Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 6:30:27 GMT
Also works if you are listening in headphones in a noisy environment. I've heard a cd with no compression applied played back on a domestic system, and a reasonably competent one at that. It was a final mix pre-mastering. There was some deep synth bass on one track and I thought the speakers would explode, although disappointingly they didn't. So you've got to have some compression even on a proper rig otherwise you would be always having to turn up the quiet bits and turn down the crescendos. You can have too much dynamic range as well as too little, in other words. I’m reading “too much” there as too much for our system...? Edit...Simply as I’m thinking the “Goldilocks compression range” will vary depending on system. Hence a recording that is “too compressed” (or “threatening-speaker-explosion levels of insufficient compression”) in one system will be just-the-right-amount of compression in another. Also, the implication is that a “better” system will require less compression. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 6:32:28 GMT
Funny how no-one in the world can spot the more relaxed presentation and the wider and deeper soundstage when they don't know if it is hi-rez they are listening to. Given there's no reason for there to be any difference, and given that no-one notices the difference without first being cued to hear them, would you not accept that the probabilities all point to the 'differences' being entirely imaginary? I think it's likely to do with tweaking / remastering. I have no problem accepting your suggestion that it is deliberate manipulation and opportunist marketing. I have no problem with the difference in what I hear being real or imaginary. We shall never know. Imaginary differences might be a bit cheaper though... ;-p |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 21, 2018 6:45:35 GMT
Also works if you are listening in headphones in a noisy environment. I've heard a cd with no compression applied played back on a domestic system, and a reasonably competent one at that. It was a final mix pre-mastering. There was some deep synth bass on one track and I thought the speakers would explode, although disappointingly they didn't. So you've got to have some compression even on a proper rig otherwise you would be always having to turn up the quiet bits and turn down the crescendos. You can have too much dynamic range as well as too little, in other words. I’m reading “too much” there as too much for our system...? Yes. Exploiting a wide dynamic range requires some seriously heavy duty equipment, not domestic hi-fi. And some hearing protection for the peaks. If the sound is clean you won't realise it is at deafening levels. There is no way to realistically exploit the DR that 16 bit gives on playback, let alone 24 bit. Anyone arguing that 24 bit is necessary for playback has no idea of the basics of how digital audio works. Higher bit and sample rates for playback are like fitting a rear spoiler to a Daewoo Matiz. You can see it but it isn't going to give you anything extra performance wise. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 7:02:20 GMT
I’m reading “too much” there as too much for our system...? Yes. Exploiting a wide dynamic range requires some seriously heavy duty equipment, not domestic hi-fi. And some hearing protection for the peaks. If the sound is clean you won't realise it is at deafening levels. There is no way to realistically exploit the DR that 16 bit gives on playback, let alone 24 bit. Anyone arguing that 24 bit is necessary for playback has no idea of the basics of how digital audio works. Higher bit and sample rates for playback are like fitting a rear spoiler to a Daewoo Matiz. You can see it but it isn't going to give you anything extra performance wise. I don’t understand the basics perfectly. Is bit depth just about dynamic range...? I presumed (possibly wrongly) that it was about the quantity of information (eg 8, 16 or 24 bit) per sample (frequency in Hz). The bit depth and the frequency help to determine the bit rate (along with number of channels). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 7:19:09 GMT
Thinking about it, what’s the relationship between data compression (in kbps) and dynamic range compression (in dB)...?
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 21, 2018 7:39:19 GMT
This lecture is pretty good if you have time to watch it
Bit depth determines dynamic range - the difference in level between quietest and loudest possible sound, and the maximum frequency capable of being reproduced is determined by the sampling rate.
All an audio signal is, is variations of frequency and amplitude over time. It's quite a simple signal which is why Edison's cylinder worked and why we can get wonderful sound out of a groove cut into some plastic.
As long as the sampling rate is high enough to reproduce the highest frequency on the recording then you are getting everything, there's no more 'information' to be retrieved. In the case of any recording captured at 44.1 khz digital or on analogue tape you don't need more than 44.1 to replay all the info. You'll capture an FR equal to half the sampling rate so sampling up to 44.1KHz means you will reproduce all frequencies up to 22Khz.
If the recording was made digitally at a higher sampling rate, and the mics used were capable of capturing this then you need a higher sampling rate on playback to reproduce it all. The limiting factor then, aside from the upper limit of FR of the speakers and possibly the amplifier, is your hearing. Since we cannot hear above 20Khz even on a good day, there's no point in sampling at higher than 44.1 for playback.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 8:22:27 GMT
Thinking about it, what’s the relationship between data compression (in kbps) and dynamic range compression (in dB)...? Mark Walter (from Macca’s video) tells us that the relationship is 1 bit (of bit depth) = 6 dB |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 21, 2018 8:29:06 GMT
Data compression is totally unrelated to analogue dynamic range compression I believe. Loads of luverly maths involved in manipulating digits. The 1 bit being 6db I understand being more to do with the noise floor available than actual 'dynamic range' as heard. Most of the music we buy or listen to has a dynamic range of little more than 20db by and large I recall, although the best recordings do this on a slightly sliding scale as that's how our ears supposedly work. Even audible reverb effects aren't much below this I seem to remember.
Red Book CD offers 96db dynamic range and with 'noise shaping' I gather, more than that down to 105db in the sensitive midband. As I've read it, that's so much more than most venues offer and the very best analogue recording sources are no better and may be worse.
Hell, it's times like these I wish I could explain properly. It's out there on the web if anybody can be bothered to read it and not all of it is biased (one recording engineer in the US promoting his hi-res work made a huge issue about CD reproduction of reverb tails being curtailed. Numerous replies came back from other professionals asking how old his workstation was, as this issue was sorted in the mid 80's and was a factor of the editors used rather than the 16 bit system itself which is pretty well inaudible in my experience if not messed with! - and so on and so on.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 8:34:50 GMT
This lecture is pretty good if you have time to watch it Bit depth determines dynamic range - the difference in level between quietest and loudest possible sound, and the maximum frequency capable of being reproduced is determined by the sampling rate. All an audio signal is, is variations of frequency and amplitude over time. It's quite a simple signal which is why Edison's cylinder worked and why we can get wonderful sound out of a groove cut into some plastic. As long as the sampling rate is high enough to reproduce the highest frequency on the recording then you are getting everything, there's no more 'information' to be retrieved. In the case of any recording captured at 44.1 khz digital or on analogue tape you don't need more than 44.1 to replay all the info. You'll capture an FR equal to half the sampling rate so sampling up to 44.1KHz means you will reproduce all frequencies up to 22Khz. If the recording was made digitally at a higher sampling rate, and the mics used were capable of capturing this then you need a higher sampling rate on playback to reproduce it all. The limiting factor then, aside from the upper limit of FR of the speakers and possibly the amplifier, is your hearing. Since we cannot hear above 20Khz even on a good day, there's no point in sampling at higher than 44.1 for playback. Good video. Thanks. He must be a joy to record with! ;-D As you say, his point seemed to be that “hi-res” was, for most releases, an industry con. Historic / analogue / non-Hi-res recordings carry an insufficient amount of information to fill hi-res formats. He stresses that traditional analogue tape has an equivalent maximum “bit depth” of 12 (ie 72dB of dynamic range), and that the additional frequency range of hi-res releases is “all zeros” as there’s nothing up there in the original recordings, But he didn’t poo-poo hi-res per-se. Indeed, he proudly showed off a graph of one of his own recent hi-res digital recordings to show how it did contain information way above 20kHz, and suggested that “maybe you can react differently” to recorded music that extends above 20kHz. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 8:37:45 GMT
Data compression is totally unrelated to analogue dynamic range compression I believe. Loads of luverly maths involved in manipulating digits. The 1 bit being 6db I understand being more to do with the noise floor available than actual 'dynamic range' as heard. Most of the music we buy or listen to has a dynamic range of little more than 20db by and large I recall, although the best recordings do this on a slightly sliding scale as that's how our ears supposedly work. Even audible reverb effects aren't much below this I seem to remember. This is closer to how i’ve intuitively understood it. But I’ve learned not to trust my intuition! But it’s why I asked whether bit depth was *just* about dynamic range. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 21, 2018 8:43:00 GMT
This lecture is pretty good if you have time to watch it Bit depth determines dynamic range - the difference in level between quietest and loudest possible sound, and the maximum frequency capable of being reproduced is determined by the sampling rate. All an audio signal is, is variations of frequency and amplitude over time. It's quite a simple signal which is why Edison's cylinder worked and why we can get wonderful sound out of a groove cut into some plastic. As long as the sampling rate is high enough to reproduce the highest frequency on the recording then you are getting everything, there's no more 'information' to be retrieved. In the case of any recording captured at 44.1 khz digital or on analogue tape you don't need more than 44.1 to replay all the info. You'll capture an FR equal to half the sampling rate so sampling up to 44.1KHz means you will reproduce all frequencies up to 22Khz. If the recording was made digitally at a higher sampling rate, and the mics used were capable of capturing this then you need a higher sampling rate on playback to reproduce it all. The limiting factor then, aside from the upper limit of FR of the speakers and possibly the amplifier, is your hearing. Since we cannot hear above 20Khz even on a good day, there's no point in sampling at higher than 44.1 for playback. But he didn’t poo-poo hi-res per-se. Indeed, he proudly showed off a graph of one of his own recent hi-res digital recordings to show how it did contain information way above 20kHz, and suggested that “maybe you can react differently” to recorded music that extends above 20kHz. That's why I suggested that video since the bloke does not have some irrational bias against hi-rez and he doesn't rant. He tells it like it is but with his own caveats. There's no argument that musical instruments produce frequencies above 22kHz and that we can record them. It is whether or not we can hear them in any way that is the question. There is research being done on whether sounds we don't hear affect sounds we do hear although AFAIK so far there's not been any evidence found to support the theory. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 21, 2018 8:45:27 GMT
Data compression is totally unrelated to analogue dynamic range compression I believe. Loads of luverly maths involved in manipulating digits. The 1 bit being 6db I understand being more to do with the noise floor available than actual 'dynamic range' as heard. Most of the music we buy or listen to has a dynamic range of little more than 20db by and large I recall, although the best recordings do this on a slightly sliding scale as that's how our ears supposedly work. Even audible reverb effects aren't much below this I seem to remember. This is closer to how i’ve intuitively understood it. But I’ve learned not to trust my intuition! But it’s why I asked whether bit depth was *just* about dynamic range. Bit depth is just about dynamic range. if you think about it the higher the noise floor the less dynamic range you will have, and you are quantifying that in dB. It's all the same thing essentially. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 21, 2018 8:50:39 GMT
FM radio in the UK has been 13 bit for decades and brick walled at 15K. Nobody ever complained about the sonics of top live concerts on radio 3 in the past...
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jul 21, 2018 8:57:17 GMT
This is closer to how i’ve intuitively understood it. But I’ve learned not to trust my intuition! But it’s why I asked whether bit depth was *just* about dynamic range. Bit depth is just about dynamic range. if you think about it the higher the noise floor the less dynamic range you will have, and you are quantifying that in dB. It's all the same thing essentially. If that’s right then I have always misunderstood bit depth. I thought it was more about dynamic shading than dynamic range. I thought it simoly a greater amount of possible points of amplitude. A crude analogy but akin to, say, a 24 vs 48 step attenuator. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 21, 2018 9:01:12 GMT
Yes the more bits you have the greater the amplitude you can reproduce. But a lower bit depth does not mean there is anything 'missing' from the range of amplitude you can reproduce. The step attenuator is not a good analogy.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jul 21, 2018 9:09:17 GMT
Yes the more bits you have the greater the amplitude you can reproduce. But a lower bit depth does not mean there is anything 'missing' from the range of amplitude you can reproduce. The step attenuator is not a good analogy. Thanks, Martin. Your first line explains my misunderstanding very clearly. I didn’t think max amplitude increased with bit depth. I simply thought there were more steps in between. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 9:10:31 GMT
Bit depth is just about dynamic range. if you think about it the higher the noise floor the less dynamic range you will have, and you are quantifying that in dB. It's all the same thing essentially. If that’s right then I have always misunderstood bit depth. I thought it was more about dynamic shading than dynamic range. I thought it simoly a greater amount of possible points of amplitude. A crude analogy but akin to, say, a 24 vs 48 step attenuator. That's what I thought too. But in absolute terms apparently, no. 1 bit = 6dB Oh, and apparently adding an extra bit (6dB) allows you to represent a signal twice as big. But I suppose if one is able to rotate the volume knob to equalise the maximum volumes of a 16 and a 24 bit recording, is your attenuator analogy not accurate...? Or would that eliminate any difference...? This imagining has just crept beyond what my brain can easily conceive...!  |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jul 21, 2018 9:15:49 GMT
Glad to hear I’m not alone in misunderstanding. It’s good to have my understanding corrected though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 9:24:32 GMT
Glad to hear I’m not alone in misunderstanding. It’s good to have my understanding corrected though. Indeed. Thanks for your patience and genuine help Macca. As I’ve written elsewhere here, I like it when forum discourse is about establishing clearer understanding, rather than projecting dominance and seeking to humiliate. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 21, 2018 10:20:39 GMT
I only understand the basics of digital. I've tried to go deeper but it gets very technical and a lot of the time it seems to be about getting even more perfect measurements that only really matter as a point of engineering pride, rather than anything we can actually hear as an improvement.
I got into it after accidentally buying some SACDs and being fascinated as to why they sounded so good. Before that did not have a scooby about how digital audio worked except what I'd read in the mags which turned out to be mostly wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 21, 2018 10:30:55 GMT
I only understand the basics of digital. I've tried to go deeper but it gets very technical and a lot of the time it seems to be about getting even more perfect measurements that only really matter as a point of engineering pride, rather than anything we can actually hear as an improvement. I got into it after accidentally buying some SACDs and being fascinated as to why they sounded so good. Before that did not have a scooby about how digital audio worked except what I'd read in the mags which turned out to be mostly wrong. Martin Colloms wondered why SA-CD's often sounded 'better' than vanilla CD's and it turned out the discs i investigated had all been re-mastered again and visibly tweaked with eq to make them sound different-better. SA-CD players have loads of noise between 20 and 50k as well according to many tests over many years I've read and it wouldn't be a surprise if we are reacting subliminally to this, or the tin-can resonances of metal dome tweeters (huge between 25 and 30k in many samples) are being excited by this. I think the whole Hi-Resthing will blow over before too long as many people Spotify (or similar) I think and the data rate is between MP3 and Red Book isn't it now, from memory? |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 21, 2018 13:47:31 GMT
They never made any secret of the re-masterings, it was a selling point. I have a few with a little booklet that tells you in detail what they did.
No-one ever pointed this out in the magazines though. Mastering was never mentioned. It was just 'bin all your cds and your cd player and start over on hi-rez.' All about pushing the latest industry products, as always. Reality takes a back seat. Or doesn't even get in the car.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 17:09:02 GMT
If that’s right then I have always misunderstood bit depth. I thought it was more about dynamic shading than dynamic range. I thought it simoly a greater amount of possible points of amplitude. A crude analogy but akin to, say, a 24 vs 48 step attenuator. That's what I thought too. But in absolute terms apparently, no. 1 bit = 6dB Oh, and apparently adding an extra bit (6dB) allows you to represent a signal twice as big. But I suppose if one is able to rotate the volume knob to equalise the maximum volumes of a 16 and a 24 bit recording, is your attenuator analogy not accurate...? Or would that eliminate any difference...? This imagining has just crept beyond what my brain can easily conceive...! This afternoon I asked via text a digital genius friend of mine the above question. His answer: “Different number of bits or same number but differently allocated?” Confused I said it was clearly a discussion we’d need to have in person, preferably over a pint. :-D |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 21, 2018 22:16:22 GMT
I've read that there are a couple of classical recordings that have a DR that exceeds the capability of 16 bit. I don't know if it is true though.
Whether you can have too much depends on how capable your system is. Most people don't have proper hi-fi system let alone one capable of playing at high SPL at low distortion and handling massive instantaneous peaks in the bass. That's what you need to play a recording with high DR in the way it was intended to be heard.
CD is capable of a higher dynamic range than LP. But LP has a satisfactory dynamic range so that's no big deal. How much they decide to compress it when they master is what matters really. If they compress it a lot it will not sound optimal on a proper hi-fi system.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 22, 2018 7:21:43 GMT
I've read that there are a couple of classical recordings that have a DR that exceeds the capability of 16 bit. I don't know if it is true though. Whether you can have too much depends on how capable your system is. Most people don't have proper hi-fi system let alone one capable of playing at high SPL at low distortion and handling massive instantaneous peaks in the bass. That's what you need to play a recording with high DR in the way it was intended to be heard. CD is capable of a higher dynamic range than LP. But LP has a satisfactory dynamic range so that's no big deal. How much they decide to compress it when they master is what matters really. If they compress it a lot it will not sound optimal on a proper hi-fi system. I agree. Surely though, there are recordings out there which have not been compressed at all. I think that all Demo CDs (from the likes of AIX and Chesky) are all uncompressed.
I'm sure there are but they will be mostly 'audiophile music' and that isn't my sort of thing, although I do listen to jazz sometimes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2018 6:31:27 GMT
You can do that with Spotify, which I did download on my iPad. I would never dream of trying to take that music onto my hifi but I agree listening to stuff you haven’t heard is handy on paper. That said, I looked at it once and it’s never been opened since. A long time ago I tried using a Wadia 170 iPad dock. I had a 160gb iPod and put loads of music on it using Apple lossless. Even this made me lazy and once I started to hit shuffle play my listening dereriorated because it was easier than choosing. The result was that it was more like radio and eventually became background music. Initially it soundef as good as cd (both through a Theta DAC). Over time it revealed itself to be inferior and eventually it became wearing. I genuinely feel streaming will lead many to background music listening because it removes the tactile choice of physical medium. Also the focus on preparing the music to engage with it. It also removes any love of the gear. Liike you, I get irritated by jargon, but I hate the crappy little products more. People are doing backflips over cheap and nasty little chi-if boxes retailing fior tens of pounds and probably costing less than a fiver to make. They won’t be collectible, they won’t last and they won’t be repairable when they fail. Where is the pride of ownership in things like that? As someone who loves the build, design and aesthetics of hifi as much as it’s sound, this irritates me when this stuff comes to dominate forum discussion to the exclusion of proper kit. This is the nub of my frustration. One classic example is a tiny metal case to stick the Raspberry Pi in. It’s doing the rounds of forums and frankly it looks gross to start with. Besides, nothing is going to disguise a Pi. It will never look like a Krell, so i am struggling to see the attraction or the need to discuss it. To me it’s about as interesting as a crochet toilet roll cover. To each his own. I have absolutely no problem with anything people choose to buy and listen to. My rant above was exactly that. An opportunity to let off steam and hopefully alert others to the creeping advance of things that don’t hold a candle build wise to traditional hifi. If forums continue to devote so much space to streaming, it will only help kill off the sort of stuff I’m passionate about. Im all about the gear. I love it and I treasure it’s design, build, aesthetics and ergonomics. It’s this passion that drives me to defend it. Please take my words above in this spirit. They say a picture paints a thousand words, so here’s a contrast between something that interests me and something I’d like to take a hammer to. I’ll leave You to guess which is which.   Late to this thread. I also loathe computers but i have an interest in finding out how good file based playing can be. Will probably be a diy (or as much as possible) side project in the next few years. A very steep learning curve for me though. How about buying a nice looking broken valve amp and shoving a streamer inside  |
|
|
|
Post by pauld on Oct 30, 2018 22:41:40 GMT
Currently listenening to Spotify on my Streamer and it sounds quite fabulous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2019 10:41:55 GMT
As with most things HiFi or computer related there is a massive range of options from dead easy to hair shirt. I used a Squeezebox touch which was fairly simple but still involved a computer and itself had options for lots of stuff. I now use a Chromecast audio which has put the SBT back in its box.
For those that have setup phobia, Spotify through a chrome cast is as easy as getting your phone or tablet onto WiFi.. a dac isn’t needed, but is easy to include. Pride of ownership..... it’s so small I forget it’s there, I’ve seen bigger widgets on interconnect cables, so my prude comes from having spent just £30 compared with the thousands people spend on dedicated streaming kit which is harder to use and doesn’t sound much (if any) better.
Much of the ownership experience of streaming is the software - after all, its the software you interact with to drive it. Good software is expensive to write, and it’s hard to do well. Google is a software company and that expertise shows.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Mar 9, 2019 11:15:06 GMT
I can 'stream' from my upstairs workroom PC to the downstairs laptops, although sending it to the Chromecast Audio is a nightmare and full of glitches. I can't get my phone or tablet to work right either (operator error no doubt) and I can't even start to think of a Top End solution (Melco store-n-stream into a DAC or a Linn/Naim style Top End solution).
I suppose really and pauper that I am, I should have something like a Topping D10 (looks better than a typical Pi...) fed from an old laptop USB feed, but that means a laptop sitting on top of my turntable (another bloody box).
Next academic year, my student son will need to explore some of the software based possibilities a Pi can offer, so no doubt I'd be looking at DAC solutions to attach to it and power supplies an-all (oh grief, all these stuffin' boxes and wires). How the hell i can get my geriatric Nexus tablet to tell it all what to do I'll never know - I'm always last to things like this.
In the meantime, I regularly use the workroom system musically fed from the old computer up there. BBC radio online is tons cleaner than via FM (which takes its feed from the DAB bay processing I'm told) and the little 1TB drive is packed with music files (MP3, FLAC and WAV). I just need to find a cheap reliable and glitch-free way of getting it wirelessly to the downstairs system without it breaking up or crashing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2019 11:26:54 GMT
I can 'stream' from my upstairs workroom PC to the downstairs laptops, although sending it to the Chromecast Audio is a nightmare and full of glitches. I can't get my phone or tablet to work right either (operator error no doubt) and I can't even start to think of a Top End solution (Melco store-n-stream into a DAC or a Linn/Naim style Top End solution). I suppose really and pauper that I am, I should have something like a Topping D10 (looks better than a typical Pi...) fed from an old laptop USB feed, but that means a laptop sitting on top of my turntable (another bloody box). Next academic year, my student son will need to explore some of the software based possibilities a Pi can offer, so no doubt I'd be looking at DAC solutions to attach to it and power supplies an-all (oh grief, all these stuffin' boxes and wires). How the hell i can get my geriatric Nexus tablet to tell it all what to do I'll never know - I'm always last to things like this. In the meantime, I regularly use the workroom system musically fed from the old computer up there. BBC radio online is tons cleaner than via FM (which takes its feed from the DAB bay processing I'm told) and the little 1TB drive is packed with music files (MP3, FLAC and WAV). I just need to find a cheap reliable and glitch-free way of getting it wirelessly to the downstairs system without it breaking up or crashing. Getting wireless to work really has nothing to do with better equipment. I think the issues here are range and/or building layout/construction. Maybe try introducing a wifi booster half way. |
|
