To locally stream or to remotely stream, tis the question

[boomzilla]

My audio amigo, Russell, swears that I'm damaging my sound totally by using an Ethernet connection between my source and my receiver. He claims that I'd notice a BIG difference by locating the source computer adjacent to the DAC and by connecting via USB rather than Ethernet.

Assuming that my only convenient options are USB, Optical-TOSLINK, or Ethernet, what's my best choice? I remember using USB and TOSLINK before and not hearing any big difference, but technology (especially on USB) has improved a lot since I last tried.

Thanks - Boom

[mgbpuff]

Oct 3, 2019 5:58:52 GMT -5 boomzilla said:

My audio amigo, Russell, swears that I'm damaging my sound totally by using an Ethernet connection between my source and my receiver. He claims that I'd notice a BIG difference by locating the source computer adjacent to the DAC and by connecting via USB rather than Ethernet.

Assuming that my only convenient options are USB, Optical-TOSLINK, or Ethernet, what's my best choice? I remember using USB and TOSLINK before and not hearing any big difference, but technology (especially on USB) has improved a lot since I last tried.

Thanks - Boom

I think there should be no difference provided your receiver has sufficient buffering capacity. If not, ethernet is probably the worst. This is a non issue with network file streaming such as UPnP/DLNA. In that case the network is not used to carry the realtime digital audio signal, since audio file decoding and playback occurs at the receiver side of the network, not the sender side.

[wilburthegoose]

No difference.

I have my Roon server connected to an ultraRendu that's connected to my XMC-1 via USB cable. I'm using the XMC-1's DAC, and it sounds awesome.

I also have my PC connected via ethernet. It too sounds really good.

I think Russell is, in general, incorrect.

[drtrey3]

Yeah, ethernet has plenty of bandwidth, what was his concern about how it would impact sound quality?

Trey

[garbulky]

What matters is what you think. You've heard it both ways - locally and streaming. Do you find a noticeable difference in sound?

[KeithL]

Digital audio is simply a string of numbers, and all three methods are equally capable of sending numbers from one point to another without errors.

However, there are a lot of ways in which each can be implemented, so they may sound very different in a specific situation, depending on the equipment and settings you're using.

USB and Toslink are more direct connections - and are normally used to connect a source directly to a DAC over shorter distances.

Sending digital audio over Ethernet gives you a much greater range.. but the actual process involved is much more complicated.

This offers far more opportunities for the various equipment and software the audio passes through along the way to affect how it ends up sounding.

For example, because Ethernet is packet-based, the audio data MUST be re-clocked at the destination as it is converted back into a standard digital audio format.

(The original data clock is discarded when the audio is packetized - so a new clock must be generated at the destination when it is converted back.)

If done well, this offers one or more extra stages of "filtering", which can actually eliminate timing errors and jitter that were present on the original signal.

However, when data is sent over Ethernet, it is often sent using a streaming format like DLNA, which cannot be trusted to consistently avoid altering the data.

(Some streaming formats always alter the data - while others only do so under certain network conditions - but fail to inform you when they do so.)

Other methods may deliver perfect data, but introduce serious timing errors (if properly designed, the receiving device should be immune to these errors, but not all devices work perfectly).

Therefore, the short answer is:

"It really depends on exactly how you do it and the particular equipment you use. However, under perfectly optimum conditions, all three are capable of sounding equally perfect."

You will also find that most combinations of equipment support one or two, but not all three, of those methods.

(I would also point out that many Toslink implementations aren't done especially well - so I would put it at the end of the list.)

Oct 3, 2019 5:58:52 GMT -5 boomzilla said:

My audio amigo, Russell, swears that I'm damaging my sound totally by using an Ethernet connection between my source and my receiver. He claims that I'd notice a BIG difference by locating the source computer adjacent to the DAC and by connecting via USB rather than Ethernet.

Assuming that my only convenient options are USB, Optical-TOSLINK, or Ethernet, what's my best choice? I remember using USB and TOSLINK before and not hearing any big difference, but technology (especially on USB) has improved a lot since I last tried.

Thanks - Boom

[Gary Cook]

Oct 3, 2019 5:58:52 GMT -5 boomzilla said:

My audio amigo, Russell, swears that I'm damaging my sound totally by using an Ethernet connection between my source and my receiver. He claims that I'd notice a BIG difference by locating the source computer adjacent to the DAC and by connecting via USB rather than Ethernet.

Assuming that my only convenient options are USB, Optical-TOSLINK, or Ethernet, what's my best choice? I remember using USB and TOSLINK before and not hearing any big difference, but technology (especially on USB) has improved a lot since I last tried.

Thanks - Boom

My guess is that Russel is using gear that has a good quality USB implementation and/or a not so good Ethernet implementation. My experience has been that the results of this sort of comparison vary from one piece of equipment to another. Sometimes one is better than the other and other times it’s the reverse. As usual implementation is more important than the base technology used.

Cheers
Gary

[boomzilla]

Oct 3, 2019 10:51:49 GMT -5 garbulky said:

What matters is what you think. You've heard it both ways - locally and streaming. Do you find a noticeable difference in sound?

I have not in the past - but I can now say that Ethernet streaming over Soon has generally (and audibly) been superior to Ethernet streaming via JRiver (that would sometimes down-res my stream to MP3 quality without telling me.

But it's also a LONG time since I've tried a USB vs. Ethernet thing. Maybe USB has improved a lot recently (or Ethernet has become flakier?).

In other words, maybe because I couldn't hear any difference THEN doesn't mean that there's no audible difference NOW.

[SteveH]

This week, I just turned up a 100% SSD NAS with a Roon core, a Roon Ready DAC and a Roon lifetime subscription. My NAS and DAC are on Ethernet. After reading Keith's post, since the Roon software controls the DAC clock, is this why Roon seems to be the pricier option for music servers? I am old and this high end audio arena is quite the learning experience for me, but I am trying to keep up.

[brubacca]

Boom,

I used to argue that Ethernet killed the music, but that just isn't the case. In all things audio the components do the heavy lifting. Better components better sound. (By better I don't mean more expensive)

Except Toslink. Its evil amd sucks the life out of music.

[brubacca]

Oct 3, 2019 17:18:15 GMT -5 SteveH said:

This week, I just turned up a 100% SSD NAS with a Roon core, a Roon Ready DAC and a Roon lifetime subscription. My NAS and DAC are on Ethernet. After reading Keith's post, since the Roon software controls the DAC clock, is this why Roon seems is the pricier option for music servers? I am old and this high end audio arena is quite the learning experience for me, but I am trying to keep up.

Congrats on the setup. Should sound phenomenal. I just went Roon and love it.