wireless 24/96 options?

[Eric51]

Gordon - thanks for your input on the wired vs. wireless! Your expertise is much appreciated!

 

My question is - does the "noise" that is associated with the wireless transmission get through to the music? It appears that with a wired connection noise and artifacts do in fact get through - hence the difference in sound with cable choice. I cant think of any other reason why a cable would make a difference with a purely digital interface!

 

Thanks

Eric

 

[Wavelength]

Eric,

 

From my experience wireless has never been as good sounding as wired. I have a freaken ton of development stuff in here and have 24/96 wireless working. It really does not sound nearly as good as USB does.

 

I think it is the compounded amount of traffic required especially for the higher resolutions. My device only does G and maybe N would be better.

 

I think I found a site somewhere that listed max performance on G and it was right around 12Mbps which is the same as Full Speed USB.

 

BUT!!!!! remember you are sending routing info, turnaround, protocol and other devices on the same link.

 

So considering that I would say with the added noise of Wireless that wired version would sound better.

 

Thanks

Gordon

 

[vortecjr]

I second the motion for Gordon. I have been wired now for a few months and its really hard to beat! Not to drive you away from this post, but check out "wow what an upgrade" at:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/WOW-What-Upgrade-Hard-Wired-Ethernet-and-Computer-Audio

 

Am I the only one that gets goose bumps about the two antenna inputs on that gadget!

 

[jmudrick]

PopPulse has a new wireless 24/96 usb-s/pdif unit. Cheap enough I'm tempted to give it a shot. Currently I see them at Wai Wai Valve in Hong Kong and Discovery Hi-Fi in Bangkok. I've got a long USB run and a cable-grabbing two year old.....more jitter than with $1500 - $3000 in a fancy USB transport and cables, maybe, but life is full of tradeoffs and this is $168 in HK. No reviews yet that i can find.

 

 

Google Dugood WDDC and you'll see another similarly priced Chinese unit but without the 24/96 capability.

 

 

[Labarum]

Look at the gossip here for a cheaper Logitech Squeezebox that will stream 24/96

 

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64706

 

Numbers aren't everything, as has been said before.

 

The latest version of Squeezecentre will downsample very nicely on the fly to 16/48 or 44.1 and pass that stream to the Squeezebox Classic, Duet or Boom. You would be hard pressed to here the difference in most practical situations, even with a good external DAC and analogue replay chain.

 

 

 

[vortecjr]

.

 

[Labarum]

I correct myself. When Squeezecentre 7.3 downsamples from 96 to 48 it keeps the 24 bit depth.

 

 

[Eric51]

bzlrbi - just wondering if you got your transporter and what your impressions were?

 

thank

Eric

 

[Eric51]

Just want to clear up one thing - Squeezebox website lists the "max" throughput for the transporter via wireless as 54 Mbps, 100 Mbps over wired ethernet. USB 1.0 is much slower - 12 Mbps or so. Even with wireless overhead that is quite a bit better throughput. USB 2.0 is of course is much faster (at 480 Mbps or so ) but I'm not sure if many DACs are using 2.0.

 

Here is the comparison test I would like to read - Modwright Transporter (via wireless) vs. Wavelength Audio Cosecant DAC (via USB) vs. Berkeley Audio Alpha DAC (via SPDIF/optical)!

 

In 2008 Srajan Ebaen from 6moons rated the Modwright Transporter "State of the Art Performance in the WiFi catagory" - so how does state of the art in wifi compare with state of the art in wired? Let the games begin!

 

Eric