Any good media streamers coming out, or just released lately?

MartinLogan Owners (MLO)

Help Support MartinLogan Owners (MLO):

amey01

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
5,119
Reaction score
71
Location
Queensland, Australia
If the app is impacting tonality it would have to be modifying the data which makes very little sense.

Obviously high bitrate vs low bitrate with compression can sound different, but 1's and 0's are either valid or corrupt, there is no tonality unless your DAC and analog parts are in the streamer vs. external then the analog components could have an impact.

It makes a lot of sense actually.

You can do amazing stuff in the digital domain.

its very easy for an app (computer) to modify the sound.

From blatant mis-configuration, to equalisation / full room correction - there are many ways digital apparatus can modify the sound.

But bitperfect is bitperfect - and bit-for-bit data should be what we (as audiophiles) are seeking; at least sub-consciously - if we consciously choose to add eq or room correction, then that is also our prerogative, but should be done in a conscious and measured way.

Fortunately, virtually any music app makes it very easy to obtain bitperfect output - I think Clementine is the only one that I've seen that unashamedly fails the bitperfect test.
 
Last edited:

RCHeliGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
1,365
Reaction score
44
Location
United States
I wasn't suggesting that software couldn't modify the music. I've written software for a digital mastering console that did just that.

JRiver can go through a collection of compressed audio sources and equalize the volume of them for example bringing audio recorded at lower levels up so that your playlists don't require volume adjustments. However that only works for compressed sources. It does not work on FLAC files or similar.

JRiver has a pile of features that I do not use because I like to run my music straight in without modification.
 

agladstone

Active member
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
25
Reaction score
2
Location
philadelphia, pa
Aurrender is outstanding!!
The entry level N100 is very very good for the cost! (Around $2,300 USD).
I have had mine for several years now and it sounds fantastic connected to my Mytek Brooklyn DAC + with an ifi iUSB 3.0 USB re-clocker in between (powered by an Uptone LPS 1.2 super capacitor power supply).
the ifi iUSB 3.0 is about $300 and the Uptone LPS 1.2 is about $425, so in total around $3,000 to get the same level of sound quality as the $8,000 Aurender N10 , you can add these upgrades later, but these plus a well made USB cable (I use Cardas Highspeed 3.0 USB, but Shunyata Venom is another good option - both around $350 for 1 meter , you need two of them for the ifi iUSB 3.0.
Don’t let anyone tell you that bits are bits!
Not true at all! Buy the Aurender and prepare to be amazed at the difference in sound quality!
 

amey01

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
5,119
Reaction score
71
Location
Queensland, Australia
Don’t let anyone tell you that bits are bits!

Except that.......well......they are.

I've got the Mytek Brooklyn too.

You understand that the Brooklyn buffers and re-clocks, right? So what is the point in re-clocking bits so that the Brooklyn can throw it all away and re-clock it again?

Have a look at how async connections work. The pretense of operation is to avoid this clocking.

So unless this elusive little device is some how buffering noise which in turn somehow circumvent a design flaw in the Brooklyn and affects analogue conversion, I'm at a loss as to any benefit.

And if it is preventing noise - well, that makes a mockery of spending so much on the Aurender!
 

wink

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
514
Reaction score
14
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
Aurrender is outstanding!!
The entry level N100 is very very good for the cost! (Around $2,300 USD).
I have had mine for several years now and it sounds fantastic connected to my Mytek Brooklyn DAC + with an ifi iUSB 3.0 USB re-clocker in between (powered by an Uptone LPS 1.2 super capacitor power supply).
the ifi iUSB 3.0 is about $300 and the Uptone LPS 1.2 is about $425, so in total around $3,000 to get the same level of sound quality as the $8,000 Aurender N10 , you can add these upgrades later, but these plus a well made USB cable (I use Cardas Highspeed 3.0 USB, but Shunyata Venom is another good option - both around $350 for 1 meter , you need two of them for the ifi iUSB 3.0.
Don’t let anyone tell you that bits are bits!
Not true at all! Buy the Aurender and prepare to be amazed at the difference in sound quality!
One more comparison to make before going with the D2 purchase...
 

zigman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
15
Location
Santa Monica
Except that.......well......they are.

I've got the Mytek Brooklyn too.

You understand that the Brooklyn buffers and re-clocks, right? So what is the point in re-clocking bits so that the Brooklyn can throw it all away and re-clock it again?

Have a look at how async connections work. The pretense of operation is to avoid this clocking.

So unless this elusive little device is some how buffering noise which in turn somehow circumvent a design flaw in the Brooklyn and affects analogue conversion, I'm at a loss as to any benefit.

And if it is preventing noise - well, that makes a mockery of spending so much on the Aurender!
Bits are bits, the source that generates the bits is the discussion here and whether it's bit perfect from the source audio file.

Streamers/DACs rarely focus on noise removal, they do isolate components from each other but generally do not focus on noise removal. One of the few exceptions is Aavik's new streamer line, using Ansuz Tesla coil technology in their DACs and streamers.
 

amey01

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
5,119
Reaction score
71
Location
Queensland, Australia
Bits are bits, the source that generates the bits is the discussion here and whether it's bit perfect from the source audio file.
What is the source that generates the bits then? Your streamer (just because it is sitting there in your listening room), or do you want to acknowledge your server, the wire to your router, the wiring in the exchange, the optical fibre media converters, the hard disk at Tidal, the networking switches at your ISP. The list could go on all day. And they're all interconnected with common grounds and therefore transmit noise from one to the next!

Bitperfect (or otherwise) is not a controversial topic - it is impossibly easy to prove with a checksum.


Streamers/DACs rarely focus on noise removal, they do isolate components from each other but generally do not focus on noise removal. One of the few exceptions is Aavik's new streamer line, using Ansuz Tesla coil technology in their DACs and streamers.
Alright - so you're telling me I can spend $30,000 on a DAC, but I need to spend extra amounts on these stupid little "tweaks"? I don't believe it sorry. For $30,000 (or even half that) - the designer has unlimited free will to do what it takes to produce the best sounding product possible. Little Johnny in his lounge room playing around with snakeoil tweaks ain't going to change that.


But - as I said earlier - if all streamer manufacturers (with the exception of Aavik) aren't concentrating on what you think is important, why are you spending multi-thousands on one of said streamers which "don't focus on noise removal" when you could just use a Raspberry Pi?
 

Robert D

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
745
Reaction score
149
Isn't how the music was recorded and mastered the most important thing? I just stream with a Sonos box and many songs sound great and "3d". Other songs not so much. Also, the streaming service used must be important?

Some of the oldest songs I listen to sound great too. Some good Elvis out there I stream from Napster.

I've compared songs I stream vs played on a SACD and there wasn't a huge difference.
 

zigman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
15
Location
Santa Monica
What is the source that generates the bits then? Your streamer (just because it is sitting there in your listening room), or do you want to acknowledge your server, the wire to your router, the wiring in the exchange, the optical fibre media converters, the hard disk at Tidal, the networking switches at your ISP. The list could go on all day. And they're all interconnected with common grounds and therefore transmit noise from one to the next!

Bitperfect (or otherwise) is not a controversial topic - it is impossibly easy to prove with a checksum.

Alright - so you're telling me I can spend $30,000 on a DAC, but I need to spend extra amounts on these stupid little "tweaks"? I don't believe it sorry. For $30,000 (or even half that) - the designer has unlimited free will to do what it takes to produce the best sounding product possible. Little Johnny in his lounge room playing around with snakeoil tweaks ain't going to change that.

But - as I said earlier - if all streamer manufacturers (with the exception of Aavik) aren't concentrating on what you think is important, why are you spending multi-thousands on one of said streamers which "don't focus on noise removal" when you could just use a Raspberry Pi?
The discussion is about RAAT format transporting the music from server to endpoint and whether it is bit perfect from the original music source. If you can figure out how to checksum the just the audio stream inside of a RAAT data stream that would definitely be interesting because there a lot of speculation about it. I also tried out Audirvana (using UDNP) to streamer and it sounded different.

No one said spend $30K on a streamer, I used Aavik as an example. Toss a good power distributor and maybe if you want to try for fun a ethernet noise suppressor and you should be good to go. I wasn't happy with my system performance so a friend offered to let me borrow a full loom of Ansuz A2 power cables and distributor and I was shattered at how much difference it made it my system. It removed the brightness issues in my system and made the sound "pop" and you could hear instruments in the background that were barely audible. ML speakers are very transparent especially when paired with the right gear. Could have been my power as well because at the time it was a apt/condo with shared lines.

If you are cool with a Raspberry Pi go for it, not arguing at all. It's a great solution no doubt.
 

zigman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
15
Location
Santa Monica
Isn't how the music was recorded and mastered the most important thing? I just stream with a Sonos box and many songs sound great and "3d". Other songs not so much. Also, the streaming service used must be important?

Some of the oldest songs I listen to sound great too. Some good Elvis out there I stream from Napster.

I've compared songs I stream vs played on a SACD and there wasn't a huge difference.
So true Robert, I was literally having the conversation with a friend. No matter how much you tweak your system you are dependent on the source music and as you said how it has been recorded/mastered.

Interestingly enough, I was listening to music using headphone while doing some work and decided to test out if there was any different between Qobuz and Tidal. I noticed there was noticeable difference in the same track/album between Tidal and Qobuz. Some may like Tidal's brighter and airier sound vs. the more richer sounding Qobuz version. Brightness tends to give off more of a feeling of bigger soundstage. I can see why both can be appealing to different people.
 

Robert D

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
745
Reaction score
149
So true Robert, I was literally having the conversation with a friend. No matter how much you tweak your system you are dependent on the source music and as you said how it has been recorded/mastered.

Interestingly enough, I was listening to music using headphone while doing some work and decided to test out if there was any different between Qobuz and Tidal. I noticed there was noticeable difference in the same track/album between Tidal and Qobuz. Some may like Tidal's brighter and airier sound vs. the more richer sounding Qobuz version. Brightness tends to give off more of a feeling of bigger soundstage. I can see why both can be appealing to different people.
I've never used either of those. Sounds like you prefer Qobuz. I'm assuming I can stream those with Sonos.

I'm still using Napster. Originally joined when it was Rhapsody back around 2008. I guess the bit rate on these 2 services is faster?
 

Robert D

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
745
Reaction score
149
This is what Napster says.

 

zigman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
15
Location
Santa Monica
Lately prefer I Qobuz, but Tidal isn't bad on it's own either. It all depends on preference and component matching.

I used to use Napster a long time ago, but haven't compared. The sound quality theoretically could be better with either Tidal and Qobuz since they use FLAC (Qobuz) and FLAC/MQA (Tidal). Honestly it's based on your system whether you can really hear the difference. The more important thing is if it has the selection of music you want to listen to. Both have free trials so it could be fun to try them out and see if you can hear the difference if Sonos supports it.
 

Robert D

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
745
Reaction score
149
Lately prefer I Qobuz, but Tidal isn't bad on it's own either. It all depends on preference and component matching.

I used to use Napster a long time ago, but haven't compared. The sound quality theoretically could be better with either Tidal and Qobuz since they use FLAC (Qobuz) and FLAC/MQA (Tidal). Honestly it's based on your system whether you can really hear the difference. The more important thing is if it has the selection of music you want to listen to. Both have free trials so it could be fun to try them out and see if you can hear the difference if Sonos supports it.
Yeah, I should do a trial of both. Thanks.
 

Robert D

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
745
Reaction score
149
I guess if you rip your CDs to your pc, you can record as a flac file? Something I never paid attention to, and I've not done much of it.
 

amey01

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
5,119
Reaction score
71
Location
Queensland, Australia
Isn't how the music was recorded and mastered the most important thing?
Not sure about "most important" - but there's a good argument for that, yes. There is plenty of plain 16/44.1 that sounds wonderful, and conversely plenty of high-res stuff that sounds downright awful.
 

amey01

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
5,119
Reaction score
71
Location
Queensland, Australia
The discussion is about RAAT format transporting the music from server to endpoint and whether it is bit perfect from the original music source. If you can figure out how to checksum the just the audio stream inside of a RAAT data stream that would definitely be interesting because there a lot of speculation about it. I also tried out Audirvana (using UDNP) to streamer and it sounded different.
I would love to. I don't use Roon......but I can't imagine it would be too hard. You would need to take the digital out of the endpoint - not from inside the stream. A software endpoint would make this easier.

a ethernet noise suppressor
Just noting anecdotally (no argument - just questioning) - but an ethernet noise suppressor is a cheap tweak, and doesn't contain any "rocket science" parts. The power supply inside any halfway-decent audiophile component is far more sophisticated. So I observe (wihtout prejudice, just make the observation) - if this little thing is so important, why don't designers put them inside their $30,000 (and even $500) ethernet connected devices?

Sure, audiophiles couldn't "see" these devices, and couldn't play with them. And audiophile companies couldn't make a motza from selling them in fancy stainless steel finned enclosures for eight times the price. But if it is indeed a problem, it is a very very easy one to solve.

Of course, the best "ethernet noise arrester" is a wi-fi connection. So you should try that.

But noise is rarely a problem in the digital domain, because the electrical difference between a 1 and an 0 is orders of magnitude above the noise floor. And there are no half 1s or half 0s :)

I wasn't happy with my system performance so a friend offered to let me borrow a full loom of Ansuz A2 power cables and distributor and I was shattered at how much difference it made it my system. It removed the brightness issues in my system and made the sound "pop" and you could hear instruments in the background that were barely audible.
Now we're conflating analogue tweaks with digital ones. I don't doubt any of the differences you heard that being the case. (while I do question power cables, that's a discussion for another thread).
 
Last edited:

RCHeliGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
1,365
Reaction score
44
Location
United States
The bit about noise not being a problem in the digital domain can not be overstated. Either the data stream is in spec or out of spec. It works or it doesn't. 10-20% noise is a complete don't care. As long it the 0 is low enough to register a 0 and a 1 is high enough to register a 1 it works.

If you've got 40-50% noise then you could have bits being misinterpreted and the data stream has failed.
 

amey01

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
5,119
Reaction score
71
Location
Queensland, Australia
.

If you've got 40-50% noise then you could have bits being misinterpreted and the data stream has failed.
Even then.......there's still error correction, CRC, parity and resend.

Seriously - the guys who design this stuff are smart and know what they're doing. This is not a low-level analogue signal going through an RIAA equaliser.
 
Top