Cereal Killer
432
I don't quite get the logic either; you have predicted the only issue with the Auralic Mini is jitter, It could be many things surely?
High end streamers, waste of money or not, please?
- Thread starter richardg
- Start date
I don't quite get the logic either; you have predicted the only issue with the Auralic Mini is jitter, It could be many things surely?
notevenclose
pfm Member
See? This digital stuff's a lot simpler than you'd previously believed. ;-)
DNM
pfm Member
I agree. I was thinking more about measurements and the fact that Allo at least publish them to back up their claims, unlike so called "high end" streamer peddlers.
Notwithstanding its synchronous USB interface, DAC's such as the CA DacMagic kicked interface jitter via SPDIF/Toslink into the long grass over a decade ago.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/cambridge-audio-azur-dacmagic-da-converter-measurements
There are now so many DAC's that perform way better still, including those with asynchronous USB and galvanic isolation, that are impervious to interface jitter and noise as their measured output demonstrates. Perhaps certain 'boutique' DAC's might benefit from having the bits scrubbed and polished upstream, but apart from that, I'm not sure what the point of "high end" streamers are except to make a buck by promoting neurosis amongst the audiophile community.
Del monaco
Del Monaco
Owned both the CA Dacmagic and 100. Listened to more expensive DACs. With each, wasn’t worth the price increase.
Cereal Killer
432
Here’s a curved ball, so do you think all CD transports sound identical?
DNM
pfm Member
I still use one circa. 2009 vintage between a B&O Ghettoblaster and original high jitter Apple Airport Express acting as a Roon endpoint. If it ain't broke.......
Del monaco
Del Monaco
Express was my first hardware move into streaming after a fairly unsuccessful Airfoil attempt. Enjoyed it. My son still uses it as an Ethernet bridge. Excellent Dac still.
Del monaco
Del Monaco
Definitely a curved ball. I do now think there is very little difference between a range of Dacs and certainly never night and day. I’ve listened to too many now through the same transport. I think I wasted an awful lot of good money in the early days. For me, speakers make the greatest difference, though not necessarily improvement.
John Phillips
pfm Member
Throwing this back from a slightly different PoV, I assert that (in my philosophy of audio reproduction, at least) all CD transports should sound identical.
That's because for any specific CD the record label's data stream is a complete reference against which to compare the output data stream. The job of the CD transport (IMHO) is to reproduce that data stream exactly.
And a CD transport can do this if free of design error, in good enough operating condition and reading a CD in good enough condition.
- CD transport stream data errors do arise (including uncorrectable errors concealed by the drive). This is due to the disc being in poor condition and/or the transport being in poor condition. If this is excessive then either or both needs to be replaced.
- Amplitude noise and jitter (time domain noise) on the data stream are normal. If at reasonable levels they can be dealt with satisfactorily by a DAC that is designed well. If not the DAC needs replacing.
clivem2
pfm Member
Is it could or should sound different? I suggest “could”. There’s a relationship between the CD transport and the ability of the external DAC to correct jitter. A very good input section in the DAC will likely render CD transport differences pretty much irrelevant. DACs are much improved nowadays but many out there in the wild today are not perfect.
A perfect data stream doesn’t require a top notch input at the DAC.
A top notch DAC input doesn’t require a perfect data stream.
Cereal Killer
432
Back in the day i could clearly hear differences between various CDP and CDTs from the likes of; Meridian, Micromega, Naim, Rega, Cyrus, Bryston Audiolab etc... mostly from different eras so had different laser assemblies.
Last edited:
John Phillips
pfm Member
On "could" vs "should" my philosophy is definitely "should" (sound the same). WRT engineering I think the word is "can" - with good enough modern engineering (as you say). If I could hear a difference I would work out where the problem lay and replace that component. That simplifying philosophy leaves me just the loudspeaker to choose according to my taste. Some like tweaking and looking for differences. I prefer finding a sound I like and living with it until I can identify anything that displeases me - that's the basis of my philosophy of good digital transport.
You are quite right that we can identify (at least) two connected components in a streamer and from a system design PoV the overall performance can depend on both. Your characterization is correct that in this context fixing either one is all that's really needed.
Were I to design a DAC a first question would be "what are the types and ranges of the wanted input signals?" and a second would be "what are the types and ranges of the unwanted input signals?" I would expect to design the DAC to maintain its desired performance over the entirety of those ranges. That way the DAC does not depend on the transport provided it's in-specification. That's the sane system approach from the DAC designer's PoV, knowing that the DAC could be used with a wide range of digital transport systems. The fly in the ointment is that I don't think there is a specification for the maximum unwanted signals a DAC designer must deal with so it has to be a good estimate and I am sure some transports are too noisy for some DACs.
The same approach applies the other way round for the transport designer (as you say) but my own preference is to solve the unwanted input problem downstream, in the DAC, leaving the data streamer to be inexpensive and replaceable, as streaming systems evolve. In the context of this thread I want to eliminate the need for a high-end streamer (the digital transport parts anyway).
Cereal Killer
432
A good standard is about -130db
StackAudio
Trade: Stack Audio
Yes, I am of the strong belief that a digital streamer set up does make a significant difference.
It is especially more noticeable when playing your favourite music from a program (and server) that is processor hungry (can add far more interference to the output than anyone would want!).
Placing any half decent network bridge and DAC to the set up should provide you with a truly noticeable difference when enjoying your music. They are designed to remove unwanted audio interference generated at the source, be that electrical and physical.
I hope this of some help!
Hi Stack Audio. You say you believe “that a digital streamer set up does make a strong difference”. Since you actually make and sell a digital streamer, the Link II, can you actually back up this claim with any measurement at the output of any DAC that shows your streamer makes a measurable difference?
Dozey
Air guitar member
My opinion is all kit in the same price range will sound similar. You need to multiply the cost by a factor of 10 to get a significant improvement. At some point everyone will think the next step up is not worth it. For example a CCA for 20 quid. Then a 200 pound one. Then a naim NDX. Then an ND555, then a dCS vivaldi stack.
(I haven't heard the last two - just guessing).
(I haven't heard the last two - just guessing).