|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
198.27.205.172
Streaming Hi Rez music over the internet benefits from having High Speed Internet.
Do all of the math you want, I am currently streaming the above at a supposed 192/24 from ClassicsOnlineHD using a mid 2011 MacBook Air via WiFi. From my current easy chair over WiFi with the router in the office 20 feet and a wall away, I get 60-80 Mbps on a good day since the GigaBit internet is now in the house. Limiting factor is the Mid 2011 MacBook Air's WiFi receiver I am guessing.
The 'LivePlay' window on the ClassicsOnlineHD player shows it streaming music (or loading cache?) at around 4Mbps which is about twice as high a number as I was seeing with the old U-Verse service which did maybe 15Mbps TOTAL for the whole house. Plus, no more long 5 sec. to 10 sec. wait between tracks now, which was a KILLER if you listen to CLASSICAL MUSIC which is all ClassicsOnlineHD has to offer anyway.
AND...
I sounds pretty good to boot!
Follow Ups:
I am confused.
According to the below website, a 192khz/24bit signal needs 9216.00 kilobytes per second to stream. Multiplying by eight to turn bytes into bits results in 73,728 bits per second, which should easily fit into a 3 megabit/second connection, much less a 15 megabit/second connection. Why you would need a 60mb/sec connection to smoothly stream such a trickle of data is beyond me.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
His new ISP is just "better". There are other factors besides speed alone that can affect delivery of streamed media.As for your math, " 192khz/24bit signal needs 9216.00 kilobytes per second to stream ". This is incorrect.
NOT 9216 kilo- bytes per second. That should be 9216 Kilo- bits per second.
Converting 9216 Kilo-bits per second to Mega-bits per second gives you 9.216 Mega-bits per second or more commonly written as 9.216 Mbps. Not such a little trickle after all. ;-)
Edits: 07/19/16 07/19/16
and I stand corrected.
Doesn't this bring up another aspect though? The majority of the folks out there live in a world of throttled connections and monthly data caps. Until that changes, I'm guessing high-bandwidth streaming is going to remain a niche product.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
finally got my Gigabit Fiber hooked up and wired throughout the house, but STILL only getting about half of it by the time it gets wired through house and goes through a router and a Gigabit Switch.
Now it I take the computer and plug it directly into the modem in the garage it's closer to 900+ Mbps.
That said, no dropouts when streaming Hi Rez 24/192 via ClassicsOnlineHD anymore. ;-)
You're only getting 435Mbs down and over 100Mbs up?I'm sorry, but my heart pumps purple prune juice for you! ;)
Congrats on what you've got so far and please keep us posted on any improvements you're able to realize!
You truly are a 1%er as far as the internet goes.
Which brings up an idea, perhaps your internet connection is out running the ability of websites you visit to support it?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Edits: 07/19/16
Mid 2011 MacBook Air over WiFi (802.11n)
That particular laptop is slower when hooked directly to the Cat 5E wall jack as my RJ45 > USB adapter is a cheap 100Mpbs model. ;-)
The only difference I hear is on ClassicsOnlineHD streaming and that due to the fact that the player waits a while till the buffer/cache fills before it begins to play a track. On U-verse 'rated' at 20Mbps (but never performing that well) it could take up to 10 seconds to load a track and play, especially is streaming what they claim is 24/192.
How much RAM do you have in that Mac? Maybe if you bumped the amount of RAM it could buffer more tracks at one time.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
The issue would appear to be download speed as both my old MacBook Air (4 Gig) and the newer (late 2014) Mac Mini (16 Gig) had the same long 5-10 sec.or more) between tracks streaming Hi Rez with ClassicasOnlineHD with slow/intermittent U-Verse service.
sorry.
Per the numbers Bibo01 has been posting, DSD playback does seem to take up extraordinary amounts of bandwidth.
As someone who has got a fat enough of a pipe to be able to fiddle with these bandwidths, have you discovered a point of diminishing returns between DSD128, DSD256, and DSD512?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
from QOBUZ and TIDAL and then stream whatever ClassicsOnlineHD has which is supposed to be up to 24/192 and I suppose it is some form of PCM but I have no idea how it's encoded.
ClassicsOnlineHD is a CPU hog, actually it the playback engine OraStream that is the CPU hog.
Link below:
This is beyond bandwidth hogs, now we're getting into the realm of bandwidth black holes.
Where are the audio reviewers when you need them? We need them to tell us how the treble is much more delicate, the midrange much more liquid , the bass deeper, tighter and faster and that the general image has a broader and deeper soundstage and that the silences are blacker and more profound than usual. But only when you are streaming faster than 300 Mbs.
Can you confirm any of this?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
But at least now I get SOUNDS!
Before it was dropouts and hesitation between tracks and lagging while the buffer filled and on and on.
Doubt I'll be tearing the sheet rock off the walls to rewire with CAT7 any time soon.
Even the SONOS (no buffer) works without problems when streaming Lossless FLAC.
I agree. High bandwidth music streaming will remain a niche but more likely because most people are satisfied with low bit-rate highly compressed music. They're used to MP3 and the like.
Of course video requires a lot more bandwidth and streaming services like Netflix are working hard to compress the streamed data while trying to maintain quality. Video can really eat up the bandwidth.
For comparison between HR DSD audio and HR video, 1080p video streaming from Netflix requires 7Mbps throughput, and 4K streaming through Netflix requires 15Mbps; whereas DSD256 is triple throughput of 1080P @ 22.579 Mbps, and DSD 512 is triple 4K at 45.158 Mbps.
A form of lossless compression for DSD would be needed but it does not exist yet.
I must admit to being completely ignorant of DSD audio. Is this format available on optical discs? If it is, how many minutes of music are available on a disc?
TIA
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
It is only available as DSD64 format on SACD.
DSD64 is 5,645 Kbps for stereo and it is 2.37 GB/Hour.
DSD128 is 11,290 Kbps for stereo and it is 4.73 GB/Hour.
Formats such DSD128, 256 and higher are only available through download.
Just to compare:
PCM 24/96 is 4,608 Kbps for stereo, at 1.93 GB/Hour.
PCM 24/192 is 9,216 Kbps for stereo, at 3.86 GB/Hour.
They both have been available on DVD-Audio or BR-Audio.
Thanks for your reply!
Wowzers! That's a lot of data just to hear a track.
In fact, it's so much data that it gets me to wondering if there wouldn't be a more economical way of improving the sound of a track, such as ending the loudness wars.
I mean, we can keep throwing bandwidth at our music, but if it is still compressed, then what is the point?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Technically, those PCM bit-rate figures can be reduced with lossless compression (w/o a loss in audio quality). Not sure about DSD.
is DST on many SACDs.
So I gather it can be compressed for streaming as well. Thx!
..1080p video streaming from Netflix requires 7Mbps throughput, and 4K streaming through Netflix requires 15Mbps;Interesting and that's with a good amount of compression I bet as those with keen eyes will tell you that the video quality from Netflix and other similar streaming services is below what can be achieved with ones own DVD/Blu-ray player.
I have witnessed more pixelation and motion blur from our Cable TV/Internet provider (including movies from HBO, Starz, Showtime, etc), as well as AppleTV and Amazon Fire TV, vs. the same movies played on my Blu-ray player. The Blu-ray player is sharper and it's nothing special, just a cheapie Sony.
I don't think there will ever be much of a market for DSD streaming. Heck, there's hardly a market for 44.1/16 PCM streaming except among a few audiophilles.
Edits: 07/19/16
What kind of speeds are you able to achieve with a hardwired Ethernet connection?I've been getting about 180Mbs with hardwired Ethernet -or- Wifi on my wife's early 2015 MacBook Pro 13" [Integrated 802.11a/b/g/n/ac (2.4 & 5 GHz, up to 1.3 Gbit/s) w/Broadcom BCM43602 3 × 3 chipset. This is from our Comcast cable internet service.
Using my older Mac, I'm getting only 78Mbs via Wifi but the same 180Mbs hardwired.
Are you connected over 5GHz or 2.4GHz Wifi?
Edits: 07/16/16
Are you saying you are getting 180 Mbps with your Wifi also? --- I get about 125 Mbps via Ethernet, but about the best I can get Wifi is ~ 70 Mbps.
Cut-Throat
Yes, newer Wifi in newer computers can achieve those speeds and higher, which I am seeing on my wife's newer MacBook Pro. On my older computers, I am getting only 70 - 80Mbps via Wifi.
.
Yes because most folks do. However, I think speedof.me is more accurate.
Have you ever tried the speed test at dslreports?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
.
and who can have too many tools at their disposal?
For me dslreports is more conservative in its reported results than speedof.me, but it is also more consistent from test to test and when compared to other test sites.
However, this is on a VDSL line. Maybe cable is different?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Well, it's not like I spend my days measuring the bandwidth or latency I'm getting from my ISP.
If it's slow I can 'feel it' then measure it with the same tool I would normally use. This will at least provide useful relative performance numbers if it 'feels' slow.
But honestly I can't 'feel' the difference between the consistent 170 Mbps to 190 Mbs I get on a typical day.
Maybe 170 Mbs is already pretty good throughput and you're typically using only a fraction of that at any given time? It seems to me that you've got a pretty darn good connection! I'd sure be happy to have it. Heck, knock off the "1" and I'd be happy to have 70 Mbs!
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
I was very satisfied with 30 Mbps. For most of my day to day activities it was fast enough. But on those occasions when I have to download large software applications or operating systems, the extra speed really helps.
Hopefully, technology will catch up with us folk out in the sticks. Until then, keep posting and let us hicks know what it is we are missing!
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Where in the 'sticks' are you?
I would gladly trade some bandwidth for a more rural lifestyle, perhaps when I retire. I'll end up using some over priced latency crippled satellite internet service for very slow web surfing and emails. I'll have to drive to the nearest library or Starbucks if I want Wifi to watch YouTube videos. ;-)
Sorry, that was just a figure of speech. Actually, I live in a suburb that is near enough to the "urb" to give some hustle and bustle, but far enough away that they truly "phat pipes" haven't made it to my neighborhood.
That said, if you're contemplating a "Green Acres" retirement, why not pack up the suitcase and take a road trip and spend a few nights out in the rural spots near you? It's amazing how much noise crickets and frogs can make at night. And this is coming from someone who has lived through an emergence of "Brood X" cicadas.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
SpeedofMe: 91 Mbps down 41 Mbps up.
SpeedTest: 98 Mbps down 55 Mbps up.
Not that different. Happy either way.
is the Mac Mini in the main room and it's slow because it's hooked up now via ethernet via AC Outlet boxes and a 10/100 switch. Who needs more than a 10/100 switch when using crappy U-Verse as I was before?When I have the Cat 5E that's on that level hooked to the router in the garage, then I should have close to 1 Gig directly to the 1 Gig ethernet connection of the Mini.
Should know mid next week when the installer comes back to terminate all of the phone jacks to RJ45.
One question please.
What's the NEST ! Gig LAN and 1 Gig WAN Wired Router I can used in the garage to take the output from the fiber modem and distribute it to the 3 Can-5E cables with will run to the Office, Listening Room and my Living room?
Edits: 07/16/16
I'm not sure I understand your question.
- Does your router have just one Ethernet output jack?
- Does it also do Wifi, or not?
If it does Wifi you're covered there for your wireless needs including iPad as a remote control for the Remote App, Roon, or whatever you use.
To get more Ethernet ports all you need is an inexpensive multiport Gigabit Ethernet switch. Run the output from the Ethernet on your router to one of the jacks on the switch. You can then 'fan out' multiple outputs from the switch to various locations in your home. I have a cheapie Cisco 8-port Gigabit switch that I bought a few years ago. Looks like this:
There might be a newer version and you get them in various port counts, 8,16, whatever. And there are several other decent brands out there for simple unmanaged switches. The other option that you -might- consider is Power over Ethernet (PoE) if you plan to run Ethernet video cameras or other devices that can get their power over the Ethernet cable rather having its own power supply / wall wart. These switches may cost a bit more, some will have several "regular" Ethernet ports and designate a few as PoE capable. Not important unless you foresee and application that will benefit.
The 'Pulse' WiFi router provided for $10 a month by the Sonic Fiber folks is fine but it is going BACK to them. $10 a month buys a lot of networking gear!My only other router is the older Apple Airport/Time Machine which is OK for WiFi and will remain upstairs in the office
I want to replace the Pulse Wifi Router that is currently being rented to me with a 'Wired Router' attached to the wall of the garage next to the 'Fiber' modem. I will then hook the output of the fiber modem to the WAN port on the Wired Router and then hook the three Cat 5E cables (old phone lines) that terminate nearby to the LAN ports on the Wired Router.
I will then have Ethernet in all of the rooms in the house that matter to me.
But in has to be very reliable and I am reading about a lot of 're-boot' daily stories with routers used with Gigabit speeds.
Edits: 07/16/16
Sounds like you have a good plan but not knowing the layout of your house and where all the goodies live, it's hard for me to visualize.
The 'Pulse' WiFi router provided for $10 a month by the Sonic Fiber folks is fine but it is going BACK to them. $10 a month buys a lot of networking gear!
Of course you'll have to be sure to get a brand/model that is compatible and that the Sonic Fiber folks will provision for you. You may want to check with them first, or hunt around their website and Google.
The Comcast Xfinity Wifi router that I have can probably be replaced with one that I outright buy but it's been updated (replaced and swapped out) three times (free of charge) as their speeds and features have been updated.
Had I purchased a compatible router three years ago, I'd have to buy another one by now to take full advantage. So in this regard, I do not regret renting my Comcast router for $10/mo. Ours does 5GHz/2.4GHz Wifi, has four Gigabit Ethernet jacks, and two RJ11 telephone jacks, and internal battery backup.
Moral of the story is, if your ISP is on the fast track with upgrading their speed and features, it might be better to rent the modem and get free upgraded units along the way.
the VOIP phone line is an output of the Fiber Modem so they claim there is not that much special in the Pulse Router they rent and seem to be saying that I can use ANY good true Gigabit wired router to distribute Ethernet fro the Fiber Modem to the Cat 5E that runs throughout the house.
Has to be able to 'assign IP addresses', whatever that means.
Sadly, I don't know a WAN from a LAN so that's why I am asking.
And again, as it will be in the garage, I can get WiFi from my existing Apple Airport/Time machine, albeit it limited to 'n' speeds.
...to be of much help.
Whatever that is.
From the SONIC Fiber chat board:
"Yes. I just plugged my existing router, which is configured as a DHCP client, into the ONT, and it "just worked". I'm not getting gigabit speeds through it, but that's because of limitations of my current router. With my PC plugged directly into the ONT, the Ookla speedtest was showing ~930Mbps down. I'm researching options for a new router, but not in a hurry, and waiting until IPv6 is available to see what I need to be compatible with."
In this case the 'ONT' is the SONIC Fiber Modem which also includes a VOIP phone output as well. In this case the person above just plugged his Gigabit capable PC into the RJ45 jack of the Fiber Modem and 'bingo'!
Plug and play!
Now all I have to do is find a Wired Router that is configured as a DHCP client and I may be golden.
That said, I plan on keeping the working router for a while just to be sure!
my router 'upgraded' itself it IPV6 with a simple software update.
Too much is never enough
so that the fast WiFi (802.11ac) covers most of the house. Easy to run ethernet cable along the roof of the garage so I can mount the router on the other side of the wall/floor from the living room and get acceptable wifi coverage in the parts of the house that won't have an ethernet jack nearby.
So $10 a month is no big deal for the moment especially for 802.11ac Gigabit Wifi.
Then I can use the slow (802.11n) first generation Apple Airport/Time Machine as a 1 Gig router/switch for the listening room which will be well covered with ethernet except for occasional phone/iPad/laptop that might be used there.
You know that all that 'giga' stuff is a scam.
You might be able to get 50 MEG or better to your house. I see AVAILABLE and symetric Up /Down Verizon Fios to 500 meg. That's enough for 20 HD movies at once.
I have a single service of about 20 meg and that is FINE. I can stream HD movies without a buffer or glitch.
What am I going to do with yet More / Faster?
Too much is never enough
Costs HALF what I was paying for DSL at 3Mbps down a couple years ago.
My phone/internet bill is over $90 a month from U-Verse now and the 20Mbps has a monthly cap if you don't if you don't take their movie package which is another $50 a month minimum so we're at $150 and slow internet.
True, very few devices can use more that 100Mbps, in fact I think all of my switches are currently only 10/100.
Plus, if it hadn't been for the installer telling me, I would have never noticed that the phone lines in the house are wired with CAT 5E, so that's worth a few bucks.
Sorry, my 20Mbps will not stream Lossless FLAC using SONOS which has little or no buffer. Nor will it stream ClassicsOnlineHD without starts and stops, long pauses between tracks and that's with a computer hooked to directly to the router via an ethernet cable.
I'd try to figure out WHERE the BottleNeck really is.
On PAPER, 20meg is about 10x what you need for FLAC or ALAC files.
I get VIDEO at that speed which even compressed by the sender uses more bandwidth than music.
And NO pauses for buffering.
Too much is never enough
and try to figure out why U-Verse has speed glitches certain times a day and is intermittent start/stop most of the time or save $40 a month for a service 50X faster with no monthly cap?Tough decision there!
Again, everyone on my block that has U-Verse is making the switch because they are experiencing the same crappy performance and we're saving money as well.
The folks on our street who watch a lot of TV have Comcast with close to 100 Mbps down but they are seeing rate hikes.
I don't have a TV package with U-Verse so it's all upside to me.
Did I mention no monthly cap with SONIC Fiber?
Edits: 07/18/16
100 Mbps is for 'bragging rights'. Unless you are running a large online business (with STATIC IP)
or have 10 people living there ALL with their OWN TV and online services, simply NO Need for such thruput.
Now, an arguement can be made for higher speeds going the OTHER WAY. 2 Mbps UPLOAD might not be enough especially for active photographers or somebody who backs up a 200gb hard drive on a regular basis to the 'cloud'.
Too much is never enough
I believe his previous ISP was the bottleneck. ;-)
Sounds like you need a better router. With all of those devices in the house it would benefit you to set some Qos Priorities.Cut-Throat
Edits: 07/18/16 07/18/16
But fast is better, no? ;-)
I agree that beyond a certain point going much faster probably doesn't get you a lot. On the other hand, it sounds like his new service is not only fast but provides overall improved quality of service (QoS).
FREE installation and the guy is coming back tomorrow to terminate all of the phone jacks in the house with RJ45 sockets!
True anything over 100 Mbps is likely overkill,
Above is over WiFi to a mid 2011 MacBook Air and the SONIC 802.11ac Router which is in another room from the computer.
But still. CHEAP
Link below: Total bill is $62.50 with taxes, fees and Router rental vs. nearly $100 from ATT U-Vers WITH A MONTHLY USAGE CAP!!!!
...to my part of the country.
We have a sleezy landline company here called CenturyLink (used to be Qwest)... it's the old landline phone company. They run ads on TV with a tag line that goes something like this, "imagine what you can do with 1 Gigabit internet". The only problem is I don't know ANYONE who actually has their so-called 1 Gigabit service because it's available in such a small part of their service area. If I input my location in their website, I'd be lucky to get 7 - 20Mbs at best. But they advertise like 1 Gigabit internet is common around here.
I lived with 3 Mbps DSL for over a decade due to ATT being too cheap to replace the phone lines out here at the beach; phone lines that go back to the late 40's, early 50's.
When the finally replaced the lines I got 6 Mbps while I waited for them to install the U-verse boxes, again the 'Outerlands', as we are called, got U-Verse LAST!!!
For some reason SONIC Fiber did the Outer Sunset first, running fiber down The Great Highway a couple months ago. They are covering the Sunset and Richmond Districts first before moving inland to the areas where the 'Techies' live.
Go figure.
...I'm not on CenturyLink phone company DSL.
I have Comcast cable which is a bit pricey but I'm happy with the reliable 180Mbs or so. Comcast is supposedly one of the most hated companies on the planet but funny how so many people have their service. It's a semi-monopolistic love-hate relationship. ;-)
Because most people rely on them for their Tech Support. I have had Comcast for over 6 years and have never had to call them for a technical reason.
With that said, I hate them because they are a monopoly here, and are free to raise prices much higher than the inflation rate.
I believe that internet access should be treated as a utility, like the Electric and Gas Bill.
Cut-Throat
Faster is OK up to 'bottleneck'. When UHD movies are sent and MINIMALLY compressed, you will NEED 50mb service. Or maybe faster. Perhaps a 15% 'guard band' OVER and ABOVE your greatest anticipated use rate would be advisable. Of course, 'they' compress the heck out of everything and so even so-called HD quality is only marginally better than a good DVD from your home player.
Based on bit-rate of my ALAC files, I'd say to stream them you'd only need 5mb or less. My old 3mb DSL line would probably work.
As for QoS? As long as I have as close to ZERO downtime as technologically possible, the only thing better would be a pleasant voice at the OTHER end of the 'help line phone service'.
Too much is never enough
We have nearly a dozen devices in the house that COULD be communicating via the internet at any given time.
3 computers, 2 cell phones, 2 iPads, 2 SONOS player, a Marantz NA player and a Roku TV.
Likely forgot something. And we're 'OLDS' with no kids in the house.
Streaming Lossless FLAC via QOBUZ using the supplied OS-X player, I can see the track load into the cache as the music plays. Before we got U-Verse we were limited to 6 Mbps due to ancient phone lines out here at Ocean Beach. That was not fast enough to stream Lossless FLAC consistently.
Now?
Seven minute Lossless FLAC track loads in 11 seconds!
Just curious how you stream quobuz if you are in the states-thought that streaming service was not available in the states?
We live a month or two a year in France and I signed up while over there. I pay in Euors using PayPal.
Ahhh:-) any sq differences between tidal and quobuz that you notice if you have compared the two?
where someone posted a link that suggested that the record labels were putting some kind of sonic fingerprint onto the data files they sent to the streaming services and they subject of the link was TIDAL.
I heard such a 'warbling' on one track when playing from TIDAL but surprisingly not when streaming the same track from QOBUZ.
Go figure.
I mostly stream obscure classical stuff, things hard to find on CD, which QOBUZ has the edge on. That said, QOBUZ is close to insolvent and sometimes has certain labels in the catalog and then a week later they do not play. :-(
We must distinguish between good, fast INTERNET connections and your internal (in-house) wiring and system speeds.
You've got a pretty good connection to get a 7 minute track in just seconds. I don't think my outside connection is that fast.
Too much is never enough
I think the point is, he's having a much better overall experience with his new ISP regardless of speed. No dropouts, delays, stutters, etc. One can have incredible speed but other factors can affect performance. My ISP has increased my speed over the years from about 30Mbs, to 80Mbs, 105Mbs, and now about 180Mbs. Dropouts, delays, sluggishness during peak times, etc., have also improved over the years. And I actually take advantage of those higher speeds for large software downloads for work.In the field of computer networking and other packet-switched telecommunication networks, the traffic engineering term [QoS] refers to resource reservation control mechanisms rather than the achieved service quality. Quality of service is the ability to provide different priority to different applications, users, or data flows, or to guarantee a certain level of performance to a data flow. For example, a required bit rate, delay, jitter, packet dropping probability and/or bit error rate may be guaranteed. Quality of service guarantees are important if the network capacity is insufficient, especially for real-time streaming multimedia applications such as voice over IP, online games and IP-TV, since these often require fixed bit rate and are delay sensitive, and in networks where the capacity is a limited resource, for example in cellular data communication.
Edits: 07/18/16
And when you start out slow there is not much room for glitches.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: