High Quality Music

Wharfedale EVO4.1 Bookshelf Speakers

pulkittt

New Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
22
Points
3
Location
Delhi
Hi,
Thanks FMs. This forum has been quite helpful. Had a doubt regarding getting the best sound quality from the options below. I use Apple Music, Amazon Music as a source to cast.

1) Chromecast: I have a Chromecast plugged in to my AVR (Onkyo TX NR676)

2) Inbuilt Audio Chromecast: There is an inbuilt audio Chromecast on my AVR.

3) Any other solution to get best sound quality like external DAC.

From above 3 options, which option would provide the best sound quality to my speakers connected to the AVR.

Am I using the right way to listen to high quality songs. Is there a better way. Given that Apple Music will soon launch the lossless/spatial tracks, just wanted to ensure I am ready to experience the best quality sound.

Thanks
 

manav24

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2017
Messages
379
Points
43
Location
Haryana
External Dac will always sound much much better than inbuilt Dac in a low cost AVR, you can use a RPI to stream music to Dac and Via RCA to Avr.
 

chander

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
655
Points
93
Location
Goa
If this is a curiosity based question - then in most cases the external DAC will almost always sound better compared to a chromecast and better than most AVRs too, how much, that you will have to judge by yourself.

However, if you want something particular from your system that you feel you aren't getting you should elaborate a little on that. I believe Chromecast could do 96/24 but I do not have one anymore and can't confirm.
 

pulkittt

New Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
22
Points
3
Location
Delhi
If this is a curiosity based question - then in most cases the external DAC will almost always sound better compared to a chromecast and better than most AVRs too, how much, that you will have to judge by yourself.

However, if you want something particular from your system that you feel you aren't getting you should elaborate a little on that. I believe Chromecast could do 96/24 but I do not have one anymore and can't confirm.
I wanted to check how other members listen to high quality music.
1) Via Apps like TIDAL: Do people cast tidal via Chromecast or is there a better way to listen to high quality music from a streaming service. In other words can Chromecast handle high quality music and give a high quality output.
2) Other sources: What are the other sources for high quality music. Possibly a question for another forum.
 

chander

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
655
Points
93
Location
Goa
There are a few ongoing discussions about Tidal and Apple music lossless and another on streamers. You should check those out, lots of great knowledge shared over weeks by many FMs, which will be impossible to summarise here.
 

Amitdubey

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
Messages
115
Points
28
Location
India
Hi,
Thanks FMs. This forum has been quite helpful. Had a doubt regarding getting the best sound quality from the options below. I use Apple Music, Amazon Music as a source to cast.

1) Chromecast: I have a Chromecast plugged in to my AVR (Onkyo TX NR676)

2) Inbuilt Audio Chromecast: There is an inbuilt audio Chromecast on my AVR.

3) Any other solution to get best sound quality like external DAC.

From above 3 options, which option would provide the best sound quality to my speakers connected to the AVR.

Am I using the right way to listen to high quality songs. Is there a better way. Given that Apple Music will soon launch the lossless/spatial tracks, just wanted to ensure I am ready to experience the best quality sound.

Thanks
Unless you make a quantum jump on the external dac front, price and performance wise... Don't bother with an external dac. Your amp would have a better synergy between the pre amp, power amp, the dac power stage making it a more coherent option than something external and pairing it. DAC ought to be the last place to look to make big gains in the entire audio chain. If you still want to experiment, get a 10k topping, schiit amp that won't break the bank. If you have a warm amp, get a neutral cooler sounding dac. If you have a neutral, cooler amp(which I doubt in av receivers) get a warm dac to ensure they neutralise each other
 

matazooma

Active Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
191
Points
28
Location
Bangalore
If you want to listen to music then I suggest not to use AVR for it and rather invest in a budget stereo amplifier like marantz pm 5005/ 6006 or even Norge amplifiers - 2060/ 1000. These will be miles ahead in sound quality than even expensive AVRs. On top of this if you can add a budget DAC like topping/ schiit will result in even better should quality.

I had started with AVR marantz 1509, then got Norge 1000 for stereo, then upgraded to pm6006 + schiit modi 3 and now finally settled with Audiolab 6000a.
 

Amitdubey

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
Messages
115
Points
28
Location
India
Hi,
Thanks FMs. This forum has been quite helpful. Had a doubt regarding getting the best sound quality from the options below. I use Apple Music, Amazon Music as a source to cast.

1) Chromecast: I have a Chromecast plugged in to my AVR (Onkyo TX NR676)

2) Inbuilt Audio Chromecast: There is an inbuilt audio Chromecast on my AVR.

3) Any other solution to get best sound quality like external DAC.

From above 3 options, which option would provide the best sound quality to my speakers connected to the AVR.

Am I using the right way to listen to high quality songs. Is there a better way. Given that Apple Music will soon launch the lossless/spatial tracks, just wanted to ensure I am ready to experience the best quality sound.

Thanks
Sorry, I don't agree that two channel are always better as being recommended here. If you are into movies and music, and already have a good AV receiver that measures well.. That's all you need within a budget. I have Denon x3600h and it's is a very fine sounding av receiver on which music sounds good.

Don't believe everything so called purists say and just trust your ears. Two channel dedicated everything.. is the biggest propaganda in hifi. There are more expensive two channel amps that sound dull and not engaging as well. So can't generalise anything
 
D

Deleted member 15865

Guest
Sorry, I don't agree that two channel are always better as being recommended here.

Don't believe everything so called purists say and just trust your ears. Two channel dedicated everything.. is the biggest propaganda in hifi.
Decathlon is a combined athletic event composed of 10 individual track and field events. It is a testimony to the all-round ability of a decathlete. However, the world records by decathletes in each of those track and field event (as part of the decathlon) are significantly lower than the world records in those respective individual events. For example, Damien Warner’s decathlon WR for 100 m is 10.12 s vs. Usain Bolt’s 100 m WR of 9.58 s.

Across the 10 events, this disparity ranges from 4.4% (110 m hurdles) to 25% (shot put). Average disparity across the 10 events between WRs by decathletes and event athletes is 16%. And that’s significant because the disparity between world record and college level athlete’s performance itself would be not more than say 30%.

All-rounders at a given level would obviously be trounced by specialists in their field of specialisation at that level. All-rounders are still highly valued for their versatility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Haribabu

Active Member
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
197
Points
43
Location
Hyderabad
If you want to listen to music then I suggest not to use AVR for it and rather invest in a budget stereo amplifier like marantz pm 5005/ 6006 or even Norge amplifiers - 2060/ 1000. These will be miles ahead in sound quality than even expensive AVRs. On top of this if you can add a budget DAC like topping/ schiit will result in even better should quality.

I had started with AVR marantz 1509, then got Norge 1000 for stereo, then upgraded to pm6006 + schiit modi 3 and now finally settled with Audiolab 6000a.
Nice, What speakers paired with AL6000A?
 

ssf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
1,285
Points
113
Location
Mangalore
For example, Damien Warner’s decathlon WR for 100 m is 10.12 s vs. Usain Bolt’s 100 m WR of 9.58 s.
That is a difference of .14 seconds (a decrease of 1.38%). Not a difference of day and night or miles ahead etc. as is thrown around in the forum. Very few will be able to tell the difference between two channel music played on a Marantz 7010 in pure direct and played on a dedicated stereo amp like the PM5xxx or PM6xxx series if played level matched and below distortion levels.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 15865

Guest
That is a difference of .14 seconds. Not a difference of day and night or miles ahead etc. as is thrown around in the forum.
That’s a difference of 0.54 secs, not 0.14 secs. As far as 100 m sprint goes, that’s indeed miles ahead! Top athletes spend entire professional careers bringing about that amount of improvement in their performance.

Very few will be able to tell the difference between two channel music played on a Marantz 7010 in pure direct and played on a dedicated stereo amp like the PM5xxx or PM6xxx series if played level matched and below distortion levels.
And I assume most members have (or aim to develop) that listening acuity. Audiophiles spend lacs to get subtle improvements which most other listeners won’t decipher, but matters a great deal to them.
 

ssf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
1,285
Points
113
Location
Mangalore
That’s a difference of 0.54 secs, not 0.14 secs. As far as 100 m sprint goes, that’s indeed miles ahead! Top athletes spend entire professional careers bringing about that amount of improvement in their performance.


And I assume most members have (or aim to develop) that listening acuity. Audiophiles spend lacs to get subtle improvements which most other listeners won’t decipher, but matters a great deal to them.
Difference in 60 not 100 as in 60 seconds per minute.

I agree to the statement that Audiophiles spend lacks to get subtle improvements. But, telling a beginner to spend lakhs on something that he cannot hear is in my view, avoidable.
 

chander

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
655
Points
93
Location
Goa
@ssf & @SachinChavan - I might be completely wrong but - the 100 mtr sprint (and I believe most sprint events) - use Centiseconds or 1/100th of a second. So for example the second fastest sprint record is Tyson Gay @9.69 not 10.09 for example. So as the case is here - the difference between Bolt & Warner would be 54 centiseconds or around .5 Seconds. I understand it sounds ridiculously low - however - if you look at the difference between Bolt and Gay it is only 11 centiseconds which makes it even more ridiculous. To put things in perspective an average blink of an eye lasts around 33 centiseconds :).

Either way - this is a huge difference as far as 100Mtr sprint is considered. My personal record for 100 mtr sprint in school events and training was 11.20. I tried to better that for 2 years, with specific exercises and drills, I never managed to shave off that .21 to go under 11 (which is still faster than the blink of an eye) :)

***Anyone who knows better please correct me :).
 

ssf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
1,285
Points
113
Location
Mangalore
@chander
As this will be OT, I will try to keep it short. Great to hear that you are an athlete. I am a sportsman too but in a different field.

Although I have no idea about measurements being used in sprint events, I would think that they would be using the centiseconds as these athletes are so close with regard to performance that seconds might not be a good enough measure to record the difference. Amazing :)
 
D

Deleted member 15865

Guest
Difference in 60 not 100 as in 60 seconds per minute.
No! Those figures are measured in centiseconds (1/100th) and not 1/60th. So difference between the two is much larger than what you think.

Here‘s the progression of hundred metres record over the years. It’s all in 1/100th of second. See the records since 1977 table. The world’s best in hundred metres even half a century ago was faster than the decathletes’ hundred meter current world record. Now think how much effort and money has gone Into this evolution over this long period - that 0.5 sec improvement is the net result of it all. So, it’s very very significant.

 

ssf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
1,285
Points
113
Location
Mangalore
@SachinChavan

This is going OT. Your example of the sprint was indeed a good one but discussions on the timings and seconds and centiseconds are no longer meaningful to this thread.

I get your point that audiophiles are always striving for better sound. I have no issues with that. I have expressed my view in an earlier post which I am not going to repeat.

Let us withdraw and let the thread continue. Maybe a spar on a nother thread on a nother day :)
 

ssf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
1,285
Points
113
Location
Mangalore
I might be completely wrong but - the 100 mtr sprint (and I believe most sprint events) - use Centiseconds or 1/100th of a second.
No! Those figures are measured in centiseconds (1/100th) and not 1/60th.
Difference in 60 not 100 as in 60 seconds per minute.

I was doing a normal deduction of time and arrived at 0.14. As the above posts by @chander and @SachinChavan suggests, the difference is actually 0.5 seconds which is very very close. Learnt something new today. Thanks Chander and Sachin. :)

Now, back to the thread. Sorry for the OT.
 

Amitdubey

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
Messages
115
Points
28
Location
India
Its exactly this high headedness, which creates entry barriers for beginners on a budget to get into this hobby. So someone has done the homework, shortlisted gear within their budget and vetting it with this community and what do we do?

We overwhelm the chap with conflicting views, dishing out everything in our heads not only about audio but everything else under the sun, with overly strong generalised beliefs, biases, idolising stupid audiophiles spending lakhs for miniscule decimal increments of perceived improvement of sound.

OP, Forgive my brethren. They know not what they do, who they do it to, why they do it..but they mean well
Trust me... You will be fine with your shortlisted gear. The best gear for you is what you have heard and liked. Remember an av receiver half the price of a two channel amp could sound better to you and vice versa. And what sounds good in your actual living space, only time will tell. There are no hard and fast rules in this hobby. Yes, there are guidelines. Also my first amp was an onkyo(sweet little thing).

In built chromecast might sound a tad better due to its implementation compared to CCA connected optically. Don't bother about external dac at this stage. Get started, get going, enjoy this journey.. Happy listening! And don't forget to share your experience.
 
Top