The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
It's a (usually fiber optic) based audio connection system. It means that jack can produce pure digital output for use with S/PDIF capable devices. Your stereo's amplifier should have a digital S/PDIF jack (it's almost a rectangle) that can take a fiber based cable. You'll need some sort of converter if you go that route but i strongly recommend that you do not.
I recommend you continue to use your laptop's HDMI to your TV (if i understand your setup) but you should consider getting an S/PDIF cable going from your TV to your amp assuming your TV supports it (many do)
I am not sure of the USB2 capabilities - is it a maximum of 192 kbps as I have heard mentioned? If so, the whole thing is a bust.
I have a feeling that this entire thread is outside my domain, being more "listening to the sound" than "listening to the music". I am not qualified to discuss with Audiophiles.
On the technical level: USB2 has a limit of 480 Megabits per second - fully sufficient for HD video, more than 2000 times the 192 kbps you have been hearing about.
Certainly, noone should pretend that USB is free of protocol overhead, no capacity wasted in waiting and negotiations. An application level connection will never obtain an effective application end-to-end performance close to 480 Mbps. But for plain sound, you are orders of magnitude from the bandwith limits. USB is perfectly fine for your use.
What I want is true CD quality - which I am paying for with Idagio+ - but not sure how to get it from the Win7 laptop I am using to the HiFi system without quality loss, which is currently apparent using the DAC built into the laptop.
If the only input to your "HiFi" is RCA, I don't think you should worry too much about any conversion that might take place elsewhere. Or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to do?
The way I read it, it's like someone who wants to put some video on VHS, but is worried about a 4K to 1080p conversion before sending the final thing over as an analog signal...?
The standard also specifies the form of digital audio encoding (2-channel signed 16-bit Linear PCM sampled at 44,100 Hz)
When you talk about 192kbps, are you *sure* it's 192k*bps*, or a 24bit 192kHz DAC converter?
True, CD quality is 704kbps (16bit*44kHz), and the 192kHz 24bit dacs are actually (suppose) to be doing 4608kbps...
But to be honest: the problem with most USB DACs is the quality and price of the interanls and shielding, not really the kbps, as they start typically at 48kHz 16bit DACs (CD and better "quality") but its the other interference that needs to be "handled" that makes their sound quality poor.
Also, "upsampling" isn't necessarily goining to make it sound better from 44kHz going to 192kHz
Maybe you can use a TV DAC, if you are planning to upgrade your TV someday and have the TV in the same room as your audio system.
I used to have one of those cheap hdmi splitters and it is resting in a drawer somewhere. It sounded awful.
Please consider that my amplifier is not a high end one, it is an 1983 AKAI, considered a cheap one in its day, but it packs its own punch
In 2018 I bought a SONY Bravia TV which includes a more than decent audio DAC. Inputs are: network (DLNA/UPNP... wired or wifi), chromecast, hdmi and USB (memory stick or hard disks), probaly also bluetooth. Output is a 3.5 stereo jack in 3 modes (headphone, fixed and variable which is controlled by the volume on remote).
Android TV gives plenty of choice for software, I use the included Chromecast audio receiver controlled by HiFi cast on my phone to play FLACs on my PC, and HDMI for CDs that i put in a blu-ray reader. Streamed FLACs and wired CDs sound so close that I cannot tell the differences.
I compared the Bravia audio out with the one of a Chromecast audio, the Bravia sounds distinctly better.
> is it a maximum of 192 kbps as I have heard mentioned?
The *signal* rate (bits/second) of USB is far better than what's needed for the *encoding* rate (bits/second) of the audio files/streams, especially USB2 which can do 480 Mbps. The *sample* rate (samples/second) of a DAC is multiplied by the bits/sample and number of channels--usually two--of the inputs to get the number of bits/second needed to feed it at the rate for highest quality. For CD audio, this is 1.411 Mbps, which is even achievable by USB1.
> but has lower sound quality, probably due to being a cheaper bit of hardware
Even a "cheap" DAC can do 192 KHz at 24 bits/sample but needs 9.2 Mbps to do that at highest quality.
Mainly what determines sound quality is the weakest component, of course. The analog stage electrical isolation (especially from the power source) tends to have the biggest impact these days, because fewer discrete components are needed in capable designs. A battery-operated device can achieve that isolation very easily. The digital bus (USB, I2S, SPDIF, etc.) can generally be considered equivalent to an audio noise wall, even with relatively cheap cables connecting the system nodes.
Now, the perceptual encoding of Adagio+ is below even the "encoding" rate of CD audio, but it's unlikely you will be able to hear much of a difference between that and a CD. OTOH, if your system--including your ears--can distinguish between CD and SACD rates, then you may need to invest more in a better DAC.
Are you open to buying an audio interface a musician would use, such as a Focusrite Scarlett Solo ? I've not used this particular one, but have been very happy with my Focusrite Clarett 8-mic channel system for recording the California Pops Orchestra. Unfortunately, the rest of the season's concerts have been cancelled.
The Air Force employs 275,000 civilians and contractors.
Their VPN network can only support 72,000 simultaneous connections.
That explains a lot...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
It is also remarkable how clever we are at abusing resources "just because they are there", our senseless expectations and our demand for resources that we do not need at all.
An example of the latter: I've got 16 GB of RAM my home computer. Occasionally, I have seen 8 GB in use. Yet several of my friends claim that they need 32 GB to get the maximum speed out of the machine. I ask to have a look at the RAM load as we are sitting there - it may be in the 4-6 GB range. Yet they insist: If I simultaneously run video editing and a sound editor and my wife's recepie database and ... How often do you? Well, I am saying if I do! ... It has happened that by starting all the big applications they've got on their PC, that they have managed to cross 16 GB, barely. "There you see! I need 32 GB!".
One of my coworkers, a computer guy, was complaining that his computer was sluggish, lots of paging. When he counted his Chrome tabs, there were 120 of them, some of which he hadn't opened for a month. If he restarted Chrome, it would take him a lot of work to set up all the tabs again! But to plug in more RAM he would have to do that anyway. So he restarted Chrome and haven't complained about the speed of his machine since.
Senseless expectations: I was responsible for a build configuration management system, that would set up the right tool and package versions for a build. You could run it interactively on your desktop PC to verify that it was correctly set up. One of my coworkers rejected it completely, it was unbearingly slow. I timed it, with his tool profile (well above a hundre different components); the check took less than two seconds. "But that means I have to wait for it to complete! It should reply immediately, in order to be usable!"
Along the same line: My internet connection is 100 Mbps; I can download a full 4.7 GByte DVD in less than ten minutes. Yet lots of people think a 1 Gbps connection is worth its money, so they can have the download completed in less than one minute. After spending 20 minutes searching the catalog, and I will spend an hour and a half to watch that movie later, I dont give a dime whether the download takes one or ten minutes! That is a certainly not a time-critical, interactive operation! (Besides, to utilize my 100 Mbps connection at a sustained 100 Mbps, I must start at least two large transfers in parallel; few if any server will deliver that speed alone, and I doubt that any server will deliver 1 Gbps to you across a WAN Internet.) Yet you see lots of people complaining about the authorities considering any optical fiber a "broadband" connection: They insist that 100 Mbps is the very minimum speed qualifying as broadband!
I was going to make a silly statement: surely not all of those 275,000 need to be on the network. Then I realized how silly it was. Practically all personnel, regardless of the enterprise, need network access these days.
Example: There's a housing development going up on (what was) my usual route to work. I've noticed a lot of the workers carrying around tablets or phones. The temporary utility stand on the corner has some orange cables coming to it I suspect are fiber optic carrying broadband Internet, and there's a box with a couple antennas that's probably WiFi.
We haven't run out of VPN bandwidth yet where I work, but I've copied a crap-ton of stuff to my home laptop this weekend in case it goes belly-up.
We are handling different kinds of resources: The number of simultaneous VPN connections applies even if each connection transfers a hundred bytes a minute or less - it is a function of the table size, or whatever kind of data structure the VPN software uses to manage the connections. A larger table does not in itself imply a higher bandwidth load.
It is not given that every user needs to be connected through a VPN. E.g. my company provides a lot of documentation through ordinary web pages. Lots of workers may have to look up documentation, or possibly make company database lookups for non-sensitive data, where a simple password/TFA protected login provides enough protection.
I do most of my work through a TFA remote login. Our old VPN couldn't support enough connections to send everybody home, but we had a replacement in the trial phase that was planned to last for another few weeks. They decided to accelerate the move into ordinary operation, and it seems to handle it well, and next week I will start using it. But even if it had failed, I still could do a lot of work through non-VPN channels.
For the bandwidth question: I must say that I am quite impressed by how well the backbone networks handle this! Of course response is sluggish in rush hours, but we have had no major breakdowns, and video connections are still not as jerky as in the ADSL days . Most likely, the providers will learn a lot from this, so they can optimize routing strategies and capacities for the next similar crisis. (E.g. if you do a traceroute, you may be suprised how many hundred miles the packet travels to cross the road. A few years ago, here in Norway every packet that did not have origin and destination with the same ISP went via an Internet Exchange in Oslo, which might be a 3000 km round trip. Today, there are exchanges in a handful towns, but I guess the current experience will give valuable input to new locations where such exchanges can reduce backbone load.)
Last Visit: 12-Jul-20 23:00 Last Update: 12-Jul-20 23:00