[comzee]

 
Perhaps the A/C adapter is defective, or exceptionally noise line, or some incompatiblity with that specific DAC when both are powered though AC.

Nope, A/C sounds normal. No noise etc. I apologize, I'll clarify, when I say "potato" I don't mean defective or bad. I mean by comparison within the HiFi realm.
 
My chain in Yggdrasil -> Kgsshv Carbon -> Stax 009. With this system I can easily hear nuanced differences upstream in my chain, for example the Chromecast.
 
If your chain isn't good enough to hear the difference, it's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is what it is. The whole chain has to be better then what you're comparing.
If I had the CCA feeding a Modi ($100), and the amp I was using was a Magni ($100), I probably couldn't tell a difference between A/C and battery power for the CCA.
 
There are many electrical components crammed into the CCA. Processor, WiFi, Amp, DAC. It's devices like this, in my opinion, that benefit the most from cleaning up the power. 
 
Most HiFi equipment already have $150+ power supplies, and ample room to design circuits without interference.
 
I'm an Audio skeptic, I believe any cable more expensive then those made by BJC is a scam. I think crap like bybee and offboards are for the poor of mind.
Just so you know where I'm coming from. I have a low post count, I only give impressions I think are real.

 

[Ggroch]

OK, that all makes sense.   I have middle range somewhat better than Modi/Magi stuff and the Chromecast Sounds fine, but sadly my ears are not as Hi-Res as they used to be.  that's my limiting factor.
 
For a $35 device Chromecast sounds surprisingly great, particularly since many users like me us it primarily for streaming Spotify/Tidal. 
 
Sounds surprisingly good considering. 

 

[yay101]

There's a reason good 5 volt PSU schematics are everywhere these days, the raspberry pi/hifiberry output crowd found early on our phone chargers are beyond rubbish and belong on the scrap heap, but they are great at charging phones.

 

[gwompki]

Howdy all.  I've been lurking a long time but this is my first post.
 
I recently got a Chromecast Audio and really enjoy it.  I primarily use it for streaming Spotify, but have also been experimenting with Tidal and Bubbleupnp.  I felt the sound was a bit lacking going directly into my headphone amp (little dot 1+ > senn hd598), so I decided to take the plunge and buy my first external DAC, an SMSL Sanskrit 6th.  I was waiting for a big improvement in sound but cannot discern any difference over the internal DAC.  
 
As an experiment I connected my laptop directly to the input of the Little Dot 1+ to see if there was a difference.  That didn't sound great either as expected.  However, when I connected the laptop to the USB input of the DAC > Little Dot, the difference was huge!  Now I've been switching back and forth between the Chromecast/optical and laptop/USB playing the same track on spotify and the laptop is clearly the winner.  Sound is much fuller, better instrument separation, and overall just much more natural sounding.  The Chromecast sounds way too bright/tinny to my ears, very little punch.  I don't want to say the sound is muddy but it just sounds...inarticulate if that makes sense.  I'm really terrible at describing what I'm hearing, but I know there is definitely a clear difference between the two.
 
Could someone explain to me why that would be the case?  I understood that streaming to a DAC, as long as the source (spotify extreme quality) was identical, the sound should be the same.  It is just bits after all right?  Could the Chromecast and laptop be processing the raw data differently?  It is pretty perplexing to me, but like I said I'm rather new to all of this.  
 
Cheers.

 

[peter123]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Originally Posted by gwompki /img/forum/go_quote.gif
  Howdy all.  I've been lurking a long time but this is my first post.
 
I recently got a Chromecast Audio and really enjoy it.  I primarily use it for streaming Spotify, but have also been experimenting with Tidal and Bubbleupnp.  I felt the sound was a bit lacking going directly into my headphone amp (little dot 1+ > senn hd598), so I decided to take the plunge and buy my first external DAC, an SMSL Sanskrit 6th.  I was waiting for a big improvement in sound but cannot discern any difference over the internal DAC.  
 
As an experiment I connected my laptop directly to the input of the Little Dot 1+ to see if there was a difference.  That didn't sound great either as expected.  However, when I connected the laptop to the USB input of the DAC > Little Dot, the difference was huge!  Now I've been switching back and forth between the Chromecast/optical and laptop/USB playing the same track on spotify and the laptop is clearly the winner.  Sound is much fuller, better instrument separation, and overall just much more natural sounding.  The Chromecast sounds way too bright/tinny to my ears, very little punch.  I don't want to say the sound is muddy but it just sounds...inarticulate if that makes sense.  I'm really terrible at describing what I'm hearing, but I know there is definitely a clear difference between the two.
 
Could someone explain to me why that would be the case?  I understood that streaming to a DAC, as long as the source (spotify extreme quality) was identical, the sound should be the same.  It is just bits after all right?  Could the Chromecast and laptop be processing the raw data differently?  It is pretty perplexing to me, but like I said I'm rather new to all of this.  
 
Cheers.

 

Hmm, I can think of a couple of thigs that might explin it. I'm sure that others can fill in with more.
 
1. Your laptop has some kind of sound "enchancer" turned on and you prefer that sound.
 
2. The DAC has better USB circiut than optical circuit making the sound from USB better. 
 
3. There's something wrong with the optical output on your CCA.
 
4. There's something wrong with you optical cable. 
 
These are actually the only things I can think of causing the difference.

 

[gwompki]

I didn't consider the laptop might be doing something to alter the sound.  I will dig into that.  Thanks!

 

[sonci]

  I didn't consider the laptop might be doing something to alter the sound.  I will dig into that.  Thanks!

Have you enabled full dynamic range in CCA settings?

 

[gwompki]

  Have you enabled full dynamic range in CCA settings?

I do have it enabled, but my understanding is that if you use the optical interface it is enabled by default:
 
https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/6290498?hl=en

 

[gwompki]

Hmm, I can think of a couple of thigs that might explin it. I'm sure that others can fill in with more.

1. Your laptop has some kind of sound "enchancer" turned on and you prefer that sound.

2. The DAC has better USB circiut than optical circuit making the sound from USB better. 

3. There's something wrong with the optical output on your CCA.

4. There's something wrong with you optical cable. 

These are actually the only things I can think of causing the difference.

So it does appear the windows drivers are doing some sort of eq'ing. In the advanced settings there are a few options such as bass boost which appear to be disabled. However the interface seems poorly designed and some of these options actually are enabled. The bass boost is set to +6db by default.

I wonder if the CCA will implement some sort of eq some day. Maybe that would resolve issues I have.

Edit: Looks like there is an open issue on the Googlecast SDK project page requesting an EQ. Issue #705. I would post a link but am not able to If you Google Chromecast Audio Equalizer, that is the first result that pops up

 

[markbrauer]

gwompki,
 
If you want a fuller sound with more bass maybe you should consider different headphones. The HD 5XX series of Sennheisers have always been noted for being somewhat bass light. Back when I had the HD 555 it worked great for chamber music and jazz combos but it really sucked for rock and orchestral. Just sounded thin and whimpy. The 555 also had the ability to highlight any brightness or harshness in the system or recording. I ended up getting the closed-back Audio Technica ATH A700 to use for musical styles that required more "umph". (With the A700, the cello in string quartets sounds bloated and out-of-place. Ditto for the bass in jazz combos.) I still use the A700 and it sounds great straight out of the Chromecast - even better when amped.
 
Keep lurking on Head-Fi, read all the great reviews, and find a phone that does just what you need.

 

[gwompki]

Oh believe me I have definitely considered upgrading my headphones .  I'm not quite ready to give in to upgrade-itis yet though!  I'm really happy with the HD598 via laptop/dac.  Also with my turntable setup the 598's are very satisfactory.  I am a tweaker by nature though and like the ability to change different parameters of all my devices.  The headphone amp has had quite a few tubes and opamps rolled through it.  I built my own phone pre, and have modified it several times.  My turntable has had multiple cartridges on it and i've experimented with various vtf and cartridge alignment.  Etc.  I guess I'm just slightly frustrated because at this point there is nothing I can do to tweak the CCA.  

  If I weren't having the same experience of the CCA through my amp/speakers, I would definitely lean on the headphones as the weak link.  
 
Granted my ears are probably severely damaged from years of playing in punk bands and not wearing ear protection at shows.  Take anything I say about critical listening with a grain of salt.
 
Thanks for the advice on the A700's though, I will definitely look into them.  I know eventually I will breakdown and try a different set of headphones, but want to make sure i'm squeezing all of the performance out of the system that I can before dropping another significant chunk of change.  

 

[Smithington]

Once again, £15 in Curry's in the UK. Remember folks, the CCA is a marked improvement over the headphone amp in most smartphone.

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/digital-and-smart-tv/smart-tv/google-chromecast-audio-10137628-pdt.html

 

[TheCrusher]

I wonder if there has been any consensus about what their "Full Dynamic Range" does?
 
I read the stuff back on page one about "High Dynamic Range" but this leads me to wonder if Google's "Full Dynamic Range" actually means the exact opposite of "High Dynamic Range".  That is, turning ON "Full dynamic range" is really turning OFF HDR.
 
Here's why I think this might be the case:
HDR is really limited dynamic range—the total range is reduced to keep the loud parts quieter.  Given that Google's product derives from a video player, this makes perfect sense—I hate that so many movies are mixed with very loud sound effects and music, and very soft dialogue.  That may be appropriate in a movie theater, or other very loud setting, but for most in-home viewing where the entire house doesn't want to hear the movie, this leaves me turning the volume up for dialogue and down for "the loud stuff".  HDR is the solution that was designed for this exact problem.
 
It would make sense for Google to have HDR on by default in a video entertainment product.  And it would make sense for them to recommend that you turn it off if you are using high-quality audio equipment.  This would be sensible advice for both a home-theater application, as well as hi-fi audio listening, where HDR kills the dynamics that classical musicians (as one example) work so hard to produce.  And these exact scenarios, where HDR should be turned OFF is where they recommend that you turn Full Dynamic Range ON.  The even make FDR ON the default for the digital audio out (i.e. home theater and hi-fi applications).
 
And the literal meaning of "Full Dynamic Range" is that you are not limiting the range, while HDR's job is to limit the range.
 
So between the literal meaning of the terms, and the application of their advice, that's why I think Google's FDR is the opposite of HDR.
 
So has anyone done this test to see which way is up for this setting?  All the discussions I've seen here talk about fuller, brighter, muddier, etc.  But I'm curious if people notice a real difference in absolute volume between the two settings.

 

[markbrauer]

  I wonder if there has been any consensus about what their "Full Dynamic Range" does?
 
I read the stuff back on page one about "High Dynamic Range" but this leads me to wonder if Google's "Full Dynamic Range" actually means the exact opposite of "High Dynamic Range".  That is, turning ON "Full dynamic range" is really turning OFF HDR.
 
Here's why I think this might be the case:
HDR is really limited dynamic range—the total range is reduced to keep the loud parts quieter.  Given that Google's product derives from a video player, this makes perfect sense—I hate that so many movies are mixed with very loud sound effects and music, and very soft dialogue.  That may be appropriate in a movie theater, or other very loud setting, but for most in-home viewing where the entire house doesn't want to hear the movie, this leaves me turning the volume up for dialogue and down for "the loud stuff".  HDR is the solution that was designed for this exact problem.
 
It would make sense for Google to have HDR on by default in a video entertainment product.  And it would make sense for them to recommend that you turn it off if you are using high-quality audio equipment.  This would be sensible advice for both a home-theater application, as well as hi-fi audio listening, where HDR kills the dynamics that classical musicians (as one example) work so hard to produce.  And these exact scenarios, where HDR should be turned OFF is where they recommend that you turn Full Dynamic Range ON.  The even make FDR ON the default for the digital audio out (i.e. home theater and hi-fi applications).
 
And the literal meaning of "Full Dynamic Range" is that you are not limiting the range, while HDR's job is to limit the range.
 
So between the literal meaning of the terms, and the application of their advice, that's why I think Google's FDR is the opposite of HDR.
 
So has anyone done this test to see which way is up for this setting?  All the discussions I've seen here talk about fuller, brighter, muddier, etc.  But I'm curious if people notice a real difference in absolute volume between the two settings.

Please refer to Post #13 in this thread.
 
HDR was the name used for a compression process in a software product marketed a few years ago that DID limit dynamic range. The company seemed to be aiming it at those producing or distributing music, and looking to make things LOUDER. You know - to win the loudness war. I did download the before/after HDR sample files of familiar popular music that the company provided and thought the HDR process ruined the sound of music in all sorts of ways. It was REALLY bad. The unprocessed sample always sounded better.
 
Currently, a company named Designing Sound uses the term HDR to describe their dynamic compression process which seems aimed more at integrating sound loud effects into a movie soundtrack in an intelligent way.
 
I believe that Google just did a poor job of picking the HDR name for the functionality in the Chromecast Audio. Most reviewers/posters seem to agree that the difference with Chromecast HDR on or off is minimal, other than the obvious change in overall volume. Some think that on gives a slightly more dynamic presentation. I feel HDR on is a bit more dynamic but I think the improvement is caused by better synergy with my other equipment when HDR is on. Many think that Google's HDR is just a volume limiter of the type that lets you set levels for your kids so they are less likely to blow out their eardrums.
 
But there is a much simpler answer to the question... all you have to do is listen with it on and then listen with it off - make your own decision about which is better.

 

[Tuco1965]

If you use the SPDIF the setting has no effect.