Audio streamers

[Phileas]

But what do you mean by "correctly designed"?

I mean not bungled or deliberately "voiced".

As for power amps, they'll often sound different according to the loudspeaker load

Possibly true, but even then the differences are probably not as big as people imagine. (Have you heard of the Harbeth or Richard Clark amplifier challenges for example?)

Great scientists like Darwin or Einstein had to make a leap - of creative imagination, before they could set to work on necessarily provisional proofs....

This is not fundamental science, it's just audio engineering. I simply don't think there are any significant advances to be made at the digital end of things other than to make things smaller and cheaper.

[jayne lee wilson]

I mean not bungled or deliberately "voiced".



Possibly true, but even then the differences are probably not as big as people imagine. (Have you heard of the Harbeth or Richard Clark amplifier challenges for example?)



This is not fundamental science, it's just audio engineering. I simply don't think there are any significant advances to be made at the digital end of things other than to make things smaller and cheaper.

Oh, there's a lot of science in audio engineering, guffaw-emoticons notwithstanding (try to be civil, please)...
Physics and mathematics (eg. Bezier polynomials) - I mean, how could there not be? But don't you need a vision first? My speakers are Harbeths (C7Mk2) and I've had many friendly communications with Alan Shaw (quote - "everything [in audio design] is a trade-off").
Shaw told me that his ambition was to make his speakers sound like there was a real person, speaking, hidden in the box. That's how he began - ended up with a passion for accuracy - Harbeths are used all over the world in studios, never mind HiFi systems. It doesn't matter that Shaw isn't an "audiophile" - last time we spoke he was into 70s disco and didn't seem to bother with orchestral music much. What matters is the accuracy with which they perform - revealing differences between orchestras, pianos, or - amplifiers. (BUT - their accuracy won't matter if they sound awful in your room, with your amp, and thus in your ears - the individual case, the subjective, comes back in again).

I think, apparently based on your own limited experience (everybody's experience is limited by something) you're too fond of the idea that "people imagine" things. This is quite an arrogant assumption, with massive observational - andecdotal and technical - evidence against it. Are the HiFiNews or HiFiCritic magazines just cynical marketeers for audio companies?! If I trial a HiFi component at home, on a (friendly!) sale-or-return basis, why should I have any reason to "imagine" it as better (or worse) than the piece it may replace? I simply listen to it, to see if a) it is technically superior in the ways I've mentioned or implied; b) if it increases my musical enjoyment (usually as a result of that technical superiority).
So, I try an amplifier - 120 watts average per channel, 15-20 amps peak current. Beethoven 7 (iii) trio... audible peak distortion. Back it goes. Next amp, 200 watts average per channel, 25-30 amps peak current... No.7 trio - a great wave of clean power and beauty. I don't notice the HiFi much. A good start.

Do you extend this approach to other technologies? Are Leica Optics no better (in your eyes) than, say, Tesco own-brand?

The problem with smaller and cheaper is - it tends to sound bad - usually (but not only) because of poor power supply/regulation; but if you don't seek out, find and listen, with passion, with a great love for all kinds of music, it may not seem to matter. But you miss out on THAT MOMENT - you wire the thing in, get it going, go off to cook dinner, wash up... then you come back when it's nicely warmed up (best not to drink too much on such a night)... and you listen, and you think... WOW!

It's so special - because it's so rare.

https://stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi

..don't forget to read the continuations...

[Phileas]

Jayne

I didn't ntend to seem uncivil, I'm sorry. :)

I'm talking only about digital front-ends, not other parts of the audio chain, but I mentioned Harbeth because Alan Shaw issued a challenge a while ago where he a offered free pair of Harbeths to anyone who could fell the difference between any two amplifiers under properly conducted ABX tests. Nobody took up the challenge although many people argued with Alan about his views.

Many people have tried and struggled to hear differences between DACs. That suggests that the best way to determine whether differences exist is via level matched ABX. After reading around the subject, I have come to my conclusion (as have many other people with more experience then me) that DACs should not have significant audible differences.

[jayne lee wilson]

As I always tell myself after reading a review of a promising-looking bit of kit, "reading is one thing, listening quite another..." Your expectations do get a few shocks.

The John Atkinson Stereophile link makes the point that "ABX" "Blind Testing" etc., is only one possible method for determining whether differences are consistently audible, and every method has its flaws. As I said, ABX entirely leaves out the brain's ability to learn over time. You could argue that it's been designed to encourage failure in the participants. Remember one point of Relativity Theory - always include the observer in the picture: how you test things will tend towards a particular conclusion. And if you start out sceptical, you'll tend to find those tests attractive which confirm your view.

One of my quick measures for the worth of a component is: how great are the differences between recordings played through it? The easier it is to hear hall or orchestra characteristics in Vienna, Chicago, Berlin etc., the better the kit - more accurate, lower colouration. Testing this ability thoroughly with ABX would be very complex and take a very long time. Not to mention listening knowledge and experience.
It always comes back to - listening. It was a lengthy audition of the ATC ASL50 Speakers that taught me what I was looking for - but I found them too fatiguing to keep (never mind bank-breaking, even 2ndhand); then, because of the A50's revelations, I couldn't enjoy what I had anymore - not good! The Quest began again...

Finally, I come back to Dacs - it's those filters that have possibly the biggest influence on the sound (the Audiolab M-Dac offers 7!), and switching between them is a real education - all is relative (and creative), again.

[remdataram]

I have a 'budget' system - the relevant components comprising a Stream Magic, Unison Research Unico Secondo Amplifier and Spendor S6e speakers. Over the past 30 years or so I have bought many hifi components culminating in first a DAC Magic and then the Stream Magic to listen to feeds from my NAS and Internet radio.

I have to agree with Jayne that there are differences with every link in the chain, some being more subtle than others. I also agree that only protracted listening reveals all that is good and bad.

Ultimately only our own ears can provide a subjective judgement of satisfaction with any system; after all are we trying to replicate the Philharmonie, the Concertgebouw or Barbican?

Generally the more expensive the component, the better the sound - however the law of diminishing returns certainly applies! I think the DAC Magic punches above its weight providing excellent sound from varied sources. The debate is impossible to resolve but I can assure everyone a system comprising a £100 DAC with a £100 Amplifier and £1000 speakers will be pretty awful!

As to the choice of DAC, I think, as a generalisation, a DAC will always sound better than a similarly priced CD player.

[Pegleg]

These debates so often polarise into what you might call “objectivist” v. “subjectivist”. I'm not sure why JLW should bring relativity into this. Is that special or general? Not surprisingly, I only ever studied “special relativity” and can hardly claim to have ever had a thorough grasp of it. One thing I do remember is that the concept of the “observer” in special relativity needs a little clarification, e.g:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(special_relativity)

Another thing people (not in this case) throw into the argument is the idea of “empirical evidence” without distinguishing between how the philosopher might use such a term in respect of knowledge derived from sense data, as opposed to how the scientist might use the term to describe part of a scientific approach which certainly, at least in classical physics, should be independent of the observer.

Of course all this changed not just with Einstein but with Quantum Physics, ideas which even Einstein struggled to come to terms with. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates

If you ever have the time Werner Heisenberg's book “Phyiscs and Philosophy” is worth reading. (Mind you reading and understanding are not necessarily the same thing, I speak of myself ):

http://archive.org/details/ost-physics-heisenberg-physicsphilosophy

Back to the topic.

It's clear that JLW has spent much time, effort and not least money on pursuing her own audio goals, using a methodology which is valid for her. Resources which I never expect to have myself. I wouldn't knock what JLW has done, or how she has done it.

You might be interested in these refs which were posted elsewhere:

http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/heyser.pptx

http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm

I haven't read it all, but I like these statements:

“What you like to listen to is your Preference.You listen to what you prefer to hear, not what is measurably more accurate, unless of course, you prefer a good measurement. ”

"Your preference is not my preference, it is your preference."

[jayne lee wilson]

The second paragraph of your first wiki link is what I had in mind, (albeit in a slightly populist application!) AS for "preference", well OF COURSE. I think I've evoked subjective responses & relative evaluation often as could be above... (mind you, I hope you'll listen open-eared enough to have your "preference" shocked & changed!)

I would have liked to stop at - "not everything you hear can be measured, and not everything you measure can be heard". Which resonates beyond the lab and studio into preference and personal values.

As for money, it's surprising what you can do if you avoid buying new! But yes, it can take years... (and mistakes, and heartache, and the odd bit of outrageous good luck...)

[Pegleg]

I suppose my rational side means I baulk at many of the things I read about in the so-called "audiophile world" and I tend to hover between the objective and subjective view point. But I am open-eared, my problem is I have not had the mobility to get out and listen as I would have liked in recent years. My current small study setup is in part made up of s/hand kit. AVI neutron speakers driven by a quad 306 which is in turn connected to the variable line out of my DAC which acts as a pre-amp. I find the convenience of computer audio indispensable, my rega planar 3 is just for decoration now. I use Linux, another way to save cash.

That brings me finally back to the orignal subject of this thread: audio streamers. I've been dithering over using a raspberry pi or something like an ALIX board for an embedded system for ages. There is also this project http://www.communitysqueeze.org/ for those who lament the end of squeezebox touch production. There are numerious guides on the net on how to make use of these devices, you don't really need to be some kind of techno-geek to do it. I waste far too much time reading about these things when I should just be listening to music.

[Phileas]

I've been dithering over using a raspberry pi or something like an ALIX board for an embedded system for ages. There is also this project http://www.communitysqueeze.org/ for those who lament the end of squeezebox touch production.

I wouldn't have thought those options would suit many people - definitely for the Technophiles!
I currently use SqueezeBoxes but I now control them via iPad/Nexus 7. If starting again I might very well go down the iTunes>ATV route. An alternative would be Squeezeplay(on PC)+Airfoil>ATV.
(I wouldn't want a streamer+DAC since I have a DAC inside my speakers.)

[Nevalti]

By that I mean products like the Pioneer N-50 audio streamer.

What do these products do that you can't do with a normal computer? Really struggling to see why anyone would want to spend £500+ on something like this.

We seem to have gone off this topic rather but I thought I would put my two penn'orth in.

A streamer gives you convenience + better performance because 1. Computers tend to be digitally noisy BUT that can be over-come if you do want to use a computer. 2. Computers tend to have rubbish DACs. Having made those two points, it has to be said that a well set up computer CAN be a superb digital music source to rival any streamer.

A cheap streamer like a Squeezebox Touch (you can still find them) is pretty damn good as long as you use a decent DAC with it. The Sonos system is similarly good and convenient but it can not handle hi-res music. Some people, me included, have yet to hear any obvious benefit from Hi-Res but I am open minded about that.

That leads on to the supplementary question about what is a good DAC? Sadly, that is rather like asking what is a good amplifier or what are decent speakers. We already know that we all have different ideas because we all value different aspects of music. Despite what has been said above, by some at least, there are huge differences between components and, in the right chain, those differences can be easily detected.

If you want a giant killer DAC, start off by home testing a Beresford DAC. Try their £150 DAC in comparison with your CD player's DAC. If you can't hear the difference - send it back - but you almost certainly will. It may not be your ideal DAC but it is a very good place to start. I still use an old Beresford DAC in my bedroom set-up and am delighted with the sound. For my main hi-fi I use a Benchmark DAC 1 (unjustly maligned above) which is also superb value for money at about £1,000 more (depending on the model you choose). As always, use your ears and don't rely on other people, especially if they say, "all amps, DACs, wires, etc sound the same". They simply don't. We all know they don't otherwise we would all be using the cheapest ones available.

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, the latest Benchmark DAC2 is reviewed, very positively, in HIfINews for July 2013, and from memory I think an earlier model is in their Dac archive on the website. The very thorough& knowledgable HiFiNews team like them. A lot.

Another great budget++ option is the aforementioned Cambridge DacMagic.

[Resurrection Man]

.....

Another great budget++ option is the aforementioned Cambridge DacMagic.

Budget?

£200 is budget ?

[jayne lee wilson]

Budget?

£200 is budget ?

The diminutive DacMagic 100 is £170, DacMagic Plus (with onboard preamp) is £350. I lived with the 2009 model (£220) for 4 years. And loved it. A recent comment from a highend review (HiFiCritic) was "I'm not sure if even Cambridge know how good they are!"
As for the Benchmark, I've not heard it but I bet it's worth every penny!

Good job you don't know what I've got now...

[Dave2002]

A cheap streamer like a Squeezebox Touch (you can still find them) is pretty damn good as long as you use a decent DAC with it. The Sonos system is similarly good and convenient but it can not handle hi-res music. Some people, me included, have yet to hear any obvious benefit from Hi-Res but I am open minded about that.

...
If you want a giant killer DAC, start off by home testing a Beresford DAC. Try their £150 DAC in comparison with your CD player's DAC. If you can't hear the

difference - send it back - but you almost certainly will. It may not be your ideal DAC but it is a very good place to start. I still use an old Beresford DAC in my bedroom set-up and am delighted with the sound. For my main hi-fi I use a Benchmark DAC 1 (unjustly maligned above) which is also superb value for money at about £1,000 more (depending on the model you choose). As always, use your ears and don't rely on other people, especially if they say, "all amps, DACs, wires, etc sound the same". They simply don't. We all know they don't otherwise we would all be using the cheapest ones available.

I am more sceptical - though it could well be that overall my equipment isn't good enough, or my ears aren't.

I first tried the Squeezeboxes, and liked them. Then I read that the SQ could be improved with a DAC.

I tried a DACMagic, and although it was good, I was surprised at how similar it sounded to my CD player. I took it back.

Eventually I tried a Beresford Caiman, which was affordable at the time, and also the version I bought has a headphone output and USB connectivity, which I wanted. It certainly sounded different, though it's slightly odd product as it definitely seemed to "burn in" over time. I raised this issue with Stan, the designer/developer and asked if it was a "real" effect. He said yes - and he says that he has been able to compare otherwise identical models before and after any burn in process. I felt that burn in took about 2 weeks. The downside of this is that it is not possible to compare the final sound of that device with other DACs. My suspicion is that other DACs don't take as long to burn in, if indeed there is an effect at all.

Since then there have been new Beresford models and upgrades, which have been well received in some quarters, but I've not heard them.

I have also compared the DAC from the Squeezebox models with other outputs - e.g CD and my DAC, and the conclusion I came to was that they did sound slightly different, but all were similarly acceptable. The DACs in the Squeezebox models seem to give a slightly smoother sound. The Caiman seems to have more detail and attack.

The latest Beresford model is the Bushmaster - http://www.homehifi.co.uk/products/7530.html The price for this appears to be around £150, but may not include tax and shipping costs. It does have a headphone output (I found that useful on my Caiman) - but I don't think it has USB input, though there may be a variant under development which does. It's probably under £200 anyway, and could be a good buy. Several users say that that sound quality is better than the Caiman. Mac users will find it should be easy to connect and drive, as they have optical outputs, but PC users will probably need to allow for the additional cost of an SPDIF interface.

It should be possible to connect a DAC with optical inputs to devices such as CD players, DVD players, DAB tuners etc., depending on model - but if the intention is to use a computer as a streaming unit, then it is important to ensure that the computer output is compatible with the DAC input. I believe some DACs require or may benefit from different driver software at the computer end.

If a computer is to be used for streaming, then it may be desirable to network the DAC. This may be possible using wireless or wired technology. Networking allows the computer and the audio equipment to be in different rooms. I recommend wired ethernet over wireless, though wireless may be good enough in many domestic situations - depends! Devices such as the Logitech Squeezeboxes - now no longer fully supported - can be used to provide the wireless or wired link between the computer and a DAC.

Lastly, if cost is important, don't forget to add in the cost of interconnects - coaxial or optical or USB cables for the digital inputs, depending on the DAC, plus some output cables. There's no need (IMO) to buy very expensive ones - though others will disagree. However the digital input cables could still add a further £10-£30 depending on how extravagant you feel. There are definitely audible differences in different analogue output cables, which may be small and subtle, but can improve (or not) the SQ. Again, I don't think it's necessary to spend huge sums of money (it is possible to do so ...) , but cheap interconnects, or ones supplied with any kit, may not do full justice to the equipment.

[Nevalti]

Budget?

£200 is budget ?

That is a sensible comment.

If you happily listening on a 30 year old Amstrad 'hifi' system, buying a £15,000 or £1,500 or even a £150 DAC will give you no benefit whatsoever. If however, you have HiFi worthy of the title, you should get a benefit.

The problem with building a decent HiFi system is that you need excellent speakers to hear the improvements - if any, BUT if your source and amp are poor, the excellent speakers will just reveal the defects whereas a less revealing pair of speakers will just smooth things off and make the sound more 'comfortable'. That, I suspect, is why some people claim they can hear no differences.