i opted for the stack audio link II + volt power supply.
1 Like
RPI4 with Ropieee. But if you prefer sleek looking boxes why not 
But it won’t play better
3 Likes
I nearly let people talk me into getting a ifi Zen Stream for 4 times the price of a RPI 4 (4gb).
2 Likes
Good choice, enjoying mine quite a bit more than the other options I’ve tried in my main system. Rock solid, plug it in and forget it’s there piece of kit.
As many here I also have Raspberry Pi4b boards with RoPieee endpoints in other rooms. Sometimes things break after an update. Sometimes it can be frustrating, but if you like tinkering…. 
1 Like
A DAC-less network streamer (Ethernet with USB) is what I need to connect our DAC to receive our music via our Roon Core on the network. I was considering the advice above about the Raspberry Pi ($75), which seems to be a far less costly option to bring basically internet to the DAC than say a Sonora UltaRendu ($1800), but the Pi and other options such as the Pro-Ject Streamer list the limitations at DSD312, while my DAC goes up to D512. Why is there a limit on rendering when the streamer is to effectively bring data to the DAC?
1 Like
I do DSD512 with my raspberry pi 4 just fine. Same for pcm 768khz
Yeah, I’m not sure where that DSD312 number comes from. The RoPieee hardware page says:
RoPieee supports, besides DoP (DSD over PCM), native DSD on the following USB DAC’s:
and then a list of DACs. I presume “native DSD” means the rate supported by the DAC.
Funny no one will wonder in a photography forum if the ssd, computer or cable used to extract one pic from your camera changes the pic resolution, quality, or colours and we still have people claming the sonic improvements on the analog end of their DACs due to a streamer. Humans are amazing.
8 Likes
Short answer: because no one would take them seriously. Besides all audiophiles know that audio signals, whether as electrical current when in the analog domain or as a digital data stream when in the digital domain, do not follow any of the laws of physics that govern electrical signals and digital data streams. And as long as these audiophiles have money to spend then this anti-science behavior of audio signals will continue.
6 Likes
Being a photographer is kind of like being both a recording artist and a recording engineer. Besides artistic skills, it also requires certain technical knowledge to create photographs. Perhaps that prevents most photographers from believing in magic. That’s quite different than getting a shiny hifi system from a dealer and playing music. The less technical knowledge, the more precious the metal your ears are made of.
3 Likes
Went from project stream box ultra s2 which is a great easy to use pi based to an ultrarendu and the Sonore is clearly much better into chord Qutest… no bugs or glitches
2 Likes
The problem with measurements is they don’t capture ‘belief’. Nothing wrong with belief and the truth is that belief does actually provide musical enjoyment - even if scientifically there is no difference between two devices.
This can range from aesthetics to general perception of the individual. If you believe it sounds better, it does actually sound better - to you.
Too much emphasis on measurements in my view, especially those that measure way beyond what we can hear anyway.
No one is placing too much emphasis on measurements. Measurement is a tool to be used appropriately. If you can’t measure a difference above the audibility threshold, you can’t hear one. Chasing the inaudible is a fool’s errand.
Likewise though, belief alone cannot be trusted.
There’s a balance somewhere in between.
Where it comes to systems, people should focus on the big stuff. Speakers and room interaction first. Everything else is secondary by at least an order of magnitude.
7 Likes
Cannot be repeated too often. Source, amplification and network isn’t much of a concern today. One could almost call this part of the race off. It’s done. Eyes on the ball (LS & rooms).
1 Like
Regarding measurements, how or what is being measured on a streamer? Not a streamer with a DAC but just a streamer. I suspect that one would have to measure the streamer’s ability to present an error free digital data stream to a DAC. So if two streamers are being tested, one inexpensive and the other an expensive audiophile streamer and both are able to present an error free digital data stream to a DAC then what exactly makes one sonically better than the other? In other words, how does one go about measuring the “sound”, as opposed to the features, of a streamer?
In the Roon universe that are many different ways to stream and many different streamers available. There are different streaming protocols offering different bit rates and the like but that’s not an indication of the sonic quality. For example Roon’s RAAT protocol offers a veery wide range of streaming options with high bit rates. On the other hand the AirPlay and ChromeCast protocols feature lower bit rates. With that being said I don’t think that any two streamers are going to “sound” different when streaming music, provided that the bit rates are the same.
It’s amazing just how many qualifiers one needs to add because some true believers will jump on the slightest difference to prove their beliefs. “ChromeCast only goes to 48kHz so RAAT is better!” Sometimes I feel like a parent dealing with the old “why” “because” from a young child.
1 Like
Search me…
A streamer’s job is to take the TCP network packets and convert them to a digital data stream suitable for feeding to a DAC. It’s pretty trivial in the scheme of things.
Lots of audiophiles claim that expensive streamers do this with lower noise, less “phase noise” (jitter) etc. etc. But a competent DAC doesn’t care whether you feed it USB from a cheap RPi or S/PDIF or TOSLINK from a cheap streamer or AES/EBU or I2S from a multi-thousand $/€/£ streamer. The DAC should be immune to “noise” and competent enough to deal with clock variations without allowing the audible effects of jitter to present themselves at the DAC’s analogue output.
All these things can be measured and tested. If one streamers “sounds” better than another, I’d wager the DAC is at fault.
Sadly, there are expensive DACs on the market which aren’t terribly competent at D/A conversion.
6 Likes
And those able to prove their claims with the eyes shut still need to be found.
3 Likes
Would recommend anyone to consider the Grimm Audio MU1.
I have owned a few streamers (Bechmark, Sonos, Lumin), and this is one of the most spectacular piece of Hi-Fi gear I now own. Plenty of reviews on the web to read about it and better understand the design philosophy and implementation behind it.
4 Likes
Whilst the Grimm MU1 is a fine product with good measured performance, it’s completely unnecessary if you have a good DAC with good jitter immunity on its inputs.
£10k is a lot of money for a streamer…
2 Likes
The Grimm Audio MU1 is not “only” a streamer: it also integrates a server, a clock and a scaler.
1 Like