Hmmm - I am trying to work out a solution that will allow me to stream
music files from my PC upstairs over wireless and preferably without
loss of audio quality - the SB Touch in terms of size and convenience
would have fit the bill nicely.
However, what about the new NAD DAC-1, that looks
Somebody ought to set up a feature comparison table between the Touch
and various other streamers like the NAD. Wouldn't the wiki be perfect
for that?
--
Soulkeeper
Noise Music Silence
Soulkeeper's Profile:
stop-spinning;696100 Wrote:
Hmmm - I am trying to work out a solution that will allow me to stream
music files from my PC upstairs over wireless and preferably without
loss of audio quality - the SB Touch in terms of size and convenience
would have fit the bill nicely.
However, what about
stop-spinning;696100 Wrote:
Hmmm - I am trying to work out a solution that will allow me to stream
music files from my PC upstairs over wireless and preferably without
loss of audio quality - the SB Touch in terms of size and convenience
would have fit the bill nicely.
However, what about
darrenyeats;695950 Wrote:
About your comment about the integrity of the digital data - I agree but
you mention it for ethernet and of course the comment applies equally to
wifi. The question about wifi AND ethernet is about noise which might
affect the player, not data.
Point taken. Although
aubuti;695809 Wrote:
Yes there's RFI everywhere, but some believe that the RFI is more
damaging to SQ if one of the RFI sources (the Touch's antenna) is
inside the same little box as the DAC, CPU, etc. Inverse square law and
all that.
As for directly connected to an electrically noisy
stop-spinning;695608 Wrote:
If this is the case, then why is wireless discouraged for sound quality
reasons? Surely this the best way to isolate an electrically noisy
computer source from the likes of a PC for example (assuming the
simplicity of the SB Touch is much more electrically quieter
stop-spinning;695608 Wrote:
If this is the case, then why is wireless discouraged for sound quality
reasons?
'RFI' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency_interference) is
the reason usually stated. Many audiophiles will not operate a wireless
network in their homes for the same reason.
Yes but there's RFI everywhere - one more wireless connection won't make
a difference surely?
Anyway - whats the lesser of two evils - directly connected to an
electrically noisy computer - or RFI (which is all around us anyway)?
--
stop-spinning
stop-spinning;695800 Wrote:
Yes but there's RFI everywhere - one more wireless connection won't make
a difference surely?
Anyway - whats the lesser of two evils - directly connected to an
electrically noisy computer - or RFI (which is all around us anyway)?
Yes there's RFI everywhere, but
Yes Ethernet is isolated current loops unless you opt for shielded cat 6
then you must take care but shielded Ethernet is total overkill at home
, just don't use that .
And switches isolates further .
There migth be some capacitive leakage bla bla but that's clutching at
straws audiophile style
So in essence the musical data should be copied perfectly over wireless
to the SB Touch from the source (just like when you copy a hi-res photo
or video file from one computer to another and the image is still all
there when viewed from the target PC without any loss whatsoever).
If this is the
If you have a reliable wireless connection then there should be no
difference in the sound quality of a wired connection. Bits are bits.
If you have a bad wireless environment you could experience dropouts in
the music from buffer underruns.
--
w3wilkes
2 Duets - 1 for upstairs and 1 for
stop-spinning;695608 Wrote:
If this is the case, then why is wireless discouraged for sound quality
reasons? .
Yeah why , indeed ;) these are opinions from audiphiles the same people
that can argues that digital cables in silver sounds better or use
shakti stones and you read in on the
stop-spinning;695608 Wrote:
If this is the case, then why is wireless discouraged for sound quality
reasons? Surely this the best way to isolate an electrically noisy
computer source from the likes of a PC for example (assuming the
simplicity of the SB Touch is much more electrically
I am interested in how the wireless protocol works with a Squeezebox
Touch (or Duet I guess for that matter)?
I noticed when I used one some while back that there was a large buffer
in the Duet - when I disconnected the wireless link to the computer -
the Duet was playing for about 15 or so
In every streaming system (digital) the music is first copied to the
target, it's being delivered in packets.
However, the SB doesn't have to wait for the full 15s buffer to fill,
it can start to play as soon as the first decidable packet is there
(depends on the codec) and will fill the buffer
stop-spinning;695504 Wrote:
I am interested in how the wireless protocol works with a Squeezebox
Touch (or Duet I guess for that matter)?
There is no 'wireless' protocol. The streaming protocol over the
network is the same for both wired and wireless connections.
I noticed when I used one
18 matches
Mail list logo
