|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.146.0.192
In Reply to: RE: Say what you will... posted by Ivan303 on July 15, 2016 at 20:30:59
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
Follow Ups:
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
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: