AOIP is nothing more than a standard data format developed by the European Broadcasting Union and the hardware manufacturers to provide a standard packet format enabling diverse endpoints to communicate over the internet. While it does offer reduction of signal degradation and added capacity compared to traditional lines, those improvements are only relevant over large distances and/or high signal traffic volume.
Claims that AOIP is audibly better than other technologies in a home setting are subjective and don’t bear out when the actual digital data is examined. Claims that it is “significantly better” are wholly unsubstantiated. Nothing wrong with using AOIP in a home environment, but it adds complexity with no established value. Home users aren’t sending multiple broadcast signals or thousands of voice calls over thousands of miles of copper. For anyone not familiar with networking, there’s a reasonably good chance you could create more problems than you solve.
Unless you need to send the signal across your network because your DAC and data/music are in separate physical locations, there are much simpler options,
I can see what you're saying coming from the digits and bits side of this, but from the subjective side there are simply too many folks who have experienced a significant improvement in SQ.
And it is not subtle nor "wholly unsubstantiated" as this very thread documents multiple cases.
These types of observational reports are an integral part of the scientific method and have been repeated by multiple listeners.
And no not in a rigorous highly scientifically controlled way, but the initial approach to using the scientific method is to start and then refine and drill down into the specifics as the methodological approach gets refined.
We (those who have implemented AOIP) on the other hand are really only interested in audible results and not 'proving' the results, so those who require such 'proof' will never be convinced. Which to my mind and to those who are on this path is irrelevant, since we have attained “significantly better” results and are quite happy to have done so.
And the notion that 'bits are bits' is only part of this entire equation and one that tends to obscure and ignore the rest of the entirety of this method of transport.
As in, part of this AOIP transport is not just what it does, but what it doesn't do, and this understanding makes a scientific approach MUCH more difficult to 'prove'.
EXCEPT when experienced directly, in which case the individual has all the 'proof' they need, for themselves and in no uncertain terms.
And listening to music is strictly a subjective endeavor, as there is no way to quantify this form of experience in it's entirety.
I can state unequivocally that my AOIP feed is superior to any other I have ever heard, no ifs, ands, or buts.
And as I have written previously, some people simply won't hear some (all?) of these refinements for a variety of reasons, ranging from they simply can't hear this level of refinement, to they don't know WHAT to listen for (I call this process getting
Calibrated), to their system has insufficient resolution to be able to present this level of refinement in the first place.
And my response to your post isn't meant to demean your opinion in the least, but without direct experience your opinion, it would seem, is solely based upon a 'theoretical' basis without any substantive experience, as we use AOIP (not in a commercial setting). This is fine for those who follow this type of approach, but there are others who use the subjective approach, or use a combination of both, and have garnered superior results.
This is where we use critical listening, over time with very familiar music, as our means and method to determine what truly is '
Better', and subsequently we do enjoy the improvement in SQ regardless of what others may believe.
JJ