iFi ZEN Stream

[Confused]

I spent much time trying many things with the Zen Stream this weekend. I mentioned in an earlier post that I was happy to try the Zen direct to the Devialet, and perform a comparison to CI Board RAAT. This is both for the greater good of the forum, and also because it I thought I might learn something of interest to myself. This first of these is not for me to comment on, this is indeed debateable, but I did learn something, lets say the results were not exactly what I expected.

I started off setting the Zen, sMS200 and Devialet as Roon zones. The Zen was connected directly to the Devialet via S/PDIF, the SOtM kit via the MC3+USB / Ref10. A quick check to check for level matching etc., then it was possible to set music playing on all three zones, and listen to the different playback methods from the listening position, selecting via the remote app.

This all worked surprisingly well, with Roon remote on an iPad and the Devialet remote on an iPhone, it was easy to rapidly swap between the three methods, listen to the same section of music, and so on.

I could write very much about all of this, but I will try to keep this simple. The first observation that I made was just how close the three playback methods were. I could pick up some small differences, but in absolute terms there was nothing utterly sensational here, the differences were relatively minor. In terms of a basic ranking, the criteria being which method did I prefer overall, I concluded the following:

From best to worst:

1. SOtM / Mutec
2. CI Board
3. Zen Stream

It was not quite that simple though, flicking through different tracks and music, there were some cases where I was a little surprised just how good CI Board RAAT was versus the SOtM / Mutec kit. Plus, there were some tracks where I slightly preferred the sound staging with the Zen over CI Board RAAT. So the Zen may be ranked "worse" in the above list, but in absolute terms it was still very good, and possibly other ears than mine might have given it second place. Overall, all three sounded good, the differentiating points were in little details, sustain, ambience, snares, all a little nicer and crisper via the SOtM / Mutec combo, but overall, not a lot in it really.

But the above got me thinking..... When I was comparing the Zen to the SOtM kit via the MCS+USB / Ref10, there were also times when I felt the Zen was better with the sound stage thing. So having decided on the above ranking, I thought I would try the Zen into the MC3+USB versus CI Board RAAT. Here the Zen / Mutec combo was best, but again, not a lot in it.

Then came the big surprise of the day. I switched the Zen back to running HQPlayer for a direct comparison to the CI Board. Having spent a long time struggling listening to very minor stuff to separate the various playback methods, now the differences were much easier to discern.

I revisited things this morning. This time running the Zen with HQPlayer direct via S/PDIF vs CI Board, and again Zen / HQPlayer / Mutec. Two points here, firstly this changes the ranking, and secondly this was a much easier A/B test, straight away the differences were very clear. From best to worst is as follows:

1. HQPlayer / Zen / Mutec
2. HQPlayer Zen S/PDIF direct to Devialet
3. CI Board RAAT.

The differences with the above were most obvious on things like symbols, snares and similar, which were much crisper and easier to discern in the mix.

I then wondered if this was not so much the benefits of HQPlayer, but up sampling itself. So I then switched to up sampling in Roon, using settings that most closely matched what I am using in HQPlayer at the moment. Even trying this, the above holds true, I much preferred the Zen / HQplayer over CI Board RAAT.

Also, there were a couple of times that I got some slight stuttering and drop outs when using RAAT CI Board at 24/192. This was slightly disappointing. Yes, I know those on the Roon forum will tell me that I am a luddite and that I don't know how to set my network up, but routinely using HQPlayer 24/192 with the SOtM kit, and later with the Zen, everything works flawlessly, and has done for years. So there is something going on here,

So in conclusion, if you use Roon RAAT and the CI Board works for you with a reasonable degree of stability, then I my ears tell me that the Zen does not have that much more to offer. If you are interested in trying HQPlayer, then the Zen Stream works perfectly when up sampling to 24/192, and my ears tell me that Zen Steam offers a very decent hike in SQ, well worth £399, and does indeed offer a lot of the goodness that I might otherwise have attributed MC3+USB / REF10.

As a supplementary conclusion, I believe that the CI Board is capable of being run as an HQPlayer NAA, from a hardware perspective at least. Of course, this would require Devialet enabling this as a feature, something I doubt they would want to do as I am guessing that demand is not high for such a use case. That said, and there is a degree of speculation here, based on this weekend's experiments I suspect that CI Board HQPlayer NAA might get very close indeed to the Mutec MC3+USB / REF10 combo, maybe even a match. Plus, it would most likely be trouble free at 24/192.

I know others have mentioned that they prefer the CI Board via DLNA Audirvana / JRiver etc. Quite what it is from a technical perspective that leads my ears to hearing what they hear I am not sure, but maybe there is some commonality here with the reason that have led to others to prefer Audirvnana DLNA and similar.

I still plan to try the Zen Stream via USB, and via wifi, but that is more than enough A/B testing (and A/B/C testing!) for now. It might also be interesting to try the Zen back on Roon RAAT, and up sampling to 24/192, to see if I get the same stuttering that the CI Board delivered.

I am out of time for now, but when I get a chance I will add some of my thoughts and experiences to Delija's external streaming thread.