Is it my streamer or does Audirvana sounds better?

I used an M1 Mac Mini for years and got excellent results. Different DACs and a Singxer DDC made audible improvements. Tried an Eversolo and didn't really notice a difference, then I got a HiFi Rose RS130 (the only streamer/transport they make without a built-in DAC) and that was my first leap forward in SQ. DDC no longer makes a noticeable difference so it's sitting in a closet. I run the signal either to my Lyngdorf MP-60 processor/preamp (built-in DAC) or to a Holo Audio May KTE DAC. VERY pleased with the SQ and user experience I'm getting. But I'm a Roon user. It would be silly to recommend you switching to Roon when you've had such a great experience with Audirvana (which I tried once several years ago and it wasn't for me, but I know it's better now).

I'm sure there are ways to maximize Audirvana, which is what I'd be focused on. Loading it on a Sonic Transporter server from Small Green Computer comes to mind. Then it's really just DAC choice and using good cables. A DDC may also be useful. 

Op, Out of curiosity, I set up a trial of Audirvana on a Windows PC (I don’t have a MacBook M, which is the minimum requirement for macOS installation per Audirvana), and started streaming. I simply switched my Mirage USB cable from the Innuos Zen Mk3 to the PC’s USB port, so the only change in my setup was the streamer. I also made sure to match the volume for a fair comparison.

The result: the PC with Audirvana sounds significantly better than my MacBook Air running Foobar2000, as I mentioned previously. However, it still does not compare to a dedicated streamer—in this case, my Innuos Zen 3 and Rivo+—in relative terms. The dedicated streamers deliver better separation, improved spatial cues, and slightly greater clarity.

Nevertheless, in absolute terms, the PC setup sounds surprisingly good and pleasant, especially considering it is using typically noisy PC USB ports. Had I known this earlier, I probably would not have devoted as much time and money to pursuing dedicated streamers.  Then there is the cost implication. To fully benefit from software features—including signal processing suites, EQ, and streaming content—you need a monthly or annual subscription, and the costs can add up over time. In contrast, a streamer is a one-time investment.

In any case, stick with what works for you as long as you are satisfied and happy with it. Thank you for bringing this up for the benefit of the group.  Who says a PC or Mac can’t be a great streamer? I can even imagine one day when Audirvana is implemented directly on mobile devices with sufficient computing power—and still sounds excellent.

@analoguefan,

I only use Audirvana Studio since that is the version I have on my streamer. 

The Infio Audio IS-1 streamer "can operate as an Audirvana Server, Roon Endpoint, HQPlayer Network Audio Adapter or Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) music endpoint, which covers 99% of music players in the market. The Cryogen version can also be a Roon Core".  

You log into the streamer from your computer and select the source you need.   I am currently using UPnP and Mconnect until Infigo Audio updates Audirvana to release 3.0 (next week).

Thank you all for your input. I may give Matrix or Sonore a shot because I can use up np with audirvana. I am a type of consumer who hate keep buying and returning products but when it comes to streamers, there is no any other way I guess and that’s why I am asking for help and recommendations.

If your using Audirvana on a laptop, then it’s running off of the battery, which could potentially make an improvement. Also, much depends on how your DAC was designed. In other words, the filtering within your DAC has a lot to do with the sound that your getting, despite what brand of renderer you happen to be using. And finally, Audirvana is a very good sounding software. I started using Audirvana when it first became available and continued using it for close to ten years. Some companies are now incorporating Audirvana into their streamers.