bits is bits

@clustrocasual you’re absolutely right.

My comment was that where "bits is bits" is concerned it pays to be extremely specific lest biased skeptics mistake your statement for a universal debunking of "bits is bits", even if that was not your intent, and start cheering like it was announcing the second coming.

With digital audio as with most things in life, the entire community benefits when individuals educate themselves and develop and articulate thoughtful, fact-based opinions instead of endlessly parroting facile dogma.

so the streamer receives 100% identical information, from either a music server 10 inches away or from Romania. Nobody disputes that, right?

@parkergetdean 

I definitely wouldn’t say "nobody"; just look at some of the posts in this and other threads.

And then it’s sent / streamed to the DAC. It is at that point that jitter is introduced? When we need a 20,0000 dollar streamer to get rid of the little clock devil?

Bits are processed (and therefore sonically modified) in your streamer by your music player software, and then handed over to your DAC over either USB or some antediluvian protocol like S/PDIF. There, and only there, start potential clocking issues, as well as the raging debate hanging over them

No, a $20,000 streamer is not required, but chances are it will mitigate clocking and galvanic isolation and other such issues better than a $299 one.

@devinplombier 

out of curiosity (and there may be some poor assumptions)

both the streamer and the CD transport got the data, the file with the bits for the music. They both send it to the DAC- doing the same exact job? Why does the streamer have to do it at much higher costs than the CD transport (my assumption/quick review that streamers cost much more)

@parkergetdean 

Good question. I hadn't really thought about it like that. I guess I would have to compare a bunch of transports versus streamers to verify. But assuming it is true, then it is reassembling, cashing, and cleaning of the internet input and the tuner that allows connection to streaming services and control of what is playing (the app). 

thanks @ghdprentice I know I simplified the steps a bit (a lot)

out of curiosity (and there may be some poor assumptions)

both the streamer and the CD transport got the data, the file with the bits for the music. They both send it to the DAC- doing the same exact job? Why does the streamer have to do it at much higher costs than the CD transport (my assumption/quick review that streamers cost much more)

Well, yes, at the 50,000 ft level they are both digital sources that do the same job. However they’re technically very different; a CD transport consists of an actual CD transport (I know, confusing), of which there are only very few manufacturers, such as Sony, Philips or TEAC. TEAC transports are found in Esoteric products because Esoteric is a brand of TEAC. A Russian guy maintains a database of which CD players use which transports, you can look it up.

In contrast, most streamers are low-powered computers (usually ARM Cortex CPUs, same as the newest Raspberry Pi) running some cobbled-together version of Linux and a proprietary app layer.

I’ll leave it at that.

As far as cost, top-shelf transports aren’t much cheaper than their streamer equivalents. Look up the aforementioned Esoteric transports, and Accuphase too.

The big difference is that CD transports are a stagnant technology at best, whereas streamers are all the rage so most of the debate takes place around the latter. The commonly held audiophile credo is that streamers are the bee’s knees whereas PCs are despicable garbage, which is ignorant nonsense since they’re one and the same thing (assuming of course we're talking about a custom build optimized for audio duties, as opposed to a feeble macbook).

There’s a whole lot more to it, but I’ll leave it at that for now :)