Adding high quality audio streaming capabilities to my Denon X4500H and Ceol N11DAB?

[Trell]

Free, because it comes with my subscription, HA HA HA HA!

It's not free if you pay for it.

 

[witchdoctor]

It's not free if you pay for it.

Uhhh, you have already demonstrated your financial acumen, I gotta put you on the ignore list Trell, good luck with your future audio adventures

 

[Trell]

Uhhh, you have already demonstrated your financial acumen, I got put you on the ignore list Trell, good luck with your future audio adventures

If you only put yourself on the ignore list and the world would be a better place. Fat chance of that happening, though, but hope is eternal.

I'm sure that you can't resists clicking on the "read ignored post" link.

 

[Trell]

This is one of the dumbest audio threads I've read for some time.

 

[Isak Öhrlund]

It was pretty obvious that audio was not your area of research. Btw, there are many members here that have a research background, a few even in audio.

Well, even researchers in audio don't know everything about home theater Furthermore, listening tests should be set up by researchers who know study design, human perception and behavior and inferential statistics. There was definitely a lack of that in the linked references above.

As for sound quality: Go for issues that is well recorded, mixed and mastered. Of course, you'll also have to like the music you are listening to, and some of that have more quality than others (performance or otherwise). As for streaming "higher quality" you have to decide for yourself if the streaming quality is good enough for you. With high bitrate you won't notice, and high audio bitrate is negligible to what is required for video.

All streaming services offer the songs I want to listen to. The recordings are obviously the same. The difference comes down to encode and bit rate, and some here claim that that makes no difference because you can't hear the difference. If that is the case, regardless of what gear and what ears you have, there is no reason to bother with Tidal, Apple Music, Amazon or Qobuz when Spotify is the only service that is compatible across platforms, hardware and has the best usability of them all.

 

[TLS Guy]

Well, even researchers in audio don't know everything about home theater Furthermore, listening tests should be set up by researchers who know study design, human perception and behavior and inferential statistics. There was definitely a lack of that in the linked references above.



All streaming services offer the songs I want to listen to. The recordings are obviously the same. The difference comes down to encode and bit rate, and some here claim that that makes no difference because you can't hear the difference. If that is the case, regardless of what gear and what ears you have, there is no reason to bother with Tidal, Apple Music, Amazon or Qobuz when Spotify is the only service that is compatible across platforms, hardware and has the best usability of them all.

Comparing streaming services to asses bit rates and codec, is not reliable, as you don't know what else they have done to alter the presentation. The else is probably going to be more significant than the bit rate.

The only one of those you site that I have evaluated is Qobuz, and it sounded very good, but I am not a member. I stream from the BPO, BBC, Medici TV, Met Opera, DSO, Philadelphia Orchestra, our one MSO and SPCO. The latter audio is supplied by MPR. The Philadelphia Orchestra is provided by Bright Cove. The others have their own facilities. The BPO is now streaming in Atmos, lossless audio and 4K. The DSO has elaborate production facilities and the sound is very good. The BPO Atmos stream is a bit of a work in progress at the moment, but making rapid progress from what I can tell. I will make a full report on this landmark stream soon.

Again it is classical music programming and recording, that is really pushing the barriers and making fast progress. This has always been so, from the earliest days of audio. It was Enrico Caruso's first recording for Victor Talking Machine in 1904, that was the real starting gun that popularized recorded sound.

I can't stress enough that it is the total production that really counts. Concentrating on one issue is like concentrating on wire, or player you are going to use. A Holistic view is crucial to any intelligent evaluation.

 

[mandkthomas]

The seasoned members are making an important point here. 16/44.1 is actually perfectly adequate for most music sources. There are only a very few works that might benefit from slightly higher rates. These very high bit rates are pure audiophoolery, and a total waste of bits and streaming bandwidth.

What really matters is the care with which the original broadcast or stream is made.

I subscribe to the BPO Digital Concert Hall, and love it. They stream lossless FLAC. The quality is excellent. Their new Atmos stream has definite issues, which I will go into in another thread.

The BBC Proms 2022 are on now. We are two weeks in, it ends September 9, after 72 live concerts and available in iPlayer and BBC Sounds.

I can access via VPN. The bit rate is 320 kbs AAC. However, that stream is the best I know of, and by a significant margin. The reason is that the BBC have a century of experience behind them. The quality this year is really outstanding. I see from their site that they have now resurrected the old Decca Microphone Tree, as the principal source, with gently applied spot mics. I have always thought that Decca recodings from times past made with the Decca Tree, are among the best ever made. The bass is especially good and natural with that technique.

I find this interesting, as it may mean that the BBC are staring to experiment with Atmos. I have been reviewing research papers, and see that the Decca Tree, with mods, may well turn out to be the best choice for Atmos audio. I can see why that should be so.

It is nice to see that practice and techniques from the Golden Age of British Audio, will continue to influence audio practice for years to come.

So the quality and skill of the original engineers trumps any stream over 16/44.1

Not sure of the relevance, but the audio on the organ and choruses at the queens funeral was well captured. Seemed that the BBC or whomever had great handle on the church and engineering- home court advantage.

 

[Golfx]

Well, even researchers in audio don't know everything about home theater Furthermore, listening tests should be set up by researchers who know study design, human perception and behavior and inferential statistics. There was definitely a lack of that in the linked references above.



All streaming services offer the songs I want to listen to. The recordings are obviously the same. The difference comes down to encode and bit rate, and some here claim that that makes no difference because you can't hear the difference. If that is the case, regardless of what gear and what ears you have, there is no reason to bother with Tidal, Apple Music, Amazon or Qobuz when Spotify is the only service that is compatible across platforms, hardware and has the best usability of them all.

I too like to receive hi-res music in its stated upper limits—but that is just for intellectual honesty from marketing czars. Since my ears cannot hear anywhere approaching 24khz, I like what I read on a audioholics interview with the CEO of Audyssey about why they chose 48khz as their upper limit.

So paraphrasing: no matter how good you think your hearing is, a hardware limit to upper resolutions is contained by the sound allowed from your speakers. It will be under 24khz but just to make sure we chose double that of 48khz as the oversafe sample resolution. .

I liked that logic. Makes me feel comfortable I’m not being cheated by a downsampled hi-res feed.