Point of higher priced streamer?

[Lord Victor]

Each bit of data is, in the end, interpreted as a "1" or a "0".

If the gear can pass that hurdle, there isn't much more you can ask for.

Just like this message, passed from my keyboad -> USB -> CPU -> TCP/IP -> ethernet -> router -> Cable Modem -> concentrator -> switches and intercity/intercontinental fibers -> (add a bunch more steps) -> your screen.

Did it make it?

On a recent Podcast an engineer making streamers (read biased) went on about the timing of those packets being the issue for an audio stream compared to a normal data stream where timing is irrelevant and it’s simply a matter of getting the packets through unharmed - and that it wasn’t as simple as just using a buffer to ensure proper timing. That fx the path from the stream having been received to the digital signal being converted to analogue can have multiple points of issue in this regard, praising some streamers/dacs for having multiple high Quality clocks, isolated from the noise of the rest of the circuit, particularly the processing power used to run a streamer.
That and the mention of differences in jitter.

These might have been mentioned elsewhere - but for clarity’s sake, is there any merit to either? (Didn’t trust the guy as far as I could throw him, but never know).

 

[irontortoise]

Why is it, out of all of the different, far more critical real-time data passing through global and local networks, that music is something special that requires black magic, cheetah blood, and the absolute most expensive, ridiculous hardware for it to work? This idea more than any other woke me up out of my subjectivist fever-dream. Maybe people fear knowing how the sausage is made ruins the meal?

 

[HarmonicTHD]

On a recent Podcast an engineer making streamers (read biased) went on about the timing of those packets being the issue for an audio stream compared to a normal data stream where timing is irrelevant and it’s simply a matter of getting the packets through unharmed - and that it wasn’t as simple as just using a buffer to ensure proper timing. That fx the path from the stream having been received to the digital signal being converted to analogue can have multiple points of issue in this regard, praising some streamers/dacs for having multiple high Quality clocks, isolated from the noise of the rest of the circuit, particularly the processing power used to run a streamer.
That and the mention of differences in jitter.

These might have been mentioned elsewhere - but for clarity’s sake, is there any merit to either? (Didn’t trust the guy as far as I could throw him, but never know).

No to both.

 

[Lord Victor]

Why is it, out of all of the different, far more critical real-time data passing through global and local networks, that music is something special that requires black magic, cheetah blood, and the absolute most expensive, ridiculous hardware for it to work? This idea more than any other woke me up out of my subjectivist fever-dream. Maybe people fear knowing how the sausage is made ruins the meal?

I think the most important thing, speaking from personal experience, is to just inform people, and debunk with facts where possible, whilst remaining polite and open. As infuriating as it can be, any kind of ridiculing analogies or insults, will just make people automatically want to disagree with you on sheer principle, wether right or wrong - it just makes the conversation more difficult.
Take my previous post fx.; if someone who is presented as an expert on the topic presents a seemingly logical explanation to someone, as to why audio streaming needs some care taken to ensure timing is done right, what basis do most have to not believe him? I would seem nonsensical to disagree, since he’s an expert who literally builds the things, and the listener might know nothing about the topic, thus having no basis to refute it.
There is plenty of reason why one might take in wrong information - the hard part is making someone reject what they already know, and take in new information. Even being polite, at the best of days, that can be difficult for many sadly. It’s in human nature.
‘Would be a whole lot easier if there was less people spreading misinformation, and less incentive for them to do so.

 

[Lord Victor]

No to both.

Would you mind explaining why? Or linking to something that does?
I know the topic of audibility of jitter has been done to death before, with various conclusions. But the other matter at the very least to me could do with some clarifying, since it’s recently been spread by Darko’s podcast.

 

[irontortoise]

I think the most important thing, speaking from personal experience, is to just inform people, and debunk with facts where possible, whilst remaining polite and open. As infuriating as it can be, any kind of ridiculing analogies or insults, will just make people automatically want to disagree with you on sheer principle, wether right or wrong - it just makes the conversation more difficult.
Take my previous post fx.; if someone who is presented as an expert on the topic presents a seemingly logical explanation to someone, as to why audio streaming needs some care taken to ensure timing is done right, what basis do most have to not believe him? I would seem nonsensical to disagree, since he’s an expert who literally builds the things, and the listener might know nothing about the topic, thus having no basis to refute it.
There is plenty of reason why one might take in wrong information - the hard part is making someone reject what they already know, and take in new information. Even being polite, at the best of days, that can be difficult for many sadly. It’s in human nature.
‘Would be a whole lot easier if there was less people spreading misinformation, and less incentive for them to do so.

I completely agree. I tend to vent just because I was fooled for so long and makes me angry.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Would you mind explaining why? Or linking to something that does?
I know the topic of audibility of jitter has been done to death before, with various conclusions. But the other matter at the very least to me could do with some clarifying, since it’s recently been spread by Darko’s podcast.

Sorry I am traveling atm. Can’t dig out the respective threads here. Please use the search function in the mean time. The conclusions are very clear and undisputed and the topic has been looked at and discussed extensively.

 

[JiiPee]

Would you mind explaining why? Or linking to something that does?
I know the topic of audibility of jitter has been done to death before, with various conclusions. But the other matter at the very least to me could do with some clarifying, since it’s recently been spread by Darko’s podcast.

You could start by checking amir's youtube video "Is Digital Transmission Really Analog". I think it gives good explanation of the basics of digital data transmission in audio applications.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

You could start by checking amir's youtube video "Is Digital Transmission Really Analog". I think it gives good explanation of the basics of digital data transmission in audio applications.

Good idea.

And this helps too

 

[Jim Shaw]

We go through this scenario with every twist and bend in the technology of audio devices. Push-pull, feedback, transistorization, integrated circuits, digital recording, digital media, digital amplification, powered speakers, balanced cables, and lots more. The carnival vendors see a chance to jump on any new tech, like digital streaming, and profit from the situation so its newness will lead to very high prices to early adopters.

It works every time.

Today, the technology of digital-to-audio conversion followed by the software for streaming is maturing rapidly. That which was exotic two years ago is cheaply available today. For example, what PSAudio could do a few years ago for thousands can now be done by WiiM for a hundred. Early adopters pay for the development (and developers' houses, cars, and boats), and later adopters buy 'model T' versions that are as good or better, for a few percent of early adopter prices.

Go ahead. Be an early adopter. Pay for the development and maturation of a product. And thank you.
I'll buy the Model T version a couple of years later than you, but you'll have the brag rights. You can be the first guy on social media to have that brand new "Bonzai 9000" DAC for $9K that many of us will buy two or three years later, improved and bulletproof, for $250. Or less.

Be an early tech adopter. Do it for us!

 

[Willem]

Actually, this is not about the cost of investment in new technology or the price early adoption but about the financial gains from spreading misinformation.
The dirt cheap Chromecast Audio was already sonically perfect, probably even using its own internal DAC. I am using one with a pro audio RME ADI-2 Dac and it is superb.

 

[julian_hughes]

I bought a Chromecast Audio. It couldn't do gapless, so it inserted an audible pause/click between each track. That's very far from sonically perfect. I got a refund.

 

[voodooless]

Generally, yes.

In the particular case of an operating system. The general answer is: maybe or it depends.

Bit perfect playback will depend highly of the application, how it talks to the audio hardware, and the device drivers needing support. The last is generally covered. The rest though, not always. Many Mac software do not lock the audio device exclusively and do not switch sample rate automatically. Apple Music does not do that for instance. You’ll need some special tricks to get bit perfect playback. Things like Roon do it correctly, as well as the Qobuz app. Some others don’t. They rely on the OS mixer with is fixed at a set sample rate and everything is resampled to that. Not the end of the world, it’s quite transparent.

Streamers in general seem to have the bit perfect playback covered in most cases.

Chromecast video though, not. It’s fixed to 48 kHz. Just like Apple TV.

Anyway, if you want to stream Apple Music to Chromecast, you’ll be out of luck

 

[MattHooper]

Be an early tech adopter. Do it for us!

I was!

I bought a Panasonic plasma TV shortly after they were introduced and ridiculously expensive. Nobody I knew had a flat panel TV for even some years afterward. So for a while it was fun being the George Jetson of the neighborhood

It was certainly a big expense but fully satisfying. I was thrilled to see my favourite movies on a big flat screen, and amazingly enough, even though I bought it in 2001 it's still going as our family room TV! Lasted longer than any CRT I've owned.

 

[Jim Shaw]

I was!

I bought a Panasonic plasma TV shortly after they were introduced and ridiculously expensive. Nobody I knew had a flat panel TV for even some years afterward. So for a while it was fun being the George Jetson of the neighborhood

It was certainly a big expense but fully satisfying. I was thrilled to see my favourite movies on a big flat screen, and amazingly enough, even though I bought it in 2001 it's still going as our family room TV! Lasted longer than any CRT I've owned.

A friend bought a Philips plasma setup back in those days. It got quite hot in use -- almost space heater hot. Must've raised his electric bill mightily. He returned it when an image 'burned-in'. His dealer told him that most of them came back.

You could aid the cause by buying a PSAudio $40K speaker pair. Paul needs the money to charge his Tesla.

 

[dorakeg]

Nay, you don't need a fancy streamer. It's mainly down to features, brand and looks instead sound "sound quality".

99% of sound quality is due to your environment, not your gear. How often do you see gears that has over 1% distortion under normal conditions?

 

[Fahzz]

Point of higher priced streamer?​

PROFIT!

 

[Timcognito]

Good point. Manufacturers seem to use customers as ”beta testers“ for their apps, including those supplied with expensive products. The exception is maybe a mature app like BluOS.

As owner and frequent user of three and wife the fourth of BluOS devices beginning 2017 I concur with a large number of frustrated users, the general gripe being that the although the hardware is functional and robust and support is very good, the UI has changed little in the past 5 years. There are many complaints on the customer website about this as many simple updates on cuing, playing, playlist organization, etc. that are common other platforms and streaming services seem to be ignored by the curators there. Feature requests are acknowledged but rarely followed up with much desired changes.

https://support1.bluesound.com/hc/en-us/community/topics/200546948-General-Discussions

https://support1.bluesound.com/hc/en-us/community/topics/200017256-Feature-Requests

 

[RayDunzl]

On a recent Podcast an engineer making streamers (read biased) went on about the timing of those packets being the issue for an audio stream compared to a normal data stream where timing is irrelevant and it’s simply a matter of getting the packets through unharmed - and that it wasn’t as simple as just using a buffer to ensure proper timing. That fx the path from the stream having been received to the digital signal being converted to analogue can have multiple points of issue in this regard, praising some streamers/dacs for having multiple high Quality clocks, isolated from the noise of the rest of the circuit, particularly the processing power used to run a streamer.
That and the mention of differences in jitter.

These might have been mentioned elsewhere - but for clarity’s sake, is there any merit to either? (Didn’t trust the guy as far as I could throw him, but never know).

This month's Stereophile has a product to help soothe some of your fears...

Without going to the library to look it up (I'll be in there later, definitely first thing in the morning, so I can update this), the premium for peace of mind is around $6000 for an ethernet box and its optional external power supply, both of which look like they will fit in one hand while you clear space on the rack to install them.

Or, you can use your personal experience to help form and opinion of need.

Is there really a problem to solve, or only potential problems?

---

Disclaimer: As a Technician with an Honorary Engineer title on my business card (some customers were stuffy and required us to send Engineers to their job sites) I worked with many things digital, and the intra and inter continental transmission and necessary packet switching via point to point and SONET rings for NEC, WorldCom, and NorTel, for customers like Sprint, Baby Bells, C2C and Genuity, before two of the three of those vendors and one of the customers blew up, so, what would I know about audio? Nothing? Never heard a complaint like "My Napster is all jittery!"

Rarely would there be any real mystery about why something didn't work as designed. Bent pin, broken wire or fiber, dirty fiber, bad firmware/software...


"and that it wasn’t as simple as just using a buffer to ensure proper timing" - coulda fooled me. Lots of buffers in the beast below.

The packets of data come ZAP------------ZAP------------ZAP

It is then buffered ahead of the DAC, and the data stream clocked into the converter at the appropriate rate.

Unless it's a USB cable to the DAC, then it's ZAP------------ZAP------------ZAP again.

---

The Traffic Engineers did have to consider the transmission line and intermediate switches (say, from New York though Atlanta through Dallas Though Phoenix through LA to SanFrancisco) as part of the receive "buffer", because at 600+ mbit/s there could be a bit or so (per channel) in transit in every two feet of the fiber, not including the intermediate switch buffering, which could come to 9mbit of data (travelling at lightspeed) in one channel in the fiber between those two endpoints. The Traffic Engineers had a small nightmare on their hands.

When do we send a "Stop transmitting I'm full" to the previous machine in the path? Losing data, where the endpoint user would need to retransmit, would just make the congestion worse.

Of course we had much more expensive doodads on those jobs, for sure, like combining laser wavelengths (see DWDM) onto one fiber to (at the time) get about a half terabit transmission rate on a fiber, amplifying the light and correcting dispersion in-situ every 60 miles or so, spreading out those combined frequencies via a diffraction grating at the distant end, collecting the data and switching packets onto different routes as they exited the node.


NEC Asynchronous Transfer Mode Switch for Sprint, 1998:

OC-12 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 622.08 Mbit/s (payload: 601.344 Mbit/s; overhead: 20.736 Mbit/s), which was kinda cutting edge at the time.

Send a bunch of those packet streams into the "switch" which mixes them all up (dang buffers again!) and routes them to the appropriate output streams.

That's not me in the picture.

I got to watch them work and then test their creation before taking it to the Customer in the US for more testing before deployment.


I haven't detected any issues with the cheap boxes and junk cables I have here at home.

Except the Router locks up every couple of weeks, and needs a power-cycle but that's all. It's a ten year old refurbished LinkSys rebranded with a Cisco logo.



---



Ok, I took so long above I went (so to speak):

Nordost QNet Unmanaged Ethernet Switch and QSource Linear Power Supply, $3199 and $2749.

It's round, it must be good. The cheap ones are all rectangular.

Oh wait, the QSource is rectangular.

No measurements provided, lots of opinion and listening impressions, I suppose, Didn't read it (yet, if I do).

Stole the picture from elsewhere, same stock photo in the 'Phile.

Solving a problem that doesn't really exist, at least, not here.

 

[RayDunzl]

Anyway, if you want to stream Apple Music to Chromecast, you’ll be out of luck

I had an Apple computer during the last Century, but nothing Apple in my possession now, nor planned nor desired in the future.

The Apple DAC/Dongle for $9 intrigued me, though, if only because I didn't think you could buy an Apple anything for $9,

Didn't need one anyway.