Wifi in Hifi

[Samd]

Given that wifi in most (?) homes is becoming standard fare and, that wifi is lossless, why are we not seeing wifi in more applications in mainstream hifi deployment?

1. Active speakers need power but could be wirelessly connected.

2. I have my CXN and Oppo BD next to the arm of my chair for convenience in operation but with 12m connectors - wireless to the amp? etc etc

Is it cos we just love cables and we'd have nowt to argue about?

 

[hybridauth_Facebook_100004211376004]

Wouldn't everything need it's own separate band width to be controlled remotely....I'm pretty sure also that your Internet speed would drop dramatically if all was connected wirelessly and then you'd have bother with dropouts etc....and in the end nothing working properly.

 

[Samd]

Wouldn't everything need it's own separate band width to be controlled remotely....I'm pretty sure also that your Internet speed would drop dramatically if all was connected wirelessly and then you'd have bother with dropouts etc....and in the end nothing working properly.

It would have no effect on internet unless streaming using the internet which would need same bandwidth as you currently use. Most (all?) wireless networks operate independently of the internet connection and flac, for example would only need around 4mbps which in today's world is 'peanuts'. My wifi throughout the house is over 30mbps. You only need 15mbps for 4k video streaming.

 

[davidf]

Some manufacturers highly recommend physically connecting streaming products - this removes the problem of people automatically accusing the product they're using when drop outs and other issues start happening. If you're getting issues when wired, it's generally a network problem.

There's a surprising number of wireless products around the average family household nowadays, possibly between 10-20 products. Hell, even some fridges have wireless. Add all these up, plus the possibility of interference from next door's wireless products, and I think you can see why many manufacturers highly recommend a cabled internet connection. In my system, my Bluray player, my TV, and games consoles can all be wirelessly connected, but I avoid that - everything is cabled.

 

[iMark]

We have been using WiFi in the form of AirPlay for years. We started with an Airport Express to stream music from a Mac to the stereo. That Airport Express now receives in a secondary system. The main system now has built-in AirPlay.

If the WiFi in your home is up to scratch, it's definitely worth considering. We can even do multiroom on the cheap with AirPlay.

It's interesting that no other manufacturers have come up with a similar lossless (or even high resolution) option. Everything seems to be Bluetooth now, which is not lossless. For us lossless CD quality over WiFi is more than good enough. Streamed music sounds great through the Yamaha R-N602. The Airport Express with the secondary system (a 15 year old Sony micro system) is still going strong and is great for streaming using an iPhone or an iPad (or a Mac).

 

[Samd]

Some manufacturers highly recommend physically connecting streaming products - this removes the problem of people automatically accusing the product they're using when drop outs and other issues start happening. If you're getting issues when wired, it's generally a network problem.

There's a surprising number of wireless products around the average family household nowadays, possibly between 10-20 products. Hell, even some fridges have wireless. Add all these up, plus the possibility of interference from next door's wireless products, and I think you can see why many manufacturers highly recommend a cabled internet connection. In my system, my Bluray player, my TV, and games consoles can all be wirelessly connected, but I avoid that - everything is cabled.

I am not talking about your connection to the internet, rather is it the inter-connects, in the main to the amp/AVR. Apart from your games console if you play on line, all the products you mention are in terms of receiving either firmware upgrades or streaming content. If you wish to cable those, that's fine and dandy but I am talking about the connection (in your examples) between those items and the amp and onwards where we spend significant amounts of hard-earned on connectors & cables etc.

I think you and I had a one post each discussion a few weeks ago, where I mentioned that all my flacs are on, inter alia, SD Cards and I use my tablet to 'send' audio to CXN and thence via 12m RCA to the avr. What a waste of a cable.

 

[BigH]

I don't think wifi is that reliable, mine certainly is not compared to my computer, it's slow and does lose connection etc. Many people do use iphoes/ipads to play their music, there are quite a few devices now you can use such as Chromecast, AEX etc. Problem is technogoly changes so putting something in an amp or active speakers maybe obsolette in a few years time. One company was producing wireless speakers but not sure they ever got to market.

 

[newlash09]

One dedicated just for hifi. Should reduce dropouts drastically I think...

 

[MajorFubar]

No reason why wireless wouldn't work between two digital devices, but obviously not for analogue. There would be no point in improving eg your CD player because the benefits of its better DAC and analogue circuitry would be lost, because to use wireless it would have to connect to the amp via wifi so the amp would do the D-A conversion all the time. Mind you, to a certain extent in my case you're preaching to the already converted: discounting my turntable which is very much a secondary source, the only analogue connection in my system is the phono cable linking my two active speakers together.

 

[Strictly Stereo]

Given that wifi in most (?) homes is becoming standard fare and, that wifi is lossless, why are we not seeing wifi in more applications in mainstream hifi deployment?

1. Active speakers need power but could be wirelessly connected.

2. I have my CXN and Oppo BD next to the arm of my chair for convenience in operation but with 12m connectors - wireless to the amp? etc etc

Is it cos we just love cables and we'd have nowt to argue about?

We have quite a few products which offer a choice of WiFi or wired Ethernet connections. It is pretty much standard on streamers these days, but quite rare on servers. The rationale here is that a server might need to support multiple concurrent streams, which is easy to do with wired Ethernet, but quite challenging with WiFi.

WiFi has some limitations compared to wired Ethernet, most notably that all of the devices on the network are sharing the same bandwidth. Not only is the practical maximum speed of a WiFi network much slower than a typical wired network connection, it is shared between all of the connected devices. Only one device can transmit reliably at a time and there is some overhead incurred in the process of listening for a gap in the transmissions from other devices and waiting your turn. WiFi is not inherently lossless but then neither is wired Ethernet. Its losslessness (if that is a word) comes from protocols layered on top which provide error detection and error correction. The most common of these is TCP (Transmission Control Protocol), but equipment manufacturers and software developers are free to apply their own error correction schemes or accept some errors in exchange for reduced bandwidth requirements or lower latency. Most modern network streaming products use some form of error correction, but this comes with an overhead of its own, as requesting and resending packets takes up more bandwidth and increases latency.

Theoretically, you could build WiFi connectivity into active speakers, but there are a few things to consider. A CD quality losslessly compressed FLAC file or stream requires approximately 1.5Mbps, which most modern WiFi networks can handle easily, as long as the signal does not have to travel far. But the network speed drops rapidly as you move further from the router or wireless access point, or as it passes through walls and other obstacles. High definition audio obviously requires much more bandwidth. If you send the data uncompressed then you might need up to twice as much bandwidth. At this point, playing music without dropouts or long delays for buffering large amounts of data becomes quite challenging.

There are all sorts of ways to work around the limitations of a typical single router / wireless access point home network. The best performing option is to have multiple wireless access points with wired "backhaul" connections to the router. The latest generation mesh WiFi products like Orbi and Velop, which use separate radios for wireless backhaul, are probably the next best thing. However, equipment manufacturers know that most people just have a single router and do not have much appetite for spending hundreds or even thousands of pounds beefing up their WiFi network, so most of them recommend using wired Ethernet for greater stability.

 

[Dave_]

In a world where streaming in UHD, HDR and Dolby Atmos is a reality, it cracks me that some would have you believe that streaming a piddly audio stream over WiFi is some dark art that makes it tricky and unreliable....

 

[andyjm]

Given that wifi in most (?) homes is becoming standard fare and, that wifi is lossless, why are we not seeing wifi in more applications in mainstream hifi deployment?

1. Active speakers need power but could be wirelessly connected.

Sonos have been successful for many years selling exactly this, and while you may not consider the Amazon Echo to be HiFi, Mr Bezos has apparently sold north of 20 million of these devices.

 

[andyjm]

I am fortunate enough to live in a rural area far enough from neighbours that I don't get WiFi interference. My house is brick and rambles around so I could never get decent WiFi throughout the place. I finally decided to do the job properly, and installed multiple access points (5) linked to a central controller. I looked at a number of systems, but most enterprise systems cost the earth. I went with Ubiquiti Unifi which I could highly recommend. Not plug and play, but the setup was relatively straightforward.

I now have 'all bars' Wifi coverage everywhere in the house, and a particulalry cool feature is that the system will 'hand off' in the same way as cell phone towers, you can walk around the house and your device will jump from access point to access point without you being aware of it.

The system has diagnostics, and looking at the history I peaked last week at 24 Wifi devices connected simultaneously. I have multiple Sonos units (7) using the Wifi and I also have multiple Sky Qs using the Wifi for HD video.

The system is rock solid. No latency, no dropouts, and most importantly all the complaints from the family have stopped.

My point is that if you set up a Wifi system properly, it is a robust and stable way to connect multiple devices and move large amounts of data. To echo the point made above, multiple CD quality audio streams should easily be carried by a Wifi system without raising a sweat.

The trick is setting the system up properly. If you are in a suburban area with multiple Wifi setups around you, then relying on the automatic setup of a router or access point is asking for trouble. It does need a bit more effort to get a reliable system in place.

 

[Samd]

Given that wifi in most (?) homes is becoming standard fare and, that wifi is lossless, why are we not seeing wifi in more applications in mainstream hifi deployment?

1. Active speakers need power but could be wirelessly connected.

2. I have my CXN and Oppo BD next to the arm of my chair for convenience in operation but with 12m connectors - wireless to the amp? etc etc

Is it cos we just love cables and we'd have nowt to argue about?

However, equipment manufacturers know that most people just have a single router and do not have much appetite for spending hundreds or even thousands of pounds beefing up their WiFi network, so most of them recommend using wired Ethernet for greater stability.

It's that bit where I had made some wrong assumptions. I had thought that most Hifi enthusiasts, given their use of 'modern' facilities, would have a fairly robust wireless network at home but using dLAN (I use Devolo) gives a very stable network for not much money. I do not remember the last time I had a wifi drop out.

 

[Strictly Stereo]

I use OpenMesh which is similar to the Unifi system. At our old place, I ran a mixture of meshed and wired access points. There is no Cat X cabling at our new place yet, so I have been running all but one of the access points in mesh mode. I need a couple more access points in order to cover our new place properly, thanks to some very thick stone walls. However, it is already vastly better than the wireless router on its own, which can barely support email and web browsing from the living room and failed to reach some parts of the house at all.

 

[Strictly Stereo]

It's that bit where I had made some wrong assumptions. I had thought that most Hifi enthusiasts, given their use of 'modern' facilities, would have a fairly robust wireless network at home but using dLAN (I use Devolo) gives a very stable network for not much money. I do not remember the last time I had a wifi drop out.

It is becoming cheaper and easier to build robust wireless networks all the time. You can build a stable network for not a lot of cash, but some of the cheaper options sacrifice speed for stability, which may or may not be an issue, depending on your requirements.

 

[davidf]

In a world where streaming in UHD, HDR and Dolby Atmos is a reality, it cracks me that some would have you believe that streaming a piddly audio stream over WiFi is some dark art that makes it tricky and unreliable....

To be fair though, the UHD we're streaming is a noticably compressed version compared to the UHD we get from Bluray. Much of the time, it's marginally better than 1080p. "Universal reality" for me is when we can stream at the same quality as Bluray. Hell, we can't even stream 1080p that looks like Bluray!

 

[Strictly Stereo]

Sonos have been successful for many years selling exactly this...

Sonos builds mesh networking right into its products, which cleverly sidesteps the problems of using a shared network. Even cleverer still is that the more Sonos products you own, the more robust the mesh becomes.

 

[andyjm]

Sonos have been successful for many years selling exactly this...

Sonos builds mesh networking right into its products, which cleverly sidesteps the problems of using a shared network. Even cleverer still is that the more Sonos products you own, the more robust the mesh becomes.

That is true, but Sonos now have the option of using Wifi instead of their mesh. In my case the Sonos units were too far apart to use the mesh network, so I have used my Wifi instead. I figured that as I had built a solid Wifi infrastructure it made more sense to hang the Sonos off the Wifi than mess about with Sonos bridges and stuff. It would also have used up a Wifi channel which I wanted to keep for my access points. It is a bit of a fiddle to setup Sonos using Wifi - it won't let you have multiple SSIDs so you need to name all your access points the same, but apart from that it was OK.

Sky is the same, they have their own Wifi which gets in the way, so I have disabled the Sky Wifi and use TP Link access points which plug into the Q mini boxes. They are only the size of a matchbox, and are powered off the USB socket on the mini box. Once set up, the sky system thinks it is on a fully wired system, but in reality it is using my Wifi.

 

[Dave_]

In a world where streaming in UHD, HDR and Dolby Atmos is a reality, it cracks me that some would have you believe that streaming a piddly audio stream over WiFi is some dark art that makes it tricky and unreliable....

To be fair though, the UHD we're streaming is a noticably compressed version compared to the UHD we get from Bluray.

Oh come off of it!

Where still talking about 25Mbps plus streams, not a few hundred Kbs to a little over a Mb that audio streams consume...

Much of the time, it's marginally better than 1080p. "Universal reality" for me is when we can stream at the same quality as Bluray. Hell, we can't even stream 1080p that looks like Bluray!

Exaggerating much?!

 

[iMark]

Over the same WiFi we use for AirPlay can also stream video. I can stream 1080i through DLNA from my Mac Mini to a TV with Wifi, two Bluray players etc. Lossless audio hardly uses any bandwidth.

 

[MajorFubar]

I am fortunate enough to live in a rural area far enough from neighbours that I don't get WiFi interference. [snip]

The system is rock solid. No latency, no dropouts, and most importantly all the complaints from the family have stopped.

My point is that if you set up a Wifi system properly, it is a robust and stable way to connect multiple devices and move large amounts of data.

Your first sentence is the crucial difference. My wifi devices can find upto 19 different networks within range of my home at any one time, only one of which is mine. The least-congested channel changes almost daily. I had to install home plugs because sometimes my TV can't stream even a DVD-quality film from my NAS fast enough to play it, because the wifi connection speed is bottlenecked by airwave congestion. It's even worse if the kids are watching YouTube on their tablets or playing online RPGs with their pals. You lucky folks living in the wilderness where you alone are creating the only wifi traffic are in a different universe to the one many of us live in. Those of us who struggle with wifi don't necessarily do so because we're technological cretins or because we can't be arsed to set up a wifi system properly.

 

[andyjm]

I am fortunate enough to live in a rural area far enough from neighbours that I don't get WiFi interference. [snip]

The system is rock solid. No latency, no dropouts, and most importantly all the complaints from the family have stopped.

My point is that if you set up a Wifi system properly, it is a robust and stable way to connect multiple devices and move large amounts of data.

Your first sentence is the crucial difference. My wifi devices can find upto 19 different networks within range of my home at any one time, only one of which is mine. The least-congested channel changes almost daily. I had to install home plugs because sometimes my TV can't stream even a DVD-quality film from my NAS fast enough to play it, because the wifi connection speed is bottlenecked by airwave congestion. It's even worse if the kids are watching YouTube on their tablets or playing online RPGs with their pals. You lucky folks living in the wilderness where you alone are creating the only wifi traffic are in a different universe to the one many of us live in. Those of us who struggle with wifi don't necessarily do so because we're technological cretins or because we can't be arsed to set up a wifi system properly.

My mother is in a similar situation. It is a problem.

Have you tried switching to 5GHz? There are more channels and 5GHz has less range than 2.4GHz, which sounds counter-intuitive, but if a neighbour is on the same 5GHz channel, it will have less effect as the signal will suffer greater attenuation before it reaches your house.

 

[davidf]

Where still talking about 25Mbps plus streams, not a few hundred Kbs to a little over a Mb that audio streams consume...

Well when you see a streamed film that looks as good as Bluray, let me know. Bright scenes are all well and good, but darker scenes that are the problem.

Exaggerating much?!

Not really. I have access to Amazon Prime, Netflix, Shudder, and did trial Now TV - the first film I tried on that was The Thing - not because I would watch it via Now TV (owned it on Bluray since day one), but because I know it very well. Apart from the fact it was only stereo, it looked very soft, more like an upscaled DVD. I didn’t even bother trying anything else, that was cancelled straight away.

When you get a good one via Prime or Netflix (Hell Or High Water is a good example, off the top of my head), it can look great, but again, darker scenes tend to let things down, so if you’re into thrillers or horror, it can be a big deal. If I really like a film, I’ll buy it on Bluray, despite it sometimes being on VoD services, purely because I don’t want to see soft edges and compression. And whilst Sound is usually ok via streaming, the DD+ you usually get doesn’t always stand up to the sort of DD+ that’s available on HD-DVD discs. Again, presumably compressed. At least with Bluray, I know I’m getting full fat audio. I’m not compromising on audio when I’ve got a very capable £4k processor.

 

[Dave_]

I have access to Amazon Prime, Netflix, Shudder, and did trial Now TV - the first film I tried on that was The Thing - not because I would watch it via Now TV (owned it on Bluray since day one), but because I know it very well. Apart from the fact it was only stereo, it looked very soft, more like an upscaled DVD. I didn’t even bother trying anything else, that was cancelled straight away.

Well Now TV is 720p and the worst of all the VOD platforms, but not really a surprise coz Sky has always sucked at streaming. Live sports via Now TV, particularly football is a jittery unwatchable mess, but they announced as part of their cross-supply deal with BT it will get an upgrade to 1080p.