Streamers - What is the point?

[manicm]

As far as I can tell, it is not clear whether any streamers use Linux, or Windows or Unix blah blah blah - it's meaningless if they do or don't. And Linn's streamers are decidedly different from all others in that it commands the media server to push the data towards it, whereas the others pull the data from the media servers.

Can you expand on what you mean by Pushing data towards instead of pulling? You might say blah blah as to what it's running, but thae fact that it is running linux/windows inherently means it's a pc as it has to deal with networking protocols etc. These are usually embedded versions of the software stripped down and tailored to whatever people want them to do.

To simply equate streamers as PCs without external interfaces is patently rubbish -

no, it's just a fact...

No it's not.

because this would be true of any electronic device.

erm no, my amplifier is an electronic device but isn't a pc. Methinks you are trying to make everything absolute.

No, you're trying to make everything absolute. A modern amplifier will contain a CPU too. Also, what do you think Java runs on in Blu-ray players? Oh I forget - they're PCs too.

You just equate them for your own expediency. Companies like Naim have written specialised streaming software for their products. The most expensive Alienware and DAC pairing would not contain this.

What has alienware got to do with naim? What do you think studois use to record albums on? Are you saying they should all be using hifi equipment?

You missed my point that there is custom software written in streamers, which takes them beyond being mere stripped down PCs.

And if you want to play hi-res audio the PC is the pits, because you have to manually fiddle with the settings to change back and forth. Oh there is software to automate this but you'll pay through the nose for it.

That's just not true. You can load up windows, load say fubar and tell it to select your dac your output device and you're golden. Foobar is free.

You miss my point again. It's a fact that leaving PC output, at the OS level - which cannot be bypassed by the way be it ASIO etc, at high-res level may adversely affect the sound quality of standard 16/44 audio files, and vice versa.

Also, would you also equate Cyrus's Stream X streamer as a PC? It has no DAC, no preamplifier, so what would you describe it as? According to all detractors' logic here modern amplifiers would also qualify as just 'stripped down PCs'.

yes it is as it has to deal with networks, codecs etc...

NAD to all their fanboys offer great VFM, yet in their new digital range they reserved streaming for their more expensive amplifier. The D 3020 offers only poor old Bluetooth which even in AptX guise will not be the best in audio quality. And even the more expensive model handles only the half-fat 24/96 format for streaming. And it doesn't just come down to the DAC cost - as LG have proven with their new phone, and as WHF's review has proven it's not just the DAC that dictates quality.

quite frankly, I don't listen to anything what hi fi have to say in the digital area as they like to apply outdated analogue stereo thinking in to the digital word.

What you miss is that every digital device like a DAC still needs a good analogue stage,

Streamers also offer the convenience of dedicated remote controls. Yes this can be achieved via PC but again it's a pain. My main beef is just with those who summarily dismiss good streamers as offering no value whatsoever, when they clearly do for many people.

It's not a pain anymore if you can use the tied in apps for some bits of software. But yes, if people want a standalone box and a dedicated remote then a standalone streamer is the way to go. However you can't have it both ways and have a go at people who dismiss streamers, then go and dismiss pc's as source, it;s just makes you a hypocrite.

I did not dismiss PCs as a source - just as a high-res source because of all the faffing required - because you need to do the switching to preserve the sound quality. And those 'tied-in' apps will cost half of a midrange streamer. In this case I will gladly accept being called a 'hypocrite'.

 

[andyjm]

A modern amplifier will have a CPU too (this is a damn fact)! So it's a PC!

Manic, apologies if this was a tounge in cheek comment, but if not, you should do some research. It is complete nonsense.

What would you have a CPU in a 'modern amp' do?

 

[TimothyRias]

What you miss is that every digital device like a DAC still needs a good analogue stage,

We you completely fail to grasp is that the only digital device that needs any analogue stage is a DAC.

 

[manicm]

andyjm, what the hell do you think controls electronic volume controls etc?? It uses a microprocessor.

 

[manicm]

What you miss is that every digital device like a DAC still needs a good analogue stage,

We you completely fail to grasp is that the only digital device that needs any analogue stage is a DAC.

Every digital audio device used as a source needs an analogue stage. Is that what I failed to grasp??? Please!!

 

[John Duncan]

Does anybody else think we're arguing over irrelevancies, or is it just me?

 

[manicm]

Yes, especially since you're supposed to reveal more on that secret shiny box you're toying with. I'm assuming at the price it will really have to sound better than a Marantz 610?

 

[iQ Speakers]

Yep

 

[John Duncan]

Yes, especially since you're supposed to reveal more on that secret shiny box you're toying with. I'm assuming at the price it will really have to sound better than a Marantz 610?

Not on CD it doesn't, no.

 

[andyjm]

andyjm, what the hell do you think controls electronic volume controls etc?? It uses a microprocessor.

http://www.maximintegrated.com/datasheet/index.mvp/id/5288

Electronic volume IC details. No CPU to be seen.....

 

[cheeseboy]

No it's not.

erm yes it is, unless you care to elaborate ?

No, you're trying to make everything absolute. A modern amplifier will contain a CPU too. Also, what do you think Java runs on in Blu-ray players? Oh I forget - they're PCs too.

define a pc then?

You missed my point that there is custom software written in streamers, which takes them beyond being mere stripped down PCs.

no, i ididn't miss it at all. The very fact it has custom software means it is a stripped down pc. You're not going to get custom software on something that's not a computer are you?

You miss my point again. It's a fact that leaving PC output, at the OS level - which cannot be bypassed by the way be it ASIO etc, at high-res level may adversely affect the sound quality of standard 16/44 audio files, and vice versa.

may or does? make your mind up. No. scratch that, it's utter bobbins what you are saying. Let me ask you again, how do you think the music gets recorded in the first place? Is there some kind of voodoo box that seemingly bypasses all these issues you talk of in a studio that nodoby else knows about??

Also, would you also equate Cyrus's Stream X streamer as a PC? It has no DAC, no preamplifier, so what would you describe it as? According to all detractors' logic here modern amplifiers would also qualify as just 'stripped down PCs'.

yes it is as it has to deal with networks, codecs etc...

quite frankly, I don't listen to anything what hi fi have to say in the digital area as they like to apply outdated analogue stereo thinking in to the digital word.

What you miss is that every digital device like a DAC still needs a good analogue stage,

That's got nothing to do what you originally said, you referenced what hi fi, and I say their grasp of digital world is amateur and in some cases embarrasingly wrong. Analogue on the other hand, I will quite happily listen to their knowlesdge.

I did not dismiss PCs as a source - just as a high-res source because of all the faffing required - because you need to do the switching to preserve the sound quality. And those 'tied-in' apps will cost half of a midrange streamer. In this case I will gladly accept being called a 'hypocrite'.

so you didn't say "To simply equate streamers as PCs without external interfaces is patently rubbish -" then? What tied in apps are you talking about anyways. as we've said, Foobar is free and so is the remote control for it. Vortexbox is free and so is the remote control software for that.

Oh, and I think some of us are still waiting for explaination as to how the data gets magicially pushed instead of pulled that you referred to?

 

[TimothyRias]

Every digital audio device used as a source needs an analogue stage. Is that what I failed to grasp??? Please!!

No. Every digital device used as a source needs to be connected to a DAC (either internally or externally). The only piece that needs an analogue stage is the DAC. What you completely seem to fail to comprehend is that everything the happens uptil the DAC is in the digital domain.

andyjm, what the hell do you think controls electronic volume controls etc?? It uses a microprocessor.

No, it (probably*) doesn't. You seem to be a confused about the difference betweem an IC, a microprocessor and a CPU.

*Of course, there may be exceptions especially in "fully digital" amps employing digital gain.

 

[manicm]

Oh, and I think some of us are still waiting for explaination as to how the data gets magicially pushed instead of pulled that you referred to?

It's not 'magically' pushed, it's how Linn have designed their control software with their streamers - go and read their whitepapers if you really care. And right not, cheeseboy, I don't care about this forum topic anymore.

 

[manicm]

Not on CD it doesn't, no.

Obviously, and otherwise? I believe its rear USB port is higher powered so should see a modest USB hard drive that my 761 refuses to?

 

[John Duncan]

Odd, I've just plugged a WD Elements 250g drive into both and they worked fine on both...

I haven't heard the Marantz so it's impossible to say, but it's rather good. It's not quite as slick as a Unitiqute (and doesn't sound as good, from memory) but it's half the price.

 

[steve_1979]

Steve, I know you are passionate about fighting "foo", but there's no need to SHOUT.

I'm mot shouting. I'm just highlighting the words 'bit perfect' for Cno because he has a habbit of either ignoring or misunderstanding those two particular words.

You can improve the SQ of a streamer by addressing noise (chiefly from the PSU) and jitter (which has several origins, some negligible, some not).

These effects are measurable.

Matt

As I said in the post above; the levels of distortion in the DAC section of a streamer can be reduced below the levels that are audible to the human ear. This includes distortion introduced by noise and jitter.

 

[steve_1979]

IME. A streamer is the sum of its design, including quality of power supply; clocking, how well upsampling is handled; order / quality of noise filters / shapers etc. Get this right, and the streamer will more than hold its own.

How is it possible to improve on any hifi streamer or computer that can output a BIT PERFECT data stream to an external DAC?

It's already BIT PERFECT (the clue's in the name BTW).

By a cheap dac and be happy.........why look further, as companies like DCS, Linn, Devialet and Naim are simply taking the P......Foo merchants, the lot of 'em.

I think you may be getting a bit mixed up here Cno. A streamer and a DAC are two separate things (although most streamers do have a DAC built into them.)

A Streamer is effectively just a computer that shifts digital audio data from one place to another.

A DAC is the piece of hardware that converts the digital data steam into an analogue audio output.

So I'll ask the same question again: "How is it possible to improve on any hifi streamer or computer that can output a BIT PERFECT data stream to an external DAC?"

I give you another clue: If they are both BIT PERFECT then no data has been lost with either of them.

..and as far DAC's are concerned (whether it's one that's built into a streamer or a separate dedicated DAC) it has been well proven and is well documented that a competent DAC can convert a digital audio data stream into an analogue signal with levels of distortion that are well below the levels that are audible to the human ear. So if the level of introduced distortion is well below that which is audible then how can this be improved on?

Listening for yourself is way over rated, as anything that defies science can't possibly be right.

I agree that you should always listen for yourself.

But it's also worth bearing in mind that anything that defies science usually isn't right (unless you have somehow stumbled upon a new and previously undescovered law of physics).

 

[matt49]

As I said in the post above; the levels of distortion in the DAC section of a streamer can be reduced below the levels that are audible to the human ear. This includes distortion introduced by noise and jitter.

You're right, of course, that noise and jitter can be reduced to inaudibility (or virtual inaudibility). The question is: how often are they?

Talking about a bit perfect digital message in this context is a red herring, however. It's confusing two quite separate things, i.e. the message, which is digital and can be bit perfect (or not), and the signal, which is physical (either electrical or optical). Jim Lesurf, Information and Measurement (Institute of Physics, 2001), chap. 3, is very good on this.

 

[CnoEvil]

I agree that you should always listen for yourself.

But it's also worth bearing in mind that anything that defies science usually isn't right (unless you have somehow stumbled upon a new and previously undescovered law of physics).

I suppose I'm talking about a "digital renderer", but who the ffk knows what that is......but saying that, ime how the thing is designed will effect how it sounds.

My suggestion is - To read a little less, listen a little more, and don't assume that what you believe as indisputable science is absolutely correct....then my friend, you will go far!

 

[Pedro2]

Interesting thread ....... only thing I know (or think I know) is that that Linn Majik DSM sounds better to my ears than my previous streamer/DAC (SB Touch + Audio GD) which at the time sounded better (to my ears) than my previous CDP (Arcam CD72). Also compared the Linn Majik to Naim NDX and preferred the Linn 'sound'.

Got to admit that the differences were not always 'night and day' and that the price difference between SB Touch and LInn is considerable, making the former fantastic value for money.

Like others who have posted similar comments, I love the convenience of the streamer (Linn 'box') which does what it says on the tin. I can't use it for a Google search or Facebook which to me is an added bonus. Others may/will disagree

 

[davedotco]

As I said in the post above; the levels of distortion in the DAC section of a streamer can be reduced below the levels that are audible to the human ear. This includes distortion introduced by noise and jitter.

You're right, of course, that noise and jitter can be reduced to inaudibility (or virtual inaudibility). The question is: how often are they?

Talking about a bit perfect digital message in this context is a red herring, however. It's confusing two quite separate things, i.e. the message, which is digital and can be bit perfect (or not), and the signal, which is physical (either electrical or optical). Jim Lesurf, Information and Measurement (Institute of Physics, 2001), chap. 3, is very good on this.

This is, in my experience, very much at the heart of the matter. I was noticing significant differences between transports into some dacs, but strangely not others. My initial thoughts, based on the gigo principle, was that the better dac was showing up the inadequacies of the transport, but further investication showed this not to be the case and that no such correlation could be found.

In fact it appeared that the dacs themselves were at the center of the issue, simply failing to 'sit well' in some systems, for example a well known, highly regarded budget dac sounded obviously harsh and grainy on many of our systems though apparently sounded fine in others, similarly a much more expensive dac by the same designer exhibited similar bibolar tendencies in the 'wrong' systems.

My feeling is that noise, particularly RF noise, is at the heart of the problem and it is the way that systems handle this that can be the issue, RF is nasty stuff and can get into anything, and the effect that it has varies enormously. Dacs for example, like those mentioned above, can be badly affected by incoming RF noise and can also be a huge source of noise themselves, it can get quite complicated.

 

[matt49]

My feeling is that noise, particularly RF noise, is at the heart of the problem and it is the way that systems handle this that can be the issue, RF is nasty stuff and can get into anything, and the effect that it has varies enormously. Dacs for example, like those mentioned above, can be badly affected by incoming RF noise and can also be a huge source of noise themselves, it can get quite complicated.

Interesting. I guess the essential design brief of a DAC is the (re-clocking and) conversion of a digital message and the output of an analogue message. Reduction of incoming noise (whether RF or other kinds) isn't part of this essential design brief. No doubt some DACs deal with noise better than others, but it would be altogether better to eliminate noise at the source as far as possible.

My point about the distinction between a message (content) and a signal (vehicle), which I didn't make clear enough in my post last night, is that it's possible for a message to be transmittedly perfectly ("bit perfectly") whilst the electrical or optical signal that carries the message is quite dirty (in terms of jitter and/or noise).

 

[MajorFubar]

Sorry I'm late to the party, and also sorry I haven't read through all of the last 6 pages (!) but can I just point out that this:

I did not dismiss PCs as a source - just as a high-res source because of all the faffing required - because you need to do the switching to preserve the sound quality. And those 'tied-in' apps will cost half of a midrange streamer.

...is not true. I paid £7 for BitPerfect on my Mac, which does all the bit-depth and bit-rate switching for me, and I hear there are equivalents on PCs which do it for free.

 

[inbox4]

Sorry I'm late to the party, and also sorry I haven't read through all of the last 6 pages (!) but can I just point out that this:

I did not dismiss PCs as a source - just as a high-res source because of all the faffing required - because you need to do the switching to preserve the sound quality. And those 'tied-in' apps will cost half of a midrange streamer.

...is not true. I paid £7 for BitPerfect on my Mac, which does all the bit-depth and bit-rate switching for me, and I hear there are equivalents on PCs which do it for free.

Hi MajorFubar

Could you explain what benefits you get from BitPerfect please? I've had a read of their website after seeing your post but I'm not sure I understood what extra it would offer me over the experience I get at the moment.

I currently use a MacBook Air connected to an async DAC (Leema Elements DAC) via USB. I primarily listen to Spotify. Would I experience any benefit from buying BitPerfect? I notice that it is designed to work with iTunes, is it exclusively iTunes or would it improve the sound quality of Spotify too and it so, how?

Many thanks.

 

[ngibbs]

Sorry I'm late to the party, and also sorry I haven't read through all of the last 6 pages (!) but can I just point out that this:

I did not dismiss PCs as a source - just as a high-res source because of all the faffing required - because you need to do the switching to preserve the sound quality. And those 'tied-in' apps will cost half of a midrange streamer.

...is not true. I paid £7 for BitPerfect on my Mac, which does all the bit-depth and bit-rate switching for me, and I hear there are equivalents on PCs which do it for free.

+1 for the great value BitPerfect app. It's the faffing around that seems to be the crux of this, though. While a PC can sound as good as a streamer (no argument there I think), there are more buttons to press to get there, and I'm speaking as both a streamer and Mac user. With a streamer you seem to be paying largely for the ease of use. Whether it's worth the extra cash is up to you. And whether a streamer can be classed as a computer or not seems to me rather irrelevant.