My primary listening of desi tracks is almost from a paid gaana subscription which I cast from my cheap android tab to a CCA feeding my dac. I was wondering if any CXN v2 owners have compared their Google Chromecast audio performance to a dedicated CCA going into a external dac. Of course the inbuilt dac of the CXN v2 will be better than the inbuilt dac of the CCA. But Iam only looking at possible differences using them as dedicated digital streamers into a external dac. Thanks for feedbacks if any.
Cambridge audio cxn v2 vs CCA
- Thread starter newlash09
- Start date
I have had chromecast audio and ca stream magic and have compared them feeding into external dacs. I preferred stream magic while streaming music from my nas. Yes there is difference while playing flacs. But i doubt you will find a difference playing through gaana app. Btw i moved on to using allo digione which was better than the stream magic at fraction of price. Just you dont get any chromecast audio to cast music from ganna.
Thanks firearm for your reply. Iam actually quiet pleased with the CCA for gaana at the moment. Iam just trying to find if a higher quality playback mode exists for gaana.
Iam running a roon setup for tracks from my Nas , as well as tidal , which sounds decent enough. So was wondering if there is any new tech in the market for gaana
As the reviews suggest, i can say CXN V2 will be a lot better, or can say of a different league when compared to Chromecast. CXN V2 has good sound quality with dual DAC, pretty good display, great looks and many features. Although it is pricey at around 85k, but not that much when compared to other hi-end streamers. Bluesound Node 2i comes second, but lacks slightly in sound quality and has no display. It is cheaper than CXN V2.
There is a little differnce in audio quality even if feeding into same dac. Cxn should be a bit smoother sounding. Better digital sources sound more smooth and refined especially in high frequencies, imo. You will notice it only when you compare two side by side.
Hi...
A few months back, 3 of us forum members embarked on the exact same project to see if we could hear differences in digital transports. We compared a tidal track going from CCA vs the same tidal track going from a metrum Ambre via roon. And we could discern a slight loss in bass quality and texture and bass clarity with the CCA. Trust me it wasn't much, but it was still there. So these things make subtle difference at best in my opinion.
Thanks Amit...the CXN v2 does look lovely to My eyes. And there is no doubt that it's internal dac's are superior to both the bluesound and CCA. However, Iam not sure if it will sound much better than a CCA as dedicated digital streamer going into my present dac. So i was hoping to see if anyone had made that comparison. I already have a decent sounding dac, so won't be needing an extra dac in the CXN v2. And considering the cost of the CXN v2, don't want take a blind leap of faith too. Thanks
Is the CCA connected via optical or analog. I mean to ask is if the DAC of the CCA getting used (if analog) or is the chipset of your DAC getting used (if optical)?
Well, it does make a difference, 0, 1 is not simply 0,1 after all! High-end tuners like Lumin & Aurender produce better SQ overall. Source matters a lot! Because minute differences at the start of the chain, get amplified to produce significant audible differences.
Hi Orez...the chrome cast is connected via optical to the dac. So Iam only using it as a digital streamer to get my gaana fix
Understood. I would be very surprised if CCA as a transport will deteriorate digital signal so much that a DAC with CCA inbuilt vs a CCA as (optical) transport for a DAC standalone would make a difference for most audible range of listening. The comparison would become that of respective DACs.
Am with @raghupb on this. The Digital side is 0 and 1 (assuming all other things like no. of bits etc being same). It is the analog part (and circuit chain) which leads to difference in the sound quality.
D
Deleted member 15865
Guest
This everlasting debate on whether digital medium affects sound quality keeps reminding the philosophical maxim: ‘there is no one truth - your experience is YOUR truth’. A born deaf person could argue there’s nothing called sound and that’s his truth.
Source matters. A good starting point will always end up better than an average starting point even if the rest of the chain is the same. Bad handwriting will remain bad irrespective of which pen or paper it is written on. Yeh, I still try to practice cursive in my daughter's book.
MaSh
MaSh
It’s not about zero and ones only it’s about how they are transmitted in real-time. I have experienced different digital cables also sounding pretty different if your source is good. digital sources have to work at very very low voltages inside which gets amplified by chain of equipment and so small changes like cables or vibration isolation also lead to audible differences.
Well ....
There are multiple transmission paths in the digital domain here.
1. Player/streamer to device via Wired/WiFi (packet based transfer)
2. Device to DAC via optical
Some reasons I can think of for 0s and 1s not being the same is packing and unpacking of packet based transfer.
Vanilla UDP or UDP-Lite are the most common protocols when packetizing media data over the network.
To achieve real time transfer, end points negotiate and handshake on the various parameters.
Packet size and memory buffering being critical amongst others.
The other, as @firearm12 mentions is the physical transport via fiber.
Don't know about vibrations, but voltage levels do matter. The optical transceiver needs to be able to drive perfectly.
There is a wee bit of chance that a weak transceiver may cause ambiguous levels.
How they affect SQ is something I still have to figure out.
Cheers,
Raghu
There are multiple transmission paths in the digital domain here.
1. Player/streamer to device via Wired/WiFi (packet based transfer)
2. Device to DAC via optical
Some reasons I can think of for 0s and 1s not being the same is packing and unpacking of packet based transfer.
Vanilla UDP or UDP-Lite are the most common protocols when packetizing media data over the network.
To achieve real time transfer, end points negotiate and handshake on the various parameters.
Packet size and memory buffering being critical amongst others.
The other, as @firearm12 mentions is the physical transport via fiber.
Don't know about vibrations, but voltage levels do matter. The optical transceiver needs to be able to drive perfectly.
There is a wee bit of chance that a weak transceiver may cause ambiguous levels.
How they affect SQ is something I still have to figure out.
Cheers,
Raghu
Gordon Rankin on why USB audio quality varies | Darko.Audio
Gordon Rankin explains why not all USB audio connections are created equal as John Darko adds an iFi iPurifier 2 to a Sonicorbiter SE.
darko.audio
I don't know whether this very important discussion on usb audio cables has been shared on this forum earlier, it gives us a insight into at how many places even in the digital domain the SQ performance gets affected. Though it focuses mostly on USB audio cables, nevertheless discusses digital media, and its worth reading.
I too believed that USB cables don't matter much until I swapped the lighting to USB stock cable on iPhone connecting to DAC with Audioquest forest. The difference, though subtle, was there and audible. Mine is a pretty humble setupGordon Rankin on why USB audio quality varies | Darko.Audio
Gordon Rankin explains why not all USB audio connections are created equal as John Darko adds an iFi iPurifier 2 to a Sonicorbiter SE.
I don't know whether this very important discussion on usb audio cables has been shared on this forum earlier, it gives us a insight into at how many places even in the digital domain the SQ performance gets affected. Though it focuses mostly on USB audio cables, nevertheless discusses digital media, and its worth reading.
We have really gone deep if we are discussing packets and cables My point was different (CCA via optical cable vs built-in or where differences will reside in DACs when most of them use chipsets from same companies). If we really want to hear significant changes in sound for the better (and not subjective biases like level shifting leading to worse/ better sound or bass feeling better etc.), all things being at a fairly decent quality (Source, equipment etc.), the following "algorithm" should work:
1. Getting Ears cleaned by a doctor (not joking. would have been joking if getting younger to get back hearing levels was mentioned)
2. Getting sound in room sorted (not applicable for Near-field listening). I heard a couple of expensive speakers sets in my house yesterday. The more expensive one by a margin sounded worse by a margin. Am talking of both being Rs.1 lakh + speakers. If I had a smaller bookshelf in Rs.30-40k range, they would have thoroughly beaten the more expensive one and perhaps the other "cheaper" one (because of driver & design differences).
3. Learning about music so that we can "hear" more music. This is the most difficult part but it is similar to any other subject - we can appreciate more if we can understand more about what all is happening. I can still enjoy music and appreciate it, but am sure if I knew more, I would have heard more. This is also akin to hearing bad mixes in good monitors i.e. suddenly realizing that a so-called good FLAC format/ Hi-Res etc format was mixed badly in the first place!
All three above will have more impact than experimenting with parts of a larger system. As it is, in ABX testing, even experts cannot find differences between competent amplifiers with significant price difference, two good file formats etc.
A group of us were listening to some very good active monitors last month in a treated demo room. Even with fast switching through a preamp, none of us could differentiate between a 3" and 5" speaker of the same family. Of course the fact that music was not low bass heavy made a difference, but still....
If the goal is to enjoy experimenting with equipment, all this is moot. If the goal is to enjoy music to the best of one's ability, then it is relevant.
There might be few who can differentiate easily but that will be a minority. Someone I know can still listen as high as 17KHz. On the other hand, the best way for an average person like me to hear more is to learn about music not equipment.
My point was different (CCA via optical cable vs built-in or where differences will reside in DACs when most of them use chipsets from same companies). If we really want to hear significant changes in sound for the better (and not subjective biases like level shifting leading to worse/ better sound or bass feeling better etc.), all things being at a fairly decent quality (Source, equipment etc.), the following "algorithm" should work:1. Getting Ears cleaned by a doctor (not joking. would have been joking if getting younger to get back hearing levels was mentioned
)2. Getting sound in room sorted (not applicable for Near-field listening). I heard a couple of expensive speakers sets in my house yesterday. The more expensive one by a margin sounded worse by a margin. Am talking of both being Rs.1 lakh + speakers. If I had a smaller bookshelf in Rs.30-40k range, they would have thoroughly beaten the more expensive one and perhaps the other "cheaper" one (because of driver & design differences).
3. Learning about music so that we can "hear" more music. This is the most difficult part but it is similar to any other subject - we can appreciate more if we can understand more about what all is happening. I can still enjoy music and appreciate it, but am sure if I knew more, I would have heard more. This is also akin to hearing bad mixes in good monitors i.e. suddenly realizing that a so-called good FLAC format/ Hi-Res etc format was mixed badly in the first place!
All three above will have more impact than experimenting with parts of a larger system. As it is, in ABX testing, even experts cannot find differences between competent amplifiers with significant price difference, two good file formats etc.
A group of us were listening to some very good active monitors last month in a treated demo room. Even with fast switching through a preamp, none of us could differentiate between a 3" and 5" speaker of the same family. Of course the fact that music was not low bass heavy made a difference, but still....
If the goal is to enjoy experimenting with equipment, all this is moot. If the goal is to enjoy music to the best of one's ability, then it is relevant.
There might be few who can differentiate easily but that will be a minority. Someone I know can still listen as high as 17KHz. On the other hand, the best way for an average person like me to hear more is to learn about music not equipment.
For excellent sound that won't break the bank, the 5 Star Award Winning Wharfedale Diamond 12.1 Bookshelf Speakers is the one to consider!
Similar threads
