STREAMER - WHERE DO I GO FROM HERE?

Other than an easy-to-read screen and balanced outputs, what features should I look for in an endgame streamer that will deliver a significant performance boost? 

Which is more important: 

• Screen 
• Endgame streamer 

I think most people feel they are mutually exclusive. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. 

AFAIK, there are only 2 "high end" streamers with a screen, and these links may be of interest: 

https://www.audioshark.org/threads/critical-listening-mode.20302/

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/aurender-n20-music-server/

Oops, sorry, I didn’t answer one of your questions/claims:

4) You claimed: “FACT:  Jitter does not transfer from a USB‑oriented streamer to an asynchronous DAC.  Not timing jitter. Not clock jitter. Not transport jitter.
It is blocked by design. (MY FACE IS BLUE)”. And you had previously attempted to refute actual evidence I provided that showed otherwise, and claimed that the Dragonfly used adaptive, not asynchronous, usb.  You then never responded to my counter that the Dragonfly was indeed asynchronous, so the jitter numbers from Paul Miller’s tests demonstrated that you were incorrect, that a streamer using asynchronous usb can indeed introduce additional jitter to a dac.  Here’s the blurb from Audioquest regarding the Dragonfly:

“AudioQuest worked with Gordon Rankin on the design for the original DragonFly. Gordon is a heavyweight in the audio world and worthy of a Google search. He’s the founder of Wavelength Audio, a brilliant designer, and the first to properly develop asynchronous USB for high-end audio. His company improved computer audio when it released the Wavelength Audio Cosecant at CES in 2004. All the DragonFly models have featured Gordon’s designs.”

And here’s another cut and paste from my previous post that you just ignored:

“why some measurements show streamer differences even with asynchronous USB—the explanation involves RF noise coupling into DAC clocks, which surprises a lot of engineers.”

@mclinnguy asked "Which is more important: Screen or Endgame streamer" 

RESPONSE:  Yes.  

Fortunately, I don't need to make a choice.  The more I think about this matter and the experience that I want to have with my endgame streamer, it's important to me to have a big chassis, easy-to-read screen, physical dimensions that are visually proportionate to the rest of my system, and great performance.  I believe that the Innuos Pulsar may be the better sonic performer than the rs130 based upon what I read, but there's no screen and I don't want to be limited to a tablet or phone.  I don't seek "Absolute Sound." 

The reality is, I don't believe that the differences between the RS130 and the Pulsar (and I've listened to neither) are significant enough to forego the screen. At this level, for a casual listener like me, I don't need to worry about being overly critical about two fantastic streamers.  I've made good equipment choices.  I want to get away from my system-building focus, enjoy the music and interact with the streamer in a way that works for me. 

I agree with @mclinnguy 

The most highly regarded separate streamers on the market appear to be:

Taiko Extreme and Olympus

Pink Faun Ultra

Innous Nazare

Antipodes Oladra

XACT S1 Evo

They all have one thing in common - no screen on the unit. Aurender is a notable exception. The screen interface is a tablet used as a control device. It appears to be an intentional design choice. Of course, it’s not likely a huge compromise, but it’s worth noting I personally find my gear too far away to see anything anyway so the lack of a screen is entirely immaterial to me. Just thought I’d mention it.

Best,

@mgrif104 - I agree with you. 

Each of those, I believe, have music servers which I don't need at this point because I only stream.  Also, none of those machines are USB-optimized.  The other issue with those machines are their prices which range from $20k to over $70k : 

That's water that I can't swim in.  The Rex 3 DAC's price was stretch for me, but I had little choice because it is now no longer produced.  It was not a commercial success and my understanding is that Playback Designs only supplied BAT with a few D/A boards.  The Rex 3 uses the Playback Design's DA section and then builds an extraordinary tube analog section that includes insane power supplies and tubes. 

With that said, even though it doesn't have a screen, I am seriously considering finding a Innuos Pulsar because its ARC6 reclocking, which is proprietary to Innuos, and ultra‑low‑noise USB stage are specifically engineered for DACs like the REX 3.  The Pulsar and the $55k Navarre may be the only other machines in this conversation that challenge the RS130 in terms of its compatibility with the Rex 3 DAC and the a Navarre is priced far above my willingness to pay.  

I suspect that any streamer that I purchase will not be the last, but I want a machine that if, I find it necessary to keep, it's one that I can live with for a long time.