Do Digital Products Really “Sound Different”
Did we catch your attention? Good—because several recent posts have certainly caught ours. We’ve seen repeated claims that one streamer “sounds better” than another, often without important context. That’s what prompted us to write this, because there’s a key point that’s frequently misunderstood: such claims are only meaningful when comparing the analog outputs of those devices.
If two different streamers are connected digitally to the same DAC and someone claims to hear a difference, there are only a few plausible explanations. Either the listener is perceiving a difference that isn’t actually present, one or both of the streamers is deliberately altering the signal through DAC filtering, level control, or other DSP functions, or one of the streamers is malfunctioning.
When used purely as a digital transport, a streamer functions much like a network router. It receives digital data from the internet or a local drive and transmits it to an external DAC. In that role (setting aside any DSP functions in the streamer), it neither creates sound nor changes sound in any way. For it to do so, the device would quite literally have to alter the binary data—in other words, change zeros into ones and ones into zeros.
If that last point didn’t fully register on the first pass, it’s worth reading again. We have never encountered this behavior in a properly functioning streamer or digital audio product of any kind, which is exactly what we should expect given how digital systems work. This represents a fundamental difference between digital and analog audio signals, and it is critical to understand.
And before anyone points to jitter (time-based errors in digital audio signals), DAC designers addressed jitter-related concerns long ago, to the point that we consider it a non-issue in modern DACs. Some may disagree, and that’s their prerogative, but objective evidence does not support audible differences attributable to jitter in modern DACs. Our own testing has confirmed this.
Returning to the core point: digital data does not become music until it reaches the DAC. From there, the signal is analog all the way to our ears, and it is this entire analog path—from the DAC’s output onward—that determines what we actually hear. For that reason, claims of audible differences between two streamers feeding the same DAC digitally are not supported by how digital audio works and should be treated with appropriate skepticism.
By contrast, when comparing the analog outputs of different streamers, DACs, or other digital audio devices, audible differences may exist. Most analog components in the signal path affect the audio in some way. Their effects are typically measurable and may or may not be audible. That said, most modern DAC chips are audibly transparent. When comparing two different models, once filter settings and playback levels are carefully matched, any perceived differences are routinely found to be statistically insignificant in properly controlled, double-blind ABX listening tests. If you are able to detect an audible difference between two DACs, you are most likely hearing significant differences in one of the analog signal paths, not a flaw in the DAC chip itself.
To be clear, this isn’t about deciding which device sounds “better.” It’s about whether listeners can reliably determine that they are hearing two different devices at all. That distinction matters. While everything from the DAC’s analog output to our ears can influence what we hear, if a difference is perceived, it is more likely due to downstream analog components than the DAC chip itself—despite widespread belief to the contrary. Decades of marketing around DAC chips have created the perception that they dominate sound quality, even though the performance of the average DAC chip now exceeds that of nearly everything else in the analog chain, rendering them largely irrelevant compared to the components that follow.
We design and manufacture audio products for a living, and we are just as susceptible to bias as anyone else. Sighted listening (“I know what I’m listening to”) almost always produces different results than true level-matched, double-blind ABX testing (“I don’t know what I’m listening to, and neither does the person administering the test”). Proper listening tests are extremely difficult and time-consuming to set up and run, which helps explain why so few people have actually participated in one. You may also be surprised by how few manufacturers perform them, despite having most of the necessary tools available.
So the next time you see a claim—from a consumer, reseller, or manufacturer—that streamer A sounds better than streamer B when both are feeding the same DAC digitally, it’s best to treat it as a subjective impression rather than an objective conclusion. If the claim involves analog outputs, it’s reasonable to ask how the evaluation was performed. In most cases, you’ll find that key sources of bias were not fully addressed—most commonly visual bias (“I know what I’m listening to”), mismatched playback levels (one device is simply playing louder), or ignoring the “X” in ABX testing. These three factors account for the vast majority of the claims we see.
Could there be a real difference? Possibly. But there may also be none at all.
Before assuming that we don’t know what we’re talking about, it’s worth pausing for a moment. Have you ever taken part in a truly level-matched, double-blind ABX listening test? To be clear, we’re not referring to sighted listening, casual A/B switching, or tests where levels were not properly matched—all of which we see regularly.
If the answer is no, or “I don’t need to because I can clearly hear differences,” it’s important to recognize that listening impressions formed this way are unavoidably influenced by bias. You may not believe that’s the case, but the overwhelming body of evidence suggests otherwise. That doesn’t mean you aren’t genuinely hearing something, or that you have poor hearing—it simply means you may be experiencing the same human biases we all are.
If we had a nickel for every time someone was 100% convinced they had a preference for one device over another in sighted listening, only to put those same products into a proper ABX test and realize they could not tell them apart—let alone form a preference—we would be rich. ABX testing can be a humbling experience, especially for the uninitiated and even for those who make and sell audio products for a living, but it is also an incredibly important part of the process. There is a reason many industry insiders refuse to subject themselves to this type of listening. Some claim they don’t need it. Others confidently state that they can clearly hear differences without it. Healthy skepticism is warranted. Still others will admit that they don’t need it because people continue to buy their products regardless of objective evidence. Honest, perhaps—but buyer beware.
Nearly everyone in this hobby, including those who design and market the gear you own, has made decisions based on subjective listening. We still consider subjective listening an important part of what we do. Some people and companies choose to rely on it exclusively. We are not one of them. We use subjective listening, blind testing, and measurements to evaluate everything we design and build, as well as many products designed by others. Each tool has a role and a purpose. You can certainly get by using only one or two, but the risk of missing something increases significantly.
If you’re comfortable relying on a purely subjective approach, that’s perfectly fine. And if you’re comfortable buying products from companies that do the same, that’s your prerogative. Just keep in mind that without proper controls in place, those conclusions are not grounded in an objective standard. They reflect personal opinion more than established fact and should be presented and understood as such.
There is an important difference between saying “Streamer A sounds better than Streamer B” and “I prefer the sound of Streamer A over Streamer B.” The first is presented as a statement of fact, while the second more accurately reflects a listener’s personal preference. That said, neither claim is statistically valid unless supported by properly controlled, objective testing. Choosing audio gear based on personal preference has been part of this hobby from the very beginning, and there is nothing wrong with that. Just understand that it is an opinion, not an established fact.
When opinions are presented as facts in any forum, some pushback is to be expected, especially from those who have taken the time to perform controlled listening tests. They are not trying to be argumentative. More often, they are pointing out common methodological issues that allow bias to influence results, often despite the best intentions, in an effort to educate. It is nothing personal, and we have all been there at some point. Being precise and factual helps keep the discussion productive. You may still disagree, but that does not make their perspective wrong. They are trying to help you understand the issue, not criticize your opinion or your hearing.
Thanks for reading this far. We felt it was important to clarify these points, especially for those new to the hobby, and to share how we think about these issues as a company. Our goal is to help you make more informed decisions, better “read between the lines,” and navigate an industry that can sometimes be full of unsubstantiated claims—claims that can cost you time, effort, and money on the path to building a system that truly brings you the most listening enjoyment.