What do streamers actually do?

[Overdose]

I am happy about the noise from the Mac Mini because there isn't any

You already have the streaming setup and 'Remote' would control iTunes via iOS.

All you need now are the right speakers.

 

[cheeseboy]

I tried a few different options before settling on a dedicated streamer. I've had a Mac Mini connected directly to my HiFi and an Aiport Express too. They were both connected into an amplifier with a built in DAC. The functionality was good, reliable and sound decent. However I wanted to use the Mac for other non-Hifi things so I started looking at streamers.

The first streamer I tried was a Pioneer N30. The hardware is well built, great VFM and sounded good. However the iOS was terrible - not wife friendly - so it had to go back.

Then I took the plunge and bought a 2nd hand Naim ND5 XS. Build quality fantastic, great sound again and also a really good iOS app - wife friendly! The Mac Mini now runs Asset UPnP server software to provide the music to the DAC.

The ND5 XS to my ears had the best sound I've heard when compared with the Pioneer, Aiport Express and Mac Mini. I've read what other people posted that all streamers are the same and I believed them - hence the Aiport Express. In my findings, it just wasn't true.

In terms of VFM - go for the Mac Mini provided you have a DAC. But to squeeze out the extra few percent of sound quality a purpose built streamer is the way to go if you are prepared to pay for it.

thing is though, you've gone from the dac in the amp to the dac in the naim, so not really the fairest of compairsons imho.

If you wanted to do a fair compairson, *not saying that you will or should*, then it should have been the feed from the mac/airport in to the dac in the naim (not sure that's even possible) then in to the amp. But without that the streamer part (for sound) was kind of a red herring and it's the dac at play.

 

[Sospri]

I tried a few different options before settling on a dedicated streamer. I've had a Mac Mini connected directly to my HiFi and an Aiport Express too. They were both connected into an amplifier with a built in DAC. The functionality was good, reliable and sound decent. However I wanted to use the Mac for other non-Hifi things so I started looking at streamers.

The first streamer I tried was a Pioneer N30. The hardware is well built, great VFM and sounded good. However the iOS was terrible - not wife friendly - so it had to go back.

Then I took the plunge and bought a 2nd hand Naim ND5 XS. Build quality fantastic, great sound again and also a really good iOS app - wife friendly! The Mac Mini now runs Asset UPnP server software to provide the music to the DAC.

The ND5 XS to my ears had the best sound I've heard when compared with the Pioneer, Aiport Express and Mac Mini. I've read what other people posted that all streamers are the same and I believed them - hence the Aiport Express. In my findings, it just wasn't true.

In terms of VFM - go for the Mac Mini provided you have a DAC. But to squeeze out the extra few percent of sound quality a purpose built streamer is the way to go if you are prepared to pay for it.

+1 on the ND5 xs and Snait, cracking combo.........

 

[matt49]

So if I went with something like (for example) an Arcam A19 + airDAC, rather than an all-in-one with built-in streamer (or seperate streamer), then my Mac Mini - controlled from an iPad Mini - would be just as good as plugging everything through a dedicated streamer?

Yes, in terms of SQ there's no reason why it shouldn't.

After that it's all about the bells and whistles, e.g. the look and ease of use of the control interface, the power of the database functions (for adding/editing metadata), multi-room streaming, and the various other functions that you've listed as important.

I do think one reason why people get attached to particular streamer solutions is their ease of use, which is largely a subjective thing. I happen to be very partial to Sonos, which is easy to use (for the whole family), looks great, has good customer support and works straight out of the box.

 

[chebby]

... multi-room streaming, and the various other functions that you've listed as important.

No multi-room required.

 

[Native_bon]

The piont of my streamer, makes me listen to more music. Also now listen to songs long forgotten as a result of now having all my songs on a seagate NAS drive. I can download music from my NAS drive anywere in the world. PASSWORD & am in. Also you begin to realise what albums or tracks are well record due to easy control & access to the music. STill play occassional cds, but never do without streaming again.

Oh aslo every one in the house has access to the NAS drive to listen to music on there own device or music system at anytime or watch movies. I used to be worried about the setup stuff & all that, but after the first time setup its just a joy to use.. Love it.

Do you use you Oppo as a video streamer? And how is the PQ?

Yes I do. PQ is excellent. It does up scale, but quality will largelly depend on what its been feed.

 

[gowiththeflow]

.......I do think one reason why people get attached to particular streamer solutions is their ease of use, which is largely a subjective thing. I happen to be very partial to Sonos, which is easy to use (for the whole family), looks great, has good customer support and works straight out of the box.

The ease of use is vital and Sonos has that in spades. The total package is what counts, with the UI being a key component.

Despite having my new NAD streaming equipment, Sonos will remain a key part of this households music and radio provision. All the family can use it and it provides music to 6 different rooms in the house.

As much as I admire people rustling up something using a Raspberry Pi or somesuch, that sort of thing is ...and will remain, firmly in the "hobbyist" arena. It won't be for everyone.

.

 

[adamrobertshaw]

I stream from both a Mac Mini and a Stream X2.

I'd say that the Mac Mini with Audirvana Plus sounds better than the Stream X2. Cheaper to purchase too.

But the Stream X2 is more convenient and integrated into a set up, so it is my go-to device unless I want to stream something like DSD. The Cadence app, like any other control app, is just so easy (lazy).

Most playback software advocates shutting down almost every other computing processes in pursuit of maximum SQ. Lets face it, most Macs will have lots of software processes on the go, especially if used as a proper computer. I have a RAM monitor on the go and it's impossible to keep free RAM above 2GB (4 GB installed). I've seen free RAM drop down to fumes, which has been low enough to stop my Qute HD DAC getting a stable signal. God knows what is going on inside the Mac when this happens.

My streamer just plays music. No competing demands on it's processing abilities. Simples. No problems. No complaints. No frustrations.

In the USA it seems for many that a Mac mini, with SDD, fastest quad processor, 8 to 16 GB RAM and only playback software installed is the baseline for an audio set up. Now that isn't cheap ... but I can't advocate from experience how necessary it all is.

 

[CnoEvil]

I'd say that the Mac Mini with Audirvana Plus sounds better than the Stream X2. Cheaper to purchase too.

Has the Stream X Signature's SQ pulled ahead, or is the Mac Mini still better?

 

[tino]

I would like to see more "streamers" with built in hard drives or mass storage. The problem with streamers is that you need at least two boxes ... a server (PC or NAS) and the player. Even a server that can stream PCM directly to a DAC needs two boxes at minimum to work. An all in one solution like the Sony HAP-S1 seems ideal ... no network issues, the music is stored on a hard disc inside the same box as the amplifier and you can get *some* wireless music services as well e.g. internet radio.

PS If you want to stream to multiple devices I understand that a server might be the better way to go .... but if you just have one main music player then an all-in one seems more appropriate.

 

[steve_1979]

I stream from both a Mac Mini and a Stream X2.

I'd say that the Mac Mini with Audirvana Plus sounds better than the Stream X2. Cheaper to purchase too.

But the Stream X2 is more convenient and integrated into a set up, so it is my go-to device unless I want to stream something like DSD. The Cadence app, like any other control app, is just so easy (lazy).

Most playback software advocates shutting down almost every other computing processes in pursuit of maximum SQ. Lets face it, most Macs will have lots of software processes on the go, especially if used as a proper computer. I have a RAM monitor on the go and it's impossible to keep free RAM above 2GB (4 GB installed). I've seen free RAM drop down to fumes, which has been low enough to stop my Qute HD DAC getting a stable signal. God knows what is going on inside the Mac when this happens.

My streamer just plays music. No competing demands on it's processing abilities. Simples. No problems. No complaints. No frustrations.

In the USA it seems for many that a Mac mini, with SDD, fastest quad processor, 8 to 16 GB RAM and only playback software installed is the baseline for an audio set up. Now that isn't cheap ... but I can't advocate from experience how necessary it all is.

My four year old 4GB PC never has that problem with audio dropouts when performing lots of other tasks at the same time.

Even when doing some intensive 3D rendering using CAD software while simultaneously browsing the net and listening to music while I wait, the digital audio runs perfectly all the time.

 

[adamrobertshaw]

The Stream X Signature is in a better set up (Signature dual mono dac / pre-amp, PMCs). I don't have any intention of putting it into my other set up where the Stream X2 now lives.

So I can't make a like for like comparison. I just new within hours that a straight swap in my best system indicated that the Signature model was pulling / processing more data more clearly. Although the truth could be that the DAC is sounding better as it is getting a better / fuller signal.

I would never play music from the Mac without using Audirvana. I reckon it's the filtering software (rather than anything the Mac is offering to the music reproduction) that makes it sound better than the Stream X2.

 

[CnoEvil]

The Stream X Signature is in a better set up (Signature dual mono dac / pre-amp, PMCs). I don't have any intention of putting it into my other set up where the Stream X2 now lives.

So I can't make a like for like comparison. I just new within hours that a straight swap in my best system indicated that the Signature model was pulling / processing more data more clearly. Although the truth could be that the DAC is sounding better as it is getting a better / fuller signal.

I would never play music from the Mac without using Audirvana. I reckon it's the filtering software (rather than anything the Mac is offering to the music reproduction) that makes it sound better than the Stream X2.

Thank you for the detailed reply.

 

[adamrobertshaw]

I don't get the issues when using the USB DAC inside the integrated amp or the USB DAC inside the 8200CD. So more than likely there are issues with the software / Qute HD driver. There have also been forums on the quality of the USB signal (shared hubs), 5 volt power interference, grounding etc with the Qute HD (and other DACs).

So I've eventually got fed up with using my Mac as a music server.

 

[steve_1979]

The Stream X Signature is in a better set up (Signature dual mono dac / pre-amp, PMCs). I don't have any intention of putting it into my other set up where the Stream X2 now lives.

So I can't make a like for like comparison. I just new within hours that a straight swap in my best system indicated that the Signature model was pulling / processing more data more clearly. Although the truth could be that the DAC is sounding better as it is getting a better / fuller signal.

I would never play music from the Mac without using Audirvana. I reckon it's the filtering software (rather than anything the Mac is offering to the music reproduction) that makes it sound better than the Stream X2.

What do you mean by it was "pulling / processing more data more clearly"?

I'm no expert (so someone please correct me if I'm wrong ) but if a streamer or computer is capable of outputting a continous bit perfect data stream to a DAC then it's already working 100% perfectly. Surely a streamer/computer either gives 100% perfect audio or it doesn't in which case there would be very obvious and audiable dropouts or total 100% distortion noise occuring at the times when it wasn't giving a perfect continous data stream.

Or am I missing something here?

 

[adamrobertshaw]

I could hear more detail from the Signature. Detail I couldn't hear from the standard model.

So I'll withdraw and stay clear of the science as to why that is so ... and just enjoy the more detailed music.

 

[matt49]

... multi-room streaming, and the various other functions that you've listed as important.

No multi-room required.

OK, I was just listing a few of the things that streamers can do. It's a buffet: you takes your pick.

Matt

 

[cheeseboy]

I would like to see more "streamers" with built in hard drives or mass storage. The problem with streamers is that you need at least two boxes ... a server (PC or NAS) and the player. Even a server that can stream PCM directly to a DAC needs two boxes at minimum to work. An all in one solution like the Sony HAP-S1 seems ideal ... no network issues, the music is stored on a hard disc inside the same box as the amplifier and you can get *some* wireless music services as well e.g. internet radio.

PS If you want to stream to multiple devices I understand that a server might be the better way to go .... but if you just have one main music player then an all-in one seems more appropriate.

this set up can actually be exceptionally easily achieved. You just need a little all in one pc (preferably with room for a decent soundcard to keep it all in one) and then put something like the very excellent daphile http://www.daphile.com/ or vortexbox on it and you're away. All headless (ie control can be done from a mobile or other pc) and does what you require, including a tunein radio module for all the radio

 

[DIB]

I'm not a "streamer" as such, but over the years I've ripped every CD into FLAC files. I have about 600 GBs of music stored on my old PC upstairs. Since moving the PC out of the front room a few months ago I've hardly ever accessed my music on it since. This thread prompted me to examine the streaming option again and I had a good play around last night. I find that my Squeezebox Touch is an easy and excellent quality streaming option, controlled from the comfort of my sofa using my Asus Nexus tablet with Squeeze Commander app. I'm never not going to own a CD player, but I can certainly see the attraction of streaming. My wife has even said today "Oh good, does this mean we can move all these CDs out of the front room?"

.

 

[MrReaper182]

The reason I use a streamer like meany others have said is ease of use. Yes I could just use a PC or laptop computer but I don't want to (not that their is anything wrong with that). Somtimes I like to game on my PC or talk on Sykpe with my girlfriend while listening to radio programes shuch as the Freak zone on BBC radio 6 and my streamer allows me to do that without slowing my PC down.