Best value streamer with no DAC

[Bamyasi]

Umm, I think that if you read what I wrote, as opposed to what others wrote, you'll see I never mentioned jitter. The RPi3 can have a form of bus contention that leads to - for lack of a better description - audible artifacts. The RPi4 doesn't have that. So to the extent that anyone has any issues with audio artifacts on a Raspberry 3 streamer, there isn't a need to go to something like an "Ultra Streamer". Just upgrade to a RPi4 and be happy.

I was replying to the quoted Pro-ject's developer arguments posted by @Saffy actually, since he was the OP. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Deleted member 24508]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. There may be issues with functionality depending on what model of RPi you're using, but this has nothing at all to do with dynamics and soundstage.

By all means spend your money on a Microendu but please don't encourage others to do the same by making unsubstantiated objective claims, at least not on this forum.

What I hear is not unsubstantiated it is an observation.

 

[Phorize]

What I hear is not unsubstantiated it is an observation.

You are making a deductive error. For centuries great minds looked up at the stars and observed them to revolve around the earth, until theoretical physics and measurements taught differently. It was a long time ago that the age of reason penetrated our beliefs around the universe. We are still waiting for the same transition in popular audio which remains one of the final frontiers where the enlightenment is concerned.

 

[BDWoody]

What I hear is not unsubstantiated it is an observation.

It is anecdotal, and unless more controls are used, not very informative.
Evidence...not anecdote.

 

[Deleted member 24508]

It is anecdotal, and unless more controls are used, not very informative.
Evidence...not anecdote.

In a court of law observations are Evidence?

 

[Deleted member 24508]

You are making a deductive error. For centuries great minds looked up at the stars and observed them to revolve around the earth, until theoretical physics and measurements taught differently. It was a long time ago that the age of reason penetrated our beliefs around the universe. We are still waiting for the same transition in popular audio which remains one of the final frontiers where the enlightenment is concerned.

Observation is not error. Observation has always been a major portion of the scientific method.

 

[JSmith]

Observation is not error

That all depends on the following steps of method... doesn't it?

As you say yourself observation alone is not science.



JSmith

 

[Phorize]

Observation is not error. Observation has always been a major portion of the scientific method.

Observation has also been a part of some of the worst conclusions that have ever been drawn, and the pitfalls of a deductive reasoning process are manifold:

 

[Deleted member 24508]

There is a difference between observation and analysis. What is observed, by different people, is the same how it is interpreted can be completely different dependant upon myriad factors. However you simply cannot judge audio equipment based ONLY on data.

 

[Phorize]

In a court of law observations are Eviden

There is a difference between observation and analysis. What is observed, by different people, is the same how it is interpreted can be completely different dependant upon myriad factors. However you simply cannot judge audio equipment based ONLY on data.

Taken literally your statement is untrue. One can absolutely rely, entirely on proper measurements of a dac, amplifier or other electronics to predict how it will behave in use. For example, there is absolutely nothing that listening will tell you about the sound related performance of a purifi amplifier that cannot be understood from its published measurements. This is so obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of electronics that it’s tiresome to point it out. It’s like having to explain what will happen when an apple is dropped from a tree. It’s a fully resolved issue, a solved problem, a problem not worth discussing.

 

[Phorize]

And here’s a useful list of the sorts of things one should look for in terms of proper scientific theory and process:

• Consistent
• Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)
• Empirically testable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)
• Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)
• Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
• Progressive (refines previous theories)
• Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

 

[Deleted member 24508]

Taken literally your statement is untrue. One can absolutely rely, entirely on proper measurements of a dac, amplifier or other electronics to predict how it will behave in use. For example, there is absolutely nothing that listening will tell you about the sound related performance of a purifi amplifier that cannot be understood from its published measurements. This is so obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of electronics that it’s tiresome to point it out. It’s like having to explain what will happen when an apple is dropped from a tree. It’s a fully resolved issue, a solved problem, a problem not worth discussing.

Machines measure data but humans listen to music. You cannot measure what humans hear precisely.

 

[Phorize]

Machines measure data but humans listen to music. You cannot measure what humans hear precisely.

No, but you can precisely establish what people cannot hear through blind testing, and that question has been well and truly answered.

 

[Phorize]

No, but you can precisely establish what people cannot hear through blind testing, and that question has been well and truly answered.

I’m struggling to understand what point you are trying to make really. You seem to be veering towards the ‘science doesn’t tell us enough about how humans hear or how electronics behave to reliably choose a component’. Is that fair? If so, what area of scientific enquiry do you believe is particularly lacking? For example, what property do you conjecture materially affects the performance of a dac that cannot be measured?

 

[sritacco]

Hi, looking for a streamer without a DAC to pair with a Topping D90.
Budget is under $500-1000, and I'm prepared to by-pass the on-board DAC if no pure streamers are available.
I need wireless connection to my network, bit perfect
I wish to stream high rez.
Any suggestion would be appreciated.
Thanks
Craig

How about an old Intel NUC off ebay and Volumio.

PS: I'm all for wired ethernet, however a packet is a packet and it either gets delivered with all its bits intact or there is a communication failure.

 

[Phorize]

Hi, looking for a streamer without a DAC to pair with a Topping D90.
Budget is under $500-1000, and I'm prepared to by-pass the on-board DAC if no pure streamers are available.
I need wireless connection to my network, bit perfect
I wish to stream high rez.
Any suggestion would be appreciated.
Thanks
Craig

Have you considered a pi 4 with a fanless case like the akasa gem, moode audio or volumio. Either option will give you want you seem to want with dsp at a fraction of the price you are thinking.

 

[biniek]

hi
do you have any expieriences using xduoo x10t II as a digital streamer?

 

[Deleted member 24508]

No, but you can precisely establish what people cannot hear through blind testing, and that question has been well and truly answered.

In repeated blind testing people cannot differentiate between CD and hi res, yet this contradicts that data can tell you everything, people can however tell you which dac they prefer the sound

I’m struggling to understand what point you are trying to make really. You seem to be veering towards the ‘science doesn’t tell us enough about how humans hear or how electronics behave to reliably choose a component’. Is that fair? If so, what area of scientific enquiry do you believe is particularly lacking? For example, what property do you conjecture materially affects the performance of a dac that cannot be measured?

Its like choosing a car on performance figures, it just does not correlate with how much you may enjoy driving the car, in fact it could be counter indicative.

 

[dtaylo1066]

I run a Asus Tinker Board (SBC similar to Pi but has some better technical specs) into my DAC. I use the free version of Volumio (easy to install) as my software. If you want Spotify, Tidal, etc, you will need a version of Volumio you pay for (not much). This set up works great for me via the Tinker Board USB out into my Emotiva dac. The highest resolution I have used so far is 24/96 and it sounds great. Total cost around $100 with wall wart.

 

[SpartanGA]

Perfect thread for me

I’m thinking
Rpi3/4 (I won’t be using USB, need 4?)
Allo DigiOne as I want digital out to my DAC (read it’s better than hi
Allo recommends a low noise PSU like Shanti or Nirvana
Case
I have access to hardwire at my location
Going to try picoreplayer

or digione signature with 2 PSUs

Opinions?