Given how expensive Chromecast Audio has become in the used market, has anyone succesfully used a Chromecast Video to stream to "old" amplifiers?

[xloolx]

Is the sound quality degraded or about the same? I just read a lengthy post on this forum where they analyzed all they could on Chromecast Audio:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ents-of-chromecast-audio-digital-output.4544/

Is there one for regular old Chromecast video connected to a receiver via HDMI? My brain tells me the limiting factor there is the DAC but that would be the receiver itself so no issues there.

Thanks!

EDIT: Apologies for the typo on the title.

 

[xloolx]

So just for posterity's sake, the Chromecast Video up-samples audio to 48 kHz so it would be degraded. The data/sound would reach the amplifier and its internal DAC already processed so it wouldn't sound as it would if it came from the Chromecast Audio.

I certainly doubt any discerning listener could tell the difference, but as with everything else audio, each pair of ears is a different world.

 

[dresdner353]

Chromecast will support FLAC stream playback up to 24/96 but similarly re-samples to 48Khz. It still sounds fine to me but it would be great to see a future feature where we could toggle on/off that forced-48Khz output.

AFAIK the reason you typically see this forced 48Khz behaviour is that way too many products expect this.

 

[Trouble Maker]

Isn't one thing you can do with Chromecast Audio and not regular old Chromecast is group them to play same audio stream? This seems like a critical part of a whole home audio system that's missing in regular Chromecast that makes it DOA for me as a solution.

 

[dresdner353]

No, the grouping now works seamlessly between Google/Nest homes, HDMI Chromecasts and CCA. But you are correct that originally, that was a CCA-only feature.

 

[bludder]

I have been using the Chomecast Audio for some time and are extremely happy with it. I use a 3.5 mm to RCA cable (the one you get from Google with the package is a 3.5 to 3.5 but of lower quality) and with decent quality cables it sounds great.
Also note that CCA supports Toslink (then you need a special cable) but given the right streaming software it is supposed to sound great. However, I beleive it adds a lot of "hiss and noice" why I stick to the old 3.5 instead. Now I'm using the CCA with old but great sounding Quad gear so today I do not even have Toslink on my main stereo

 

[bludder]

For your information the Chromecast (that usually is used for Video (with lower quality audio) is an entirely differernt animal than the Chromecast Audio that supports;

• Stereo analog output: 2Vrms
• Optical digital output (conbined with th normal 3.5mmm jack
• High-resolution audio: 96 KHz / 24-bit

 

[Willem]

Now I'm using the CCA with old but great sounding Quad gear so today I do not even have Toslink on my main stereo

You may want to be sure that you are not using the so-called High Dynamic Range setting. It has nothing to do with dynamic range - it just sets a higher output voltage (2V). That may well be too much for your old Quad preamplifier - it certainly was for my Quad 33. Other than that, I think the analogue output of the CCA is fine for anything other than very good systems. It was certainly better than the input circuitry of my vintage Quad 33. I now use the optical digital output into an RME ADI-2 that replaced the Quad 33, but I am still more than happy to use the analogue output in our secundary systems.

 

[litemotiv]

If you have a receiver with HDMI you can also consider an Amazon Firestick 4K. It supports up to 24bit/192khz and will behave similar to a Chromecast, meaning you can cast to it normally from apps and webbrowsers like you would with Chromecast. As a bonus it will natively support Amazon HD which Chromecast afaik doesn't support. One downside is that for standard resolution (16bit/44.1khz) signals it will also upsample to 48Khz just like Chromecast does, but apart from that it could be a better option than Chromecast for some people. The Firestick 4K costs around $30 if i remember correctly.

 

[Taddpole]

Also note that CCA supports Toslink (then you need a special cable) but given the right streaming software it is supposed to sound great. However, I beleive it adds a lot of "hiss and noice" why I stick to the old 3.5 instead.

What makes you think that it adds that?

 

[ahofer]

However, I beleive it adds a lot of "hiss and noice"

I have several operating with mini-toslink and have never experienced this.

 

[dweekie]

It's interesting to see the changes coming to Chromecast devices related to audio due to the Sonos lawsuits.
As always, I'm a bit torn about these types of lawsuits in general. Google seems to have chosen to remove features rather than pay royalties to Sonos. Hopefully it doesn't speed up the demise of my Chromecast Audio devices...

Upcoming Speaker Group changes

Hey everyone, Due to a recent legal ruling we’re making some changes to how you set up your devices and the Speaker Group functionality will work moving forward. If you’re using the Speaker Group feature to control the volume in the Google Home app, by voice with the Google Assistant, or...

www.googlenestcommunity.com

Sonos wins major patent infringement victory against Google

Google has workarounds, though

www.theverge.com

 

[Taddpole]

Google seems to have chosen to remove features rather than pay royalties to Sonos. Hopefully it doesn't speed up the demise of my Chromecast Audio devices...

You assume they were given the option

 

[dweekie]

You assume they were given the option

I did, but you're right, that option could have disappeared. I'd assume Sonos would prefer to gain royalties instead, but again, no idea what the plans are as there are further pending decisions ahead.

From another article, Sonos Chief Legal Officer Eddie Lazarus said in a statement. "But while Google may sacrifice consumer experience in an attempt to circumvent this importation ban, its products will still infringe many dozens of Sonos patents, its wrongdoing will persist, and the damages owed Sonos will continue to accrue. Alternatively, Google can -- as other companies have already done -- pay a fair royalty for the technologies it has misappropriated."

 

[Taddpole]

I did, but you're right, that option could have disappeared. I'd assume Sonos would prefer to gain royalties instead, but again, no idea what the plans are as there are further pending decisions ahead.

From another article, Sonos Chief Legal Officer Eddie Lazarus said in a statement. "But while Google may sacrifice consumer experience in an attempt to circumvent this importation ban, its products will still infringe many dozens of Sonos patents, its wrongdoing will persist, and the damages owed Sonos will continue to accrue. Alternatively, Google can -- as other companies have already done -- pay a fair royalty for the technologies it has misappropriated."

I'd assume their idea of fair is different to Google's.

To be honest controlling volume doesn't seem like something that warrants a patent. But the system seems broken.