MikePM

I really wish streamer reviews would review the three basic functions of a streamer separately. There is 1) the hardware, 2) the software, and 3) the optional DAC since most have at least an optical output. Its not surprising the WiiM uses a cheap DAC chip; however, its software seems better than most Pi OSs. Especially considering comments regarding the effort and follow-up from support. This is where expensive and exclusive streamers have a severe disadvantage, low volume often leads to abandoned and/or rarely upgraded software. The WiiM is not a Roon endpoint, but to me Roon is expensive and of limited utility since it won't do Apple, Amazon, Deezer or Spotify. Maybe Qobuz and Tidal will exist 10 years from now, but their market share makes me nervous. Otherwise WiiM seems pretty good as a streaming platform. The hardware appears at least as good or better than most Pi based units at delivering a clean signal, and should sound great through a good DAC. Not sure where the soundstage and graininess get created in the process if you use an outboard DAC.

I see streamers as mostly about the software. They may have a DAC, but its not really the main point as most of us have our own. So if it can get the signal out cleanly, then my decision rests on the degree I like the software. It is why I find testing based on it being a ROON endpoint only relevant to those who subscribe to ROON. The questions I have are will this software be maintained, upgraded and be around in 5 years? Is it stable or does it crash in use? Is it gapless? And, does it easily connect to most of the major music services, including Apple, Amazon and Deezer, as well as Tidal, Spotify and Qobuz?

Here in central Texas, no audio shows and limited amount of equipment to audition. As to the first statement above, I am not sure what equipment went from amazing to crap, but there is a lot of reviews on ASR so its not impossible. The ranking charts, however, appear fairly consistent as to the measurements. I don't know much about a ban on Jones, but I think speaker testing is less precise as acknowledged by Amir when he notes things that sound better or worse than his tests indicate. As to MQA which is off topic I think, I understood that it is fairly definitive that the process does not preserve even the basic waveform. A listener may like the processing, but it is qualitatively not the same as the input signal which is the main function of a DAC. I prefer my Schiit modius DAC resolving my ripped CDs or my Amazon lossless stream, to my node playing the Tidal MQA or Radio Paradise MQA streams. I also was not particularly aware of ASR taking any kind of definitive stand on MQA (but I never looked). Individuals like Archimago and others having taken deeper dives into its efficacy. That said, I am over 60, and doubt my ears can hear the theoretical benefit from hi-rez files or the hi-rez portion of the MQA process.

Isn't this the crux of the issue. It is getting exceedingly difficult to audition equipment and I know that I am usually forced to rely on reviews and company reputation to make a purchase. With more online only sellers, this is even worse, and return policies are just not a reasonable substitute. The proliferation of you-tube reviewers is a mixed blessing since it is hard to tell who to trust or who's taste in music/sound match yours. I mostly agree with Archimago in believing that measurement is necessary to make the first decision. In fact I stopped reading this website when Chris Connaker relegated the objectivist arguments to a small corner of the forums, and decided to become just another guy giving his personal impressions/feelings about equipment. I still read the "best version of" columns and the occasional computer audio related article. My take on the above discussion is that the subjectivists are even more intractable than the test guys. J. Gordon Holt, founder of Stereophile, was right when he called out the review industry for refusing to ever engage in double-blind testing. Indeed, I have to give Chris some kudos for participating in the Schiit blind testing of the three versions of its updated DAC. Although his preference differed from some of the others, it was consistent and repeatable. I don't think everything should be blind tested, but if the difference is very small, then why not see if it is repeatable in a blind test. Clearly some things are easily discernable. Anyone can tell the difference between my main system and the radio in my bathroom. Similarly, I would argue that speakers, cartridges, and turntables tend to have more obvious differences that don't need blind testing to confirm. However, when you get to amplifiers, DACs, streamers, and cables, those differences are often subtle and hugely benefit from both empirical and blind testing. Like it or not, ASR has a significant database of tests, and it has identified some really poor quality equipment. After a certain point, the vanishingly small differences in distortion probably don't make a difference. On the other hand, if distortion gets to high, it cannot resolve even cd quality audio let alone high-res. Seems fairly straightforward on what should happen. 1) test to determine the equipment doesn't have a flaw or problem and is resolving to an appropriate extent, 2) listen to the equipment, and in some cases try doing it in a blind test.

Thanks Chris. I really appreciate alternatives to Roon, since I've never spent much time reading album covers or consuming metadata, I also don't like paying the monthly Roon tax, and have subscriptions to Deezer and Amazon Music which don't work with Roon. Roon ties you to these two services and does not really work with internet radio or streaming services other than Qobuz and Tidal. That said, you limited this review to integration with the same services that work with Roon. Can this approach work with other services like Deezer, Amazon or Apple that don't work with Roon? I'm a big fan of BlueOS since it works with virtually any service, internet radio source, and my NAS library. I do offboard to a better DAC.

Great article. My question is the overall merit of doing PoE. I can get a PoE switch that injects power into the system relatively cheaply, but does it also add noise generally or otherwise degrade other parts of the system. If its one device, maybe just adding power to the R Pi would be better?

These may be way below your price point, but the ASR review of the new AK 4493 based Topping E30 for $129 was quite positive in the signal/noise tests, as well as the new SMSL Sanskirt 10th MKII also using the AK 4493 DAC chip (as long as you use the USB input). If you want to spend a little more, buy a linear 5v power supply for the unit and clean it up just a little more. My understanding is that the AKM chips convert DSD natively while the ESS chips effectively convert the signal to PCM. I have no DSD files, so it is not something I pay a lot of attention to and may be wrong. I am currently lusting after the Topping D90 using the latest and greatest AKM AK4499 chip., once the MQA version is out. (There have been some subjective youtube reviews of the D90 - very positive.) I have said this before, but I think the Chinese audio designers are starting to come into their own and building good products and topping and Soncoz are among them..

Thanks for your reply. I keep coming back because you still do things like the reviews of the various remasters of classic CD's and occasionally describe how to set up software. As to reviews, I really appreciated the recent Matrix Audio X-Sabre Pro DAC review since this is an example of a product that tested extremely well. I think with reviews we are saying the same thing. My point is that good and bad tests are evidence of how it might sound and it is important to consider that when doing the critical subjective listening. I also believe that tests should indeed cause you to be more critical if you have to overcome bad measurements. As an aside, I would note that while mediocre measuring equipment probably can sound good, truly bad tests are hard to dismiss. I don't understand your point about "subjective qualities may not translate to anyone but the writer." Isn't that the basic reason for the merits of some objective analysis? All subjective tests are the opinions of, we hope, trained listeners to help us buy equipment in an environment where listening opportunities are limited. My thought is lets take like measuring equipment and try to describe the subtle differences that can be heard, or not.

Then why relegate the tech oriented crowd to a sub-category? They have an opinion that is often useful. As I noted above, I have been coming to this site less and less since it shifted focus to reviewing rather than helping work with and adjust computer software and hardware for audio use. There are lots of review sites, but unfortunately, few for computer audio. As to the general tenor of arguments, I find the tone here to be about equal to ASR, with a recent shift here towards ad hominem comments against anyone that suggests objective testing has merit. It is a hobby and good measurements should justify a listen, i.e., a subjective review. If it measures bad, however, I think some real explaining is in order. As a lawyer I would say that if it tests well, then the presumption is that it likely sounds good, but if it tests bad, the piece should be strictly scrutinized. To that end, how about doing subjective comparisons between gear that measures well, regardless of price, so we can ferret out just what those subtle differences are.

"cesspool"? Apparently you don't read the same content I do. However, it is this kind of generalization that really makes it difficult to have a discussion. I recently built a hypex nc400 amp based on the measurements and reviews at ASR and love it. Paired with my Schiit Freya + it sounds much better that what I have owned before. I hesitated, however, to go with the hypex due to the harsh anti-class D subjective comments on this forum. Encouraged by the objective measurements, and actually listening to it, I am thrilled. From my subjective point of view, the hypex with the Freya in tube mode is the best I have heard--even if it is likely that tubes add some distortion. And it is fast, musical, has air and all of those things. p.s., But bad measurements probably do translate into bad sound.

I will quietly put in my 2 cents. I have been a fan of Chris' site since I first learned of it. I eventually signed up in early 2013 but rarely commented since my computer skills are fairly limited as compared to most who posted at that time. CC and this site have drifted from its original mission and I think this move is an abandonment of the techies who started out with CC when he was evaluating computer hardware for audio use. Whether this was due to computers becoming a mature audio platform, or CC losing interest in tweeking computers, software, and networking gear, I can't say. However, shortly before the name change to Audiophile Style it was apparent that the subject matter had drifted from computer audio to Stereophile like reviews of digital gear that was too expensive for much of his techie audience. Similarly, discussion of software has mostly disappeared since the advent of ROON. Moving the "objectivists," which are probably many of the geeks that started with Computer Audiophile, to the corner completes the transformation. I have started coming to this site less and less since there are already dozens of websites that review high end gear. I remember the old saying by Upton Sinclair that "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." CC wants to review high end gear, objective testing be dammed, so he is kicking the tech guys to the side. I read ASR and find Amir's numbers to be very useful, as well as the fact that he tests gear by Chinese manufacturers, and I also read subjective reviews for gear in a price range I am willing to pay. My position on objective tests is simple, if it tests bad then it probably has a problem that is audible. If it tests well, then there are probably subtle differences that a subjective review is worth hearing about. And to this end, I would really like to see some comparisons of gear that tests well, even if the price varies substantially. Before anyone comments regarding China, many Chinese products use well designed chips without infringing any patents, and this is where you find many of the young engineers and audiophiles in this graying hobby.

Great review. I use the node 2 with the SPDIF out to the DAC and find it easy to use and can access my NAS, Tidal and Deezer apps very easily. The one thing that was unclear in your review, especially to a non-roon user, was what exactly does roon add or what is the BlueOS missing compared to roon? Also, did you try the Alexa voice control integration? I find it a little finicky to use.

I just read the review of the Topping D90 at Audio Science Review, and it measured better than all but one or two of the 200 some DACs that have been tested. The SMSL M500 using the XLR outputs also measures extremely well on the site. I agree partially with motberg above that it would be nice to have some subjective comments to confirm the measurements. However, while good measurements may not prove a DAC will sound great, I think a DAC that measures badly should be avoided. Since both the D90 and M500 measure well, it really puts the onus on the reviewer to confirm any deviation from a good sounding result since the DACs are reproducing the signal with a high degree of fidelity to the original input. I would be hard pressed to explain what is being heard if it does not sound good.

A good place to start are the comparison charts for portable DAC/headphone amps at https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/master-index-of-measurement-comparison-charts.8246/ While you may not think objectively good measuring equipment necessarily sounds good, I would argue that badly measuring equipment probably does sound bad and should be avoided. If the signal to noise ratio is at a level that it can't even fully resolve CD quality audio, it is not a good option. The measurements at Audio Science Review (ASR) look at both the signal to noise resolution (SINAD) for the DAC and amp separately and it looks at the output measurements of the small amplifiers. Its a good place to start and is helpful to at least eliminate some of the choices.

Not really splitting hairs. As I acknowledged, any "chip" is really a computer, but my comments were directed at the direction of this website which I think was for years the source of all things audio for the computer geek. It's not my site, but I don't think it is controversial that it really does not address the same topics it used to. If we will never see a new CAPS or description of the benefit of various NASs, so be it. Right now you have to delve deep into the forums to get much of a hardware discussion, or a description of the benefits of various operating system tweeks. I have generally concluded that if you get a sonic transporter I5 with a microrendu, you are close to maxing out the potential of server sound quality. But how about a discussion on say whether the newer I5's are capable of handling roon DSP, since they have the computing power of older I7s? Or how to modify linux on the base transporter or roon nuc to add an app to access Qobuz or Deezer. Or how to . . .