androidtopp;345658 Wrote: > Themis - check one of my previous posts - according to Andy, when using > wired, the wireless radio gets disabled. > > wilgartw - increasing bit rate has nothing to do with overcoming packet > loss. The connection to SC is over TCP, so any discarded/malformed/not > recieved packets get re-requested. Eventually all the data will get > there. The question is just how long it takes. If his wireless is > unreliable, then higher data rates means a higher likelihood that > enough data packets get lost to cause the buffer to empty and the sound > to stop. Packet loss won't make it sound worse (as in, less clear, > muddier, not as bright, etc, etc), unless you count no sound at all as > "worse." > > The claim is that somehow, wireless makes the quality of sound worse > than wired. As both media types use the same guaranteed traffic method, > we're (or, at least I am) assuming 100% data delivery that's "different > sounding" when recieved wired vs. wireless. > > If he's using FLAC wired and MP3 wireless - I would say, yeah, there's > a difference. But that's not an apples to apples comparison. And plenty > of people (myself included) stream FLAC over wireless. So it can be > done.
yes, that was my understanding. but surely if less kbps then less traffic, so less likely to get a packet lost, and more bandwidth available to catch up... otherwise why would the option to reduse the kbps be there? -- wilgartw ------------------------------------------------------------------------ wilgartw's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=19007 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53207 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
