Article: Review | AURALiC ARIES G2.1

[audiobomber]

I also like comparisons. What would be particularly interesting to me would be a reference streamer or CD Transport that tested streamers could be compared with, i.e. a constant benchmark. 

 

Vibration control is a very interesting feature and sadly neglected in many otherwise fine components. I am using a Cambridge Audio isolation platform and thin sorbothane discs under my exaSound DAC and streamer, a highly worthwhile solution. I just ordered an IsoAcoustics zaZen for the exaSound gear. The Cambridge will go back to isolating my CD transport, where it belongs.

[audiobomber]

3 hours ago, R1200CL said:

I think you just got that in this review 😀

 

 

Sure, the G2.1 would work as a reference, i.e. something to compare others to. 

[audiobomber]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

P.S. I compared the Auralic software platform to Bryston’s in this review, yet nobody was happy. 

But no mention of sound quality vs. the Bryston. I believe that is the objection. Slick operation is available at much lower price points.

[audiobomber]

59 minutes ago, thotdoc said:

Thanks Barrows. My other point still stands; it's pretty amazing that some/many of us don't know what this is without someone more deeply immersed in the hobby at a professional level tells us.

If you look at the connections on a component, you can get a pretty good sense of what it does. But not the sound quality of course.

[audiobomber]

What about "ethernet to USB bridge" instead of renderer?

[audiobomber]

2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Auralic gave it a name. Streaming Transporter. 

We all understand what a CD transporter is. Maybe not so easy with Digital to Digital Converters, as they can have different interfaces. And SW capabilities. 
 

 

Yes, the Auralic name is more accurate than what I proposed. However, I believe "streaming transporter" will mostly be abbreviated to "streamer". Some (e.g. Allo) use the term "digital transport", which I think is very good.