Do streamers make a difference?

Playback Designs also has a streamer, the MPS – X. It’s role is similar to the Nagra in terms of accepting an ethernet stream and then converting it to an optical format. It is roughly $6000 more and for that you get perhaps a different streamer circuit, but also a great deal more connectivity, including coax, AES, fiberoptic and Toslink in;  AES, coax, fiberoptic and USB out. A first class power supply is also included in the price. While I’m sure both are very good streamers, I think the main benefits are the galvanic isolation and jitter reduction that they both provide. The DAC is presented with the best signal possible. 

I am a big believer in everything matters, and Roon core machines and Streamers are no exception.  Most salient points have been covered here, especially how USB connections mean the DAC handles the clocking and AES means the streamer handles the clocking.  

I am a fan of a machine that is both Core and Streamer.  To me , this puts core directly connected to the streamer, and special connections or optical isolation are not needed between the two.  Additionally, it saves a component, space, power cable and connecting cable.

I have two such machines.  The oldest, a Grimm MU1, can handle both Core and streaming elegantly.  It outputs AES and not USB, and works beautifully with my Mola Mola Tambaqui.  It formerly handled core for my main system as well, using an Auralic Aries.  This is now in my second system, and Roon Core function has been replaced by the Pink Faun Scion, which runs core and streams USB to my Master Fidelity Nadac C and D (clock and DAC).  As such I have disabled the Roon core function of my Grimm and use it as streamer only to the Tambaqui.  This system now sounds better with the Scion running Core, so my findings differ with thoughts that core machines don't affect sound.

I have appreciated the sound improvements of every streamer upgrade I have made.  Digital glare decreases and music is more relaxed and spacious.  Listener fatigue decreases.

I also have improved my sound with stacked audiophile switches, and prefer this way to optical isolation.

As to the thought by @lanx0003,

I believe there’s a point of diminishing returns, and I haven’t yet determined where that price point lies.

I can't argue against that, but improvements are still to be had at every level.

Congrats on a nice system @tcutter!

Streamers make a difference in my experience.  I upgraded from a Blusound Node N130 in my main system to an Innuos Zen MK3 and I noticed a difference in streaming music with my Holo Audio Cyan 2 DAC.  The source matters in a high end system.  

I read an interview with Andreas Koch of Playback Designs and he said that he sells the 3rd best boards he makes to Nagra. He keeps the best for his Dream DAC.

I am guessing the Nagra streamer at $6k is the same one as the $3k PBD one. I owned the previous low end PDB streamer, the STREAM-IF. That was a great streamer. I sold it to someone who paired it with the Dream DAC.

Streamers do make a difference. When my now old Sonore OpticalRendu dies I will get the latest OpticalRendu which is supposed to sound even better.

the other streamer that I would consider is the Lumin U2x. It is similar to the Lumin X1 DAC/Streamer. The streamer on that was great. I had the OpticalRendu, STREAM-IF, and the X1 all at the same time. They sounded different and I liked all 3. Top end streamers. I only have an OpticalRendu left.

Streamers are like every other high end audio component the higher the quality provided the sound design objectives are in alignment with your own, the better they sound. 

Is this saying that they make a difference or that improving a streamer will make as much difference as other components? 

Part of the challenge of this hobby is where and how much time, money, and effort should be focused on improving this or that aspect in a system.