue in my upcoming hifi upgrade. I have been googling a lot but I have to admit I am not entirely sure whether I grasp the difference between having a dedicated music streamer (say Cambridge Audio's CXN) or a wireless DAC (say Arcam's irDAC-II).

Can anybody please bring light into darkness -- does it actually make any difference whether one walks down the music streamer or wireless DAC route?

Currently I consider a CXA-60/CXN combo, and the Arcam A19 with irDAC-II -- and I hope to audition these two combos soon. Obviously CA and Arcam sound differently -- but in terms of music streaming: does anything speak for or against either combos??

Many thanks!

 

[muljao]

A DAC simply converts a digital input to analgoe that can then be fed to an amp or an active speaker setup. The DAC need a diital music input, so ou could for example have a laptop/ipad or tablet connected to the DAC, then have the DAC connected to your hifi setup.

A streamer is a stand alone unit that either can access your music through the internet, for example connecting directly to spotify or other streaming service, or indeed accessing a NAS system over the net. This then in turn is plugged into the amp (DAC section built in vormally). Some unots gop a step further and are integrated with an amp.

There are ways to get the music from your ipad to your existing hifi wikthout replacing it all

 

[rainsoothe]

Hi. It depends on your room, if it's not that large, I'd just get a Naim Unitiqute 2 instead. Nice, clean, 1 box sollution, and don't let it's 30w/ch fool you. Partner it with efficient speakers, like Focal Aria 906, and you're good to go, they're a cracking combo.

Of course you should try to audition. Out of the others, I'd go for Arcam no questions asked. Add to that an Arcam CDS27 or Pioneer N50A or even the CXN. I'm not a fan of CA amps, although I haven't heard their latest. But they're a bit bright for me. The Focals also go great with the Arcam.

I'm not just recommending the Focals just because I own them, by the way, they're very nicely balanced speakers, and they sound huge. Naim provides the low end control that they need.

 

[Timo]

Thanks a lot for the replies!!

One possible advantange of CA's CXN over Arcam's wireless DAC might be upsampling. At least CA seems to make a lot of fuzz over their upsampling technology -- as if it turned water into wine... Is it really that great?

If upsampling wasn't worth it, the CXN at 700 GBP wouldn't offer much more than a wireless DAC -- right? Admittedly the interface might be worth a few pounds. But I wonder whether money was better invested into a wireless DAC with better chip. Or just a better DAC plus Google Chromecast to make the DAC wireless...

Or is this line of thought rather naive??

 

[Deleted member 160668]

I use an Arcam rBlink Bluetooth connector straight from iPhone/tablet to system.

In my opinion this is excellent and almost indistinguishable from a cd. Can tell only if put same song/cd on at same time and switch inputs. Even then there is not much difference.

 

[muljao]

Does a chromecast work on I things. If yes you could give it a go. If not a chromecast audio and a cheap android tablet would have you set.

Not so sure upsampling from spotify stream would make all that much difference

 

[nopiano]

Does a chromecast work on I things. If yes you could give it a go. If not a chromecast audio and a cheap android tablet would have you set.

Not so sure upsampling from spotify stream would make all that much difference

Chromecast attaches to your amplifier. It can definitely be controlled by an iThing! I've controlled mine with an oldish iPhone, an iPad mini and a MacBook Pro - the latter using the Chrome browser.

 

[muljao]

Does a chromecast work on I things. If yes you could give it a go. If not a chromecast audio and a cheap android tablet would have you set.

Not so sure upsampling from spotify stream would make all that much difference

Chromecast attaches to your amplifier. It can definitely be controlled by an iThing!   I've controlled mine with an oldish iPhone, an iPad mini and a MacBook Pro - the latter using the Chrome browser. 

This may be a good option to try so. I use one and like it with an Android tablet, very effective

 

[muljao]

Does a chromecast work on I things. If yes you could give it a go. If not a chromecast audio and a cheap android tablet would have you set.

Not so sure upsampling from spotify stream would make all that much difference

Chromecast attaches to your amplifier. It can definitely be controlled by an iThing!   I've controlled mine with an oldish iPhone, an iPad mini and a MacBook Pro - the latter using the Chrome browser. 

This may be a good option to try so. I use one and like it with an Android tablet, very effective

 

[Timo]

I have been using Chromecast with my current (modest) mini-system. With Spotify it is very convienient -- easy to use. But I always assumed one must "loose something" (in terms of sound quality) when using the cheapie from Google... Is is another naive assumption of mine? (I thought I can't spend a small fortune [at least considering my disposable income] for hifi separates and speakers, and then continue using Chromecast for music streaming...)

I just doublechecked -- the CXA60 and CXN use the same DAC chip: Wolfson's WM8740. Admittedly the CXN does have two chips -- one for each channel, right? Does this do the magic?

If not, and no "loss" when using a bluetooth cheapie when making the amplifier wireless, why would one want to purchase an additional CXN with the same DAC chip as the amplifier?! As most people don't have an Aptx bluetooth device to control the system, CA's BT100 Bluetooth might not make a difference either...

The music streamer business really puzzles me -- just a marketing trick to make us buy additional gear??

Admittedly, the story for Arcam is somewhat different with the A19 without DAC on board. But an external solution could fix this easily...

 

[muljao]

The cheap chromecast has a built in dac so it converts the digital to analog if you use the supplied cables. It seems to do this rather well.

It's Jack output though is a hybrid type and can be connected also with a digital optical cable.

So if for example you bought a marantz pm6005 amp you could connect the cast to its optical input, bypassing the chromed dac and utilising the amps dac. You could of course do this with an independent dac also

 

[SemiChronic]

Spotify is getting more and more important in my daily listening habits -- in fact I am listing to Spotify music as I write this posting. It is so convenient with the app on the iPad...

That is why streaming online music is a major issue in my upcoming hifi upgrade. I have been googling a lot but I have to admit I am not entirely sure whether I grasp the difference between having a dedicated music streamer (say Cambridge Audio's CXN) or a wireless DAC (say Arcam's irDAC-II).

Can anybody please bring light into darkness -- does it actually make any difference whether one walks down the music streamer or wireless DAC route?

Currently I consider a CXA-60/CXN combo, and the Arcam A19 with irDAC-II -- and I hope to audition these two combos soon. Obviously CA and Arcam sound differently -- but in terms of music streaming: does anything speak for or against either combos??

Many thanks!

Hi, going back to your origional post, i cant comment on the cxa/cxn combo as i havent heard them.

But i can highly reccomend the stream magic6 as an alternative, which can easily be picked up for around £200 on everyones favourite auction site. i havent compared specs but i think the stream magic will tick pretty much all your boxes and sound sublime for the outlay.

I mostly use mine for internet radio, and ive never heard 128kbps sound so good, the upsampling is brilliant. If i was to start again with hifi on a budget id definately base my system around a magic6 or 851N(Which im currently waiting for a price fall on)

If demoing at richers, id take a listen to thier flagship series, many say they sound better than equipment costing double the price.

Sorry i couldnt go into any detail regarding the sound of the magic6, but im not an expressive typist.

As everyone will rightly say, go listen . .

 

[daveh75]

I have been using Chromecast with my current (modest) mini-system. With Spotify it is very convienient -- easy to use. But I always assumed one must "loose something" (in terms of sound quality) when using the cheapie from Google... Is is another naive assumption of mine? (I thought I can't spend a small fortune [at least considering my disposable income] for hifi separates and speakers, and then continue using Chromecast for music streaming...)

Yes.

I just doublechecked -- the CXA60 and CXN use the same DAC chip: Wolfson's WM8740. Admittedly the CXN does have two chips -- one for each channel, right? Does this do the magic?

Frankly worrying if there are differences in DAC chips is a waste of energy

If not, and no "loss" when using a bluetooth cheapie when making the amplifier wireless, why would one want to purchase an additional CXN with the same DAC chip as the amplifier?! As most people don't have an Aptx bluetooth device to control the system, CA's BT100 Bluetooth might not make a difference either...

Bluetooth is lossy no matter the implementation.

Whether that has any impact on SQ is a whole other argument.

 

[Deleted member 160668]

Sorry to hijack the OP post. My post was a suggestion that I have an Arcam rBlink Bluetooth connector (which is excellent imo), however there seems much leaning towards Chromecast from iPhone etc.

disregarding cost (chrome cast is much cheaper and easily get money back on Arcam rBlink).... But would this combo be better for sound quality for me?

my setup is Linn Classk K, to LK140 power amp, to PMC speakers.

Sorry OP, finding the thread interesting, not sure of rules, if not able to ask related question I will open a new thread.

thanks all.

 

[muljao]

Sorry to hijack the OP post. My post was a suggestion that I have an Arcam rBlink Bluetooth connector (which is excellent imo), however there seems much leaning towards Chromecast from iPhone etc.

disregarding cost (chrome cast is much cheaper and easily get money back on Arcam rBlink).... But would this combo be better for sound quality for me?

my setup is Linn Classk K, to LK140 power amp, to PMC speakers.

Sorry OP, finding the thread interesting, not sure of rules, if not able to ask related question I will open a new thread.

thanks all.

Bluetooth in all its forms is somewhat lossy. When something is streamed over wifi it can be lossless. How much this effects sound quality is debateable, but I'd say if the bluetooth works for you stick with it

 

[thewinelake.]

I presume that Chromecast Audio would be pretty much as good as most streaming boxes costing 10 or 100 times as much as long as the rest of the system isn't too revealing. It's a bit unfair, really....

 

[Timo]

Very interesting discussion. I might ask the guys for Richer Sounds as to whether they are confident enough to allow a "Spotify comparison" of CXA and CXN vs. CXA and Chromecast. The proof of the pudding is in the eating... I remain puzzled -- if there wasn't much if any (audible) difference between the two approaches to music streaming, why would anybody spend quite some money on swanky music streamers...

 

[TomSawyer]

If you only want to stream Spotify, then a lot of what a streamer can offer over a simple DAC is not relevant. The differences that remain are that with a simple DAC your mobile device remains in the music stream as you play whereas a Spotify Connect streamer pulls the music directly from Spotify, the mobile device acting as a fancy remote but not essential to the data stream. This needn't be a drawback if you find that your mobile device and wifi can cope with the maximum quality without a hiccup, but in my case I have the streamer wired so compared to my iPad, the data flow is much more robust.

If you were to look beyond Spotify, another benefit of a streamer is a hifi style way to interface with digital music stored on a network without the need to push it from a PC or Mac. So for example, I still buy CDs but RIP them losslessly to a NAS rather than play them in a CD player. Most streamers also include internet radio.

You pays your money, you takes your choice. Personally, I wouldn't be without a streamer as it allows me to keep the setup very tidy without the need for a computer and USB cables and I favour a balance of function and form. For those that prefer function over form, it's probably an unnecessary expense.

 

[Timo]

If you only want to stream Spotify, then a lot of what a streamer can offer over a simple DAC is not relevant. The differences that remain are that with a simple DAC your mobile device remains in the music stream as you play whereas a Spotify Connect streamer pulls the music directly from Spotify, the mobile device acting as a fancy remote but not essential to the data stream. This needn't be a drawback if you find that your mobile device and wifi can cope with the maximum quality without a hiccup, but in my case I have the streamer wired so compared to my iPad, the data flow is much more robust.

If you were to look beyond Spotify, another benefit of a streamer is a hifi style way to interface with digital music stored on a network without the need to push it from a PC or Mac. So for example, I still buy CDs but RIP them losslessly to a NAS rather than play them in a CD player. Most streamers also include internet radio.

You pays your money, you takes your choice. Personally, I wouldn't be without a streamer as it allows me to keep the setup very tidy without the need for a computer and USB cables and I favour a balance of function and form. For those that prefer function over form, it's probably an unnecessary expense.

Thanks a lot for this TomSawyer -- very helpful!! And I better check the quality of my wifi... Wiring up a streamer wouldn't be easy. Certainly not a tidy solution from my wife's point of view...

 

[thewinelake.]

In which case the question becomes why buy an expensive streamer rather than a cheap one such as CCA (which I am told can stream some things such as Spotify and uPNP server)

 

[thewinelake.]

On the subject of Chromecast Audio, is it capable of streaming from an SMB server, or does there need to be a service like Plex or uPNP running?

 

[nopiano]

On the subject of Chromecast Audio, is it capable of streaming from an SMB server, or does there need to be a service like Plex or uPNP running?

I don't know what SMB even is! But you control it from an iThing or another device, and it streams from your router. I couldn't care less about all the protocol garbage. It just plays music.

Lots of tech stuff you can google though. E.g.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/782899/chromecast-audio-can-anyone-comment-on-sound-quality

 

[TomSawyer]

In which case the question becomes why buy an expensive streamer rather than a cheap one such as CCA (which I am told can stream some things such as Spotify and uPNP server)

For the same reason anyone would buy an expensive CD player rather than a cheap one - whilst there's no guarantee, more money available to the designer opens up the possibility of a better sounding unit.

 

[thewinelake.]

Maybe, although I can more easily see it for something with mechanical parts. Big question to me is whether these things sound different. I accept that a simple blind listening test may be flawed as sometimes one needs to spend time to really hear properly.

But your suggestion is almost like a gamble or an insurance policy rather than a measurable return. Of course there's the usual expectation bias. It's like with expensive wine - if you have it blind, you may not know what charms to look for!