[ComputerTime]

Hi,

I am looking for a wireless receiver so that I can play the music from my handphone and output through my Stereo amp.

I understand that connection via WIFI is preferred due to its speed and bandwidth. However, I still have the following questions:
1) Where is the DAC? Is the DAC done on my handphone or the receiver?
i) If the DAC is done at the handphone, then isn't the output is the same regardless of the medium? i.e. should the sound quality be the same via bluetooth or WIFI?
ii) If the DAC is done at the receiver, how further compression for bluetooth is being carried out since it is transmitting the raw data?
2) I saw AudioCast is cheaply available over the internet. Is there any different in sound quality with those of branded WIFI receiver that cost hundreds of dollars?

Regards.

 

[PurpleAngel]

If the wiressless receiver is connected to the stereo amp using an analog connection, then the wireless receiver is the one providing the DAC function and do the handphone transmitting the wireless signal is not using it's DAC function.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

I am looking for a wireless receiver so that I can play the music from my handphone and output through my Stereo amp.

I understand that connection via WIFI is preferred due to its speed and bandwidth. However, I still have the following questions:
1) Where is the DAC? Is the DAC done on my handphone or the receiver?

If you're using WiFi then the phone sends out a digital signal. So the DAC that will be used is not the one on the phone.

Whether the DAC will be on the wireless receiver or after it will depend on how you connect them as some receivers have digital output. If you use the analogue output into an integrated amp then obviously you'd be using the wireless receiver's DAC; if you're using the wireless receiver to send a digital signal to a stereo receiver that has an SPDIF input then you're using the stereo receiver's DAC.

ii) If the DAC is done at the receiver, how further compression for bluetooth is being carried out since it is transmitting the raw data?

Not sure I understand your question. The BT compression will be done by the smartphone, the wireless receiver received a compressed signal, no further compression will be done as that compressed signal was already transmitted and will then be decoded.

2) I saw AudioCast is cheaply available over the internet. Is there any different in sound quality with those of branded WIFI receiver that cost hundreds of dollars?

Analogue output of better receivers might be a cleaner 2V line signal, ie, louder but probably cleaner. Other than that as long as wireless protocol is the same then no.

 

[ComputerTime]

Thanks, PurpleAngel and ProtegeManiac.

My stereo amp has no optical/coxial input, therefore, everything will be decoded at the source device.

Not sure I understand your question. The BT compression will be done by the smartphone, the wireless receiver received a compressed signal, no further compression will be done as that compressed signal was already transmitted and will then be decoded.

This is the portion that I like to understand more.

If I am streaming MP3 via BT, how the smartphone further compress the source since MP3 is already compressed? Am I correct to say that the smartphone will decode the MP3 and then further compress the song for BT transmission? I.e. there will be addition decoding-encoding-decoding step if transmitted via BT?

 

[ProtegeManiac]

My stereo amp has no optical/coxial input, therefore, everything will be decoded at the source device.

If you're streaming to the wireless receiver then the source device, like a smartphone, wil lsend out a digital signal. There is no Digital to Analogue Conversion going on at that point. The wireless receiver receives a digital signal, and then either sends it out via SPDIF digital, or as in your case, it will have to do the Digital to Analogue Conversion.

In short, it's not your source device's DAC that will be used, but the wireless receiver's.

This is the portion that I like to understand more.

If I am streaming MP3 via BT, how the smartphone further compress the source since MP3 is already compressed? Am I correct to say that the smartphone will decode the MP3 and then further compress the song for BT transmission? I.e. there will be addition decoding-encoding-decoding step if transmitted via BT?

That depends on the file compression and BT protocol. If you're using BT 4.0 Apt X on 320kbps, no compression is necessary.; if you use FLAC, it will need to perform compression using the smartphone's CPU to process it (same way you rip CDs and the WAV to FLAC or MP3 conversion is handled by a computer's CPU). If you're not using Apt-X then anything 320kbps, lossless, and WAV will all have to go through some kind of conversion.

If you use WiFi with software that can handle FLAC WiFi streaming, then no, there's no conversion necessary.

If you're going to use lossless files anyway and can spend on more expensive gear then might as well get a music server that can access a harddrive array in your home network. It holds more than a smartphone, even more than an Android with a microSD card slot, because hard drives. Mechanical noise on the drives and the fan on the enclosure isn't a problem if they're in another room. It's still convenient to use though since you can download a remote app for most music servers, that way instead of a screen that is barely any more evolved than what CDPs use, you get to use the smartphone as the interface, with the same kind of content browsing as if the files were locally stored on the smartphone (albeit slightly slower).

 

[huilun02]

Hi,

I am looking for a wireless receiver so that I can play the music from my handphone and output through my Stereo amp.

I understand that connection via WIFI is preferred due to its speed and bandwidth. However, I still have the following questions:
1) Where is the DAC? Is the DAC done on my handphone or the receiver?
i) If the DAC is done at the handphone, then isn't the output is the same regardless of the medium? i.e. should the sound quality be the same via bluetooth or WIFI?
ii) If the DAC is done at the receiver, how further compression for bluetooth is being carried out since it is transmitting the raw data?
2) I saw AudioCast is cheaply available over the internet. Is there any different in sound quality with those of branded WIFI receiver that cost hundreds of dollars?

Regards.

Hey I'm also in SG
I highly recommend the SMSL B1 Bluetooth audio receiver
Supports Bluetooth 4.2 aptX low latency connection

The DAC is in the unit. Has standard outputs RCA, Coaxial, Optical
On top of that, 3.5mm headphone output at 32 Ohms, 65mW
Has NFC reader in it, so you can instantly pair with your phone if it has NFC
And best of all, it has an 800mAh rechargeable internal battery so it keeps giving you music when you take it to places without a power source
The whole unit is small and durable. The short antenna can be rotated in line with the body for easy transportation. It is detachable.
You can run/charge it off a regular powerbank.

DAC used is the Wolfson WM8524G
24bit sampling rate 48kHz over optical/coaxial
DAC SNR: 93dB
Headphone Amp SNR: 96dB
No volume control over RCA

And by the way even with aptX or aptX HD, the digital signal will be compressed before transmission, and then uncompressed at the receiver. This will result in some loss. But without some serious expensive equipment or turning the volume up super high, you probably wont discern any difference in sound quality.

The SMSL B1 is not available in SG I believe. I bought mine from Amazon US.
Bought mine only ~2 weeks ago. Did my research and it seems there is no wifi based solution that works without significant delay.

 

[ComputerTime]

If you're streaming to the wireless receiver then the source device, like a smartphone, wil lsend out a digital signal. There is no Digital to Analogue Conversion going on at that point. The wireless receiver receives a digital signal, and then either sends it out via SPDIF digital, or as in your case, it will have to do the Digital to Analogue Conversion.

In short, it's not your source device's DAC that will be used, but the wireless receiver's.

Thanks for the correction. What I meant is the source of connection to the integrated AMP.

That depends on the file compression and BT protocol. If you're using BT 4.0 Apt X on 320kbps, no compression is necessary.; if you use FLAC, it will need to perform compression using the smartphone's CPU to process it (same way you rip CDs and the WAV to FLAC or MP3 conversion is handled by a computer's CPU). If you're not using Apt-X then anything 320kbps, lossless, and WAV will all have to go through some kind of conversion.

If you use WiFi with software that can handle FLAC WiFi streaming, then no, there's no conversion necessary.

If you're going to use lossless files anyway and can spend on more expensive gear then might as well get a music server that can access a harddrive array in your home network. It holds more than a smartphone, even more than an Android with a microSD card slot, because hard drives. Mechanical noise on the drives and the fan on the enclosure isn't a problem if they're in another room. It's still convenient to use though since you can download a remote app for most music servers, that way instead of a screen that is barely any more evolved than what CDPs use, you get to use the smartphone as the interface, with the same kind of content browsing as if the files were locally stored on the smartphone (albeit slightly slower).

Am I correct to say that if the MP3 is having a bitrate of 320kbps or lesser, then no recompression will be done, otherwise, there will be a compression down to 320kbps?

With regards to the media server, I already has a NAS, and hence, what I need is the connection (wired or wireless) to my Integrate AMP. So, eventually, I am looking forward to playing from my NAS, instead of my handphone.

Hey I'm also in SG
I highly recommend the SMSL B1 Bluetooth audio receiver
Supports Bluetooth 4.2 aptX low latency connection
......
The SMSL B1 is not available in SG I believe. I bought mine from Amazon US.
Bought mine only ~2 weeks ago. Did my research and it seems there is no wifi based solution that works without significant delay.

Thanks for your suggestion, as mention above, I am looking for playing music from my NAS, therefore, a WIFI receiver will be applicable for me. Having said that, can you explain "there is no wifi based solution that works without significant delay."?

 

[huilun02]

Thanks for your suggestion, as mention above, I am looking for playing music from my NAS, therefore, a WIFI receiver will be applicable for me. Having said that, can you explain "there is no wifi based solution that works without significant delay."?

It means that if you have a setup to passively stream to your stereo amp over wifi, with the playback controls being on the transmitter (your phone or NAS), there is going to be a significant delay in response when you start/pause or adjust volume.
Thats the downside of streaming over wifi. Although you don't lose out audio quality as the raw digital form can be sent over wifi without any loss. For just audio it could be a non-issue.
But if say you want to watch a movie on your phone with the sound coming from your stereo amp, the wifi delay is going to butcher lip sync.

With a Bluetooth solution, there will be negligible delay in response. But transmission over regular Bluetooth (A2DP) or aptX is going to result in lower bit rate audio going to your stereo amp as explained earlier.
Bluetooth also has the issue of shorter range. If the receiver is not in the same room as the transmitter, dont use Bluetooth.

Maybe you can tell us how far away your amp is from the NAS, and if its in the same room. And how you intend to control playback from your phone.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

Am I correct to say that if the MP3 is having a bitrate of 320kbps or lesser, then no recompression will be done, otherwise, there will be a compression down to 320kbps?

If Apt-X the compression will be somewhat equivelent down to 320kbps. Slightly better, yes, but not completely just the same file size.

If not Apt-X then it will be a little bit lower than 320kbps.

With regards to the media server, I already has a NAS, and hence, what I need is the connection (wired or wireless) to my Integrate AMP. So, eventually, I am looking forward to playing from my NAS, instead of my handphone.
---
Thanks for your suggestion, as mention above, I am looking for playing music from my NAS, therefore, a WIFI receiver will be applicable for me. Having said that, can you explain "there is no wifi based solution that works without significant delay."?

Home music servers are designed precisely to work with a Network Attached Storage drive. You hook it up to your home network in order to access the NAS via LAN cable or a wireless antennae, then use either its DAC and output stage to send an analogue signal to your amp, or digital audio to a DAC or DAC-HPamp or stereo/HT receiver. Since the device is on the network and isn't just a simple signal receiver, and with its own small low power CPU and player software, you can then use a smartphone app to control that player.

For example you can get a Marantz NA 7004 which is practically the DAC board of of the CD6005 or something but instead of an optical disc transport it gets connectivity options like USB and (W)LAN.

 

[ComputerTime]

Thanks for the pointer.

My NAS is already hooked up to my router via LAN cable, and my family WIFI should not be congested, only a few devices in connection. Therefore, I don't think the lapse in control will be a big issue.

With regards to the Marantz NA 7004, I think it is way beyond my budget, $700+. In addition, I have a space constrain at my TV console. Thus, I am looking for something small, either audiocast M5 or soundmate M2 to serve my purpose.

Coincidentally, I have been using PM5003 for past 8-9years. It has been working great so far, and hope to expand the connection.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

My NAS is already hooked up to my router via LAN cable, and my family WIFI should not be congested, only a few devices in connection. Therefore, I don't think the lapse in control will be a big issue.

With regards to the Marantz NA 7004, I think it is way beyond my budget, $700+. In addition, I have a space constrain at my TV console. Thus, I am looking for something small, either audiocast M5 or soundmate M2 to serve my purpose.

Coincidentally, I have been using PM5003 for past 8-9years. It has been working great so far, and hope to expand the connection.

Well it only came up since you asked about the more expensive stuff, and additionally if you didn't have a NAS yet but can fit all your files into a single desktop back up drive, these music servers can also work with a USB drive.

 

[ComputerTime]

haha, true.

I have always been wondering what is the different in sound quality since the price different is so huge. Especially, this component can have such a drastic range in price. Anyway, I know all these sound quality are very subjective, and its also depend on the hifi components, amp, wire to the speaker.

Thanks for your patient and explanation. I really understand a lot.

 

[Digital Veil]

Have you looked into a Chromecast Audio? Super simple/cheap solution if you want to stream via wifi. Pair it with a cheap dac (topping d30) and youre set for ~$150.

 

[ComputerTime]

Have you looked into a Chromecast Audio? Super simple/cheap solution if you want to stream via wifi. Pair it with a cheap dac (topping d30) and youre set for ~$150.

I thought Chromecast Audio already has DAC? Why need another DAC?

 

[huilun02]

Have you looked into a Chromecast Audio? Super simple/cheap solution if you want to stream via wifi. Pair it with a cheap dac (topping d30) and youre set for ~$150.

I thought Chromecast Audio already has DAC? Why need another DAC?

Stereo amps typically dont accept 3.5mm but he can get a 3.5mm to RCA cable
Although I have no idea of the DAC quality in the Chromecast