No - I guess I meant that it serves the job, but don’t expect miracles in sound quality. 
Ultimately, I would test in your system so you can see what it would provide.
So that with XLR to 700s will work, then I would save my pennies for a stand-alone pre, then consider adding a separate DAC or have the Modwright mod completed on the CXN.
The stellar gain cell preamp will be enough if come into the picture , i think so, CXN will be network streamer only as i prefer the convienience of playing music via uPnP/DNLA system
I went through similar journey and currently own CXN V2, GCD and pair of M700’s.
CXN is functional. But sound quality is just OK.
It will work as a pre-amp in emergency with M700, but sound quality is much worse than GCD. Caveat - I learned the hard way that with cheap XLR cables they both sound just OK. Using Audioquest MacKenzie XLR cables as recommended by PS Audio from pre to amp, made barely any difference for CXN, but made a world of difference for GCD and it sounds significantly better.
Using it as a streamer and taking digital signal to GCD works, but digital signal coming out of it is better than analog, but not very good eather. Especially stands out in direct comparison that Quobuz over USB to GCD sound way better than coax out of CXN. It can not be solved completely, but using ethernet isolator for network cable and ifi Ipurifier 2 spdif for coax signal bring is closer to USB quality when it enters GCD.
Overall CXN is functional device, but if judged purely on sound quality, not in the same league as Stellar line. I’m saving my pennies for something better.
@Ohiophotopro :
i have one question will the digital output of CXN V2 to GCD will be better than analogue output ?
how are they evaluated from 1-10 ladder ? what kind of digital output connectivity ?
I like the CXN as streamer because of its features , Airplay, chromecast, internet radio, mobile app as remote (streamMagic 6 app) are so good and convenience, work fawlessly with Synology NAS as DNLA server.
OK, sound like the CXN pream just to use as emergence case while waiting for the GCD to come, so the picture now will be CXN streamer – coax digital → GCD digital → GCD analogue XLR → M700 XLR input
will that be OK in term of sound quality and conveniences ?
Just to give you my scenario (different DAC) for compare. I would say the analogue out from CXN to amp was a 2 or 2.5 on a 1-10 scale; current digital coax out to my Esoteric DAC, then BHK Preamp is a 7 or 7.5 on 1-10, with my SACD being 8 or 8.5. So using it as a pure streamer, it does very well. I do intend to upgrade to better streamer soon, but hopefully that will help give you an idea of the delta if you put decent/good gear with the CXN and use it was a pure digital devise.
@senna1a : so i will use the CXN as streamer only to the GCD in the setup, my concern now is just which digital output i should go with, the coax or the optical since the CXN have two digital outputs. knowing the approperiate conenction will save some bucks when buying it.
and your recommendation on brand for coax/optical cable ?
from the spec: the digital coax is 96khz only while the optical upto 24/192khz,
Thank you very much for the sharing
It’s actually opposite- I would go coax, which will read up to 192; toslink/optical many times will not read past 96.
I’ve been using a DH Labs Silver Sonic 0.5M cable with success. I think there are a handful of different brands less than $100 that work very well in this case. Others may have more input on brands to try.
Yes. That will work. From sound quality perspective in my system with cleaned power, on 1-10 scale:
Analogue XLR out: 3 of 10.
Coax or optical with GCD as a dac: almost identical to my ears 5 of 10.
Coax out with IfI spdif iputifier to GCD: 7 of 10.
Scale only applies to built in streamer, because high quality digital input to Cxn comes out in higher quality as well. Oh and do not bother with optional Bluetooth adapter, it will just make you laugh at how bad sound quality is.
@Ohiophotopro : Thank you for your clarification. It is so helpful to me and save my time
@senna1a : DH Labs seems not to be so popular than the AudioQuest , i found just only one seller on Amazon and fix length of 0.75 instead of 0.5 or 0.25 … i want to find the shortest one if possible
Yeah - I just used one of several I had on hand; I believe others have said not to go lower than 1.5M, but I’ve had no issues with mine. AudioQuest should do the trick. 
Honestly I wouldn’t worry about the length of HDMI cables. I’ve read that 1.5 meter is an optimal length rather than the shorter lengths. So conflictling expertise available. I have .5 meter, 1 meter and 2 meter lengths of the PS Audio AC-12 HDMI and have had each between DMP and DSD and hear no difference between the three.
yeah i must say the CXN V2 XLR is really sucks, i changed the AQ Mackezie XLR and hear very slight differrent , the RCA port with old AQ diamondback even better with details in high frequency ( i love the diamondback). I susspect the RCA with AQ diamondback connect to M700s (use in waiting for GCD) can be better, So no doubt about the coax to GCD later when it comes.
Just a little wonder that the AQ coax cables are vary on prices from 50 -100 buck different. SO in case coax to be used , the 100 bucks cable or less are may be the same sound quality vs $200 or higher right ?
The one I currently use is Audioquest Forest. Instead of going with more expensive cable, I chose to go with ifi spdif re-clocker. Sometimes I do wonder if it would sound better with more expensive cable, but at this price point, I might as well continue saving for better streamer.
if you check the reference document of AQ, which includes suggested retail prices, you may notice that sometimes the key differentiator is not the material of the conductors (wires inside) but the insulation, shielding, di-electric, termination methods, and connector quality. Do they sound the same? It depends! However, the difference is not like day and night! It is definitely incremental!
Sometimes if you live in an area with little interference, you may get away with a cable that has good conductors, but not top of the line shielding.
Regarding the main topic: I would go for XLR where and when possible.
[Edit] I find this quite helpful:
tools.audioquest.com/downloads/pricing/AQ_PB_US-Retail-10-16-2020.pdf
There are additional editions for UK and EU
Per my little understanding on DSP and relate, the incoming digital signals are just a stream of bits which is 0 and 1. The digital domain is relatively simple in that you won’t hear something differently, it’s binary even in outcome: you either hear music or you don’t.
Unlike the computer data commuication, the streaming bits are garrantee by the checkum for integrity of data frames when transmit/receive, the errors correction is handled by both switching endpoints or two end points comupters on the network. But in this audio context, there is no correction mechanism like the TCP/IP stack does in the audio devices and sound processing blocks, then the master clock need to ensure for the precision for both ends to garrantee the bits order and 0 and 1 level were maintained.
The “better sound” or worse is decided by the D/A conversion and related circuitry, (some cases upsampling may help) so in the case your power grid contaminated with noise then this purifier can help to remove those but not making the sound better. The sound supposed to be exactly as it was no matter how good or bad they are. This is called the data integrity. So if the power grid is clean, then we can be fine whithout these purifiers or reclocker
My old system is deadly silent even in 70-90% volume at playing nothing, so i think the purifier will not constitute any improvement since i have no jitter on the power grid, if had, it is just very small to tell by human ear (and you can measure and graph it with some electronic devices to see them there)
With just just few inches length of coax cable, and the grid is clean then the ifi purifier may help a very little value that it can be removed without any issue. But having them in the system make your gear look really high tech.
I think we are sometime convinced by ourselves with what we see and think for the high tech toys. But doing the blind test behind the wall with purifier or not purifier, I think nobody can tell the diffences
Just some thoughts
Thanks for sharing, but I will disagree.
We have plenty of evidence and proof that it is not correct statement “all 0 and 1s are the same” when it comes to device to device transfer.
The fact that these techniques (isolation, re-clocking, filtration) can make difference is undeniable. But question of whether it will make difference for you depends entirely on your system.
Thank you for your clear and logic questions, It’s so interesting for me to recall the knowledge i learnt so many years ago at college that slept for long.
But i have to admit that I’m not Audio Engineer and my background is Electronic and electrical engineering, and software developer in telecom engineering is my current job. So if something i’m going to answer is not right on this specific audio field, please help to correct. Thank you
So now is something i would like to set up for the background of discussion:
The world we are living is the world of ANALOGUE , so everything we see, we hear is the analog things and our brain does it job to translate those thing come into the conventions and built up the perception of surrounding world. So just agree with me this convention first before we move far.
This discussion will not be talking about the ancient analog audio, so i will not talk about tape, cassette, video player, turntable… we just talk about the the digital muisc only.
The analog technologies we had many decades ago has shown many limitations and dead ends, while the world needs to move fast to archive with what we need to have now, that the long story with how technology goes, just liimit myself to this short discuss, i don’t talk about these analog limitations becasue it will be long day about it.
That said , the digital come into the picture to resolve the limitation of analog , but it is just standing in between: Analog - DIGITAL - analog again. Simply everything you see , hear , feel… is just ANALOG
Why this matter ? Because, all your listening experience will be decided by the ANALOG processing side, the digital here is the way that analog artifacts convert to 0-1 bits and become material to construct the sound for you at the end of the picture: analog processing. So even with perfect bits DSD you have for the digital artifacts, you should not dream of the perfect output sound if your analog circuitry was so suck.
My understand that: streamer, CD player do the job of transportation, the CD Player for instant will read the CD and pickup the data consists of 0 and 1 bits from the tracks and do the correction if error and then pass to the D/A processing to generate the analog signal output to the external DAC, preamplifier. the CD player can have the preamplifying itself , you can hear the music directly from CD via the headphone port 3.5 or 6.5mm usually on the faceplate of the CD. the music you hear from this headphone port better or worse is DEPENDING on the pre/amplification layer which is analog processing from the bits they pickup from the CD disk. YOU CAN NOT HEAR THE 0 or 1 bits and imagining how the sound gonna be.
Functionality, the transportation is expected to maintained the INTEGRITY of the bits stream they are reading/receiving or transmitting from device to device , so the 0 and 1 bit should be exactly the same in value and sequence between endpoints no matter what they are low end China products or high end systems made by US, UK…
So in term of digital signal processing (DSP) all streamers and cd transports will sound the same with their 0-1 data bits regardless they are lowend or highend gears. You either hear if there are data bits, or you don’t if not. the different in sound output can be vary in other different devices is another story, it belongs to analog signal processing.
SO AGAIN, YOUR ARE LISTENING TO THE SOUND FROM ANALOG PROCESSING. IT DECIDES YOUR LISTENING EXPERIENCES. Digital forms is the way to sample the analog signals into 0 -1 accordingly and store in various formats before going far to others processing , the pulse-code modulation is the basic example of this.
Unlike the computer data communication, data travelling and controlling by the network protocols that ensure the packet will come to its destination without corrupted data, or the data integrity mismatch controlled by the TCP/IP stacks. Streamer dacs or audio devices with digital input are not using the same PC data communication methods, the two audio endpoints are needed to be in-sync when transfer/receive data , but it’s sometime not that being expected. the system clock on devices will help to maintain the sequence, value of bits stream between both ends. BUT the internal system clock chip on the device can create more jitter if they are built with cheap chip, so having the external clocker and re-clock is to help the bits stream to be corrected on their travelling and jitter free. So the re-clock process does not alter the nature of the sound , it is just to make sure the data bits to reconstruct the audio exactly the same as they were input.
Importance note: i’m talking about the clock/reclock on external devices NOT THE SYSTEM CLOCK FOR DAC TO WORK
The most common of this question is: why the coaxial connection is better than the toslink optical connection?
This is the spec of the SPDIF protocols, you can google for more detail , and why coax connection better ? because it have more bandwidth of data, less error bits , so the more bits you have the more details you get,
why the TOSLINK is not better than coax cable ? because it has more jitters, why it is more jitter ?
i can say it in simple way: TOSLINK use light to transmit data into fiber enviroment with multi-mode, but what is the issue of using the light to carry data ? It’s not the problem of using light , but how the light is created is the problem. Inexpensive toslink based light sources spray the light at the end of the cable at a very wide angle. Inside the cable, the light travels mutiple paths (multi mode) - some light travels directly down the length of the fiber to the destination, other light takes a bouncing path along the length of the cable, arriving later than direct path light. This bouncing (and late arriving) light is carring the same information as the direct light. Hence jitter. I have nerver seen the TSLINK used in consumer audio/video devices use single mode so far.
The only advantage of TOSLINK over COAX is that it is isolated from RF interferences while coax was not. But if it is isolated from RFI why can’t we transfer data with higher speed and more bandwidth ?
The problem with TosLink is that it is S/PDIF, which inherently adds jitter. The faster the rise time of the data link, the less jitter gets added. TosLink is pretty slow and the rise times are slow enough that it can barely handle the data rates for S/PDIF. So there is more jitter added than with a coaxial cable. Therefore TosLink is better than coax in one way and worse in another.
I hope to answer your question why coax is better than toslink.
USB and coax are different protocol, and they are working in different way, bandwidth, but the final output is just 0-1 only. but they do need the system clocking to make sure they are in-sync when tranfer data bits before passing to next processing. I agree that every internal processing components, circuitries relating to power is also generating the interferences , that’s why they need to isolate with shelds for not impacting. But like i said, these jitter can be seen when you do the analytics with specific electronic metering devices, and see the graph , i doubt you can hear by your human ears.
The example of AM frequency you gave is barely seen in our time nowaday except you are living next to a broadcasting station that consume mega watt in term of power, so i believe it’s not the big factor to be mentioned here.
Many blind tests have proven that in the normal audio setup , you barely tell the differences of devices in same league, i don’t say the few hundress buck vs thousands of thousand $$$$ gears
we believe in what we see, your brain is telling you what things gonna be. This is the basic spsychology , not mine.
It depends, most of peoples don’t really care for the analyzing graph, oscilloscope display, and why they have to care? they buy the audio gears with their money and enjoy it. that’s it. I myself will not bother these thing provide that the gear i bought look appealing , decent , fashion, and good quality ( good/bad is just relative concept, upto each of us)
Well this question is rather personal buying experiences than something i can talk about. I personally give feedback for the stuffs i bought base on my real experience of usage. if good then say good, otherwise i will give it an encoraged feedback rather than criticizing. i don’t follow the crowd telling something i don’t really do, I don’t need to know how peoples in this case. But it just the one’s personality , right ?
The fact that these techniques (isolation, re-clocking, filtration) can make difference is undeniable. But question of whether it will make difference for you depends entirely on your system.
That’s true, but the fact is that your enviroment factors are really a key impact to your listening experience ?, I can give you my real example, I have the combo of Cambridge Audio ( CXN V2 streamer and CXA 81 integrated Amp) i just borrow a Ifi re-clocking you mentioned to test with the coax cable ( AudioQuest - Cinnamon 0.75m coax cable to see any different ? i hear no different. BUT i belive on the oscilloscope display you will see the differences. Will it be audible in your gears? I think you need to have the highend gear to see these tiny differences, with just few hundress bucks devices, the sound are just the same no matter what you use or not. So it;s another aspect of the story, i don’t think we go far into it.
And I totally agree with you at this point
After all i’m not the pro listening, music to me is the hobby , it’s up to the mood when i listen to, a 128kbs mp3 on iphone can make me smile when i find mysef in the song, i will not bother why the details of high is missing, why the bass is so suck… bla bla. It’s the feeling you got. Audio is just a part of the life, not everything. We live and enjoy the moments with family and ourself. Is there anything more important than that ? (at least to me)
I think the taste of music is the key factors to choose the audio devices to buy, my music collection can be horrible sound in your system, and vice verse
can’t comment on the other points, but remember that the (hardware based) error correction is part of the process that ensures the digital stream is intact.
it’s not guessing, it’s using intentional redundancy on the stream to guarantee perfect correction of any corruption, giving a “perfect” data stream.
now it is true that at some level of corruption the error correction will not be able to guarantee the stream, and what the equipment does then is unknown (by me) and i wish eg CD players would flag this up prominently.
someone with more knowledge on the details could doubtless comment authoritatively 
Thanks for your comment, i think not all my comments are correct 100% in term of audio processing since i don’t have specific knowlege in this domain, i just try to explain base on my understand relating to basic fundamental on EE and computer networking field, I know audio industry converges so many technologies to produce the perfect sounding, especially in hiend audio while other systems need not to be that perfect,. I’m open to learn what i don’t kmow and hope people can add more to what wrong in my understanding.
Regards