Why in some instances does changing streamers makes a bigger difference?

@mgrif104 

It would stand to reason that the streaming client solution built in (fed by Ethernet with good hygiene) would have every advantage over an outboard streamer - would it not? 

If I am interpreting your statement properly, not necessarily. It depends on how much and what kind of noise the “streaming client solution built-in” is generating, what measures are taken to isolate that noise between sections and functions, and how any noise generated might be affecting the analog circuits in the built in DAC.  

On the other hand, physically separating electrical and EMR noise from the streamer function to a separate box then requires cables and cable connections that could expose the signal to every insult in the electrical environment between the separate streamer and the DAC, and also adds the potential for interacting with and degrading low level analog signals in adjacent cables.

This all comes down to design and implementation to reduce noise inside the all-in-one server/DAC solution.  If the one box solution sounds better to you, the design and implementation were successful at mitigating noise.  If not, it was less successful than a separate box plus cable(s) solution (in your rack at least).

So physically isolating the streamer in another box can reduce problems with EMR affecting analog circuits in the DAC output stages compared with a combined solution, but opens the streamer/DAC connection to electrical noise associated with external cabling.  Why better cables can sound better in many instances, and even, or especially, better digital cables can sound better.  It’s not the 1s and 0s, it’s the noise…

kn

@knownothing 

Good points and well taken. It appears the measures taken by T+A to reduce EMR in these particular units is significant - bordering on extreme. But there’s also much that’s been learned over the past few years in streamers intending to move along the state of the art. My units are from 2019. 

The DAC functions of these units is top notch. We’ll see if the streamer function is too. I’m guessing not quite so much so. I certainly agree it’s not the 1s and 0s.

Best,

@tyray  The Galubridor appears to have the bare minimum for a power supply, looks like a Denafrips Ares minus transformer coil with a volume knob added. While you don’t need a beefy power supply for a DAC you do want some serious engineering for voltage supply stability, low noise. I always look first at the PS engineering, a toroidal coil or umbilical attached DC power supply is a good first step towards getting 20 bits of actual resolution.

@davide256,

The Galubridor appears to have the bare minimum for a power supply, looks like a Denafrips Ares minus transformer coil with a volume knob added. While you don’t need a beefy power supply for a DAC you do want some serious engineering for voltage supply stability, low noise.  

To answer the power supply option I have a Vinshine Audio x Kinki Studio Taihang Power Enhancer that replaced a Puritan 156 power conditioner. I also have a spare 聖HIJIRI Nagomi power cord to upgrade from the stock power cord. The plan is to go all in on the same brand and purchase a Galubridor streamer.

Much thanks for you taking the time with me as I think this 'new' (Denafrips?) brand is geared for the low to mid-fi consumer and is said to have improved on the sound qualities of the Denafrips Pontus 15th DAC level of kit. I also plan to add (3) AUVA Equipment Isolators to 'squeeze' every bit of music out of it as I can.

Aha! Looks like I was right that the Galubridor DAC is a Denafrips spinoff.

6moons article on Galubridor