I think this is the direction to go. The WiiM all sold out at Crutchfield. Thanks.
-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
Will a Music Streamer be Better?
- Thread starter geode
- Start date
Amazon has the Mini and the Pro in stock.
Bought the Pro Plus. Arriving Saturday. I almost bought the ultra, but I think the Pro + will do all I want it to do. Can't wait to hook it up
So, I have been using the WiiM Pro + for several days now. I listened to it standalone and it connected to my iFi DAC. Honestly, I think the WiiM does well on its own using its DAC. I am a Spotify user for years. Since I have never heard HiRes audio via wifi stream I signed up for Tidal for a comparison to Spotify's offerings in Lossy format. The WiiM app shows most Tidal streams at 16 bit 44.1 Khz at 650~1050 bps. Some tracks are 24 bit 44.1 Khz which it lists as Flac, and every once in a while at 24/96 which it also calls Flac. I can't really hear a big difference between the formats; in fact, using the iFi DAC bluetooth with LDAC sounds just as good to me. I will confess that my hearing is not good with a lot of high frequency loss. I am very impressed with the WiiM, though. I might try QoBuz next just for another comparison. Who knows, by the time I'm through trying the various streaming services Spotify might finally roll out it's HiRes offerings 
And may be some hearing aids 
And may be some hearing aids Hell yeah my upgrade to the streamer Eversolo DMP-A6 2 years ago was worth it! Also stores 4TB of ripped CDs or files, and it connects to an external CD player.
And #1 reason is it's native Apple Music, not just Airplay2.
I've also upgraded the power supply to a LPS.
I only use the Eversolo as a streamer; I use an external DDC (Denafrips Iris 12th) and R2R DAC Denafrips Pontus II 12th-1, and analog preamplifier Parasound 2100.
I love listening to music from all over the world, not just English:
source=Apple Music lossless
My video: this one is in French
Last edited:
Bob@FM
Well-Known Member
I agree with your statement, but only if you consider the source to be the music itself - the album and artist = not how it's transmitted to you.
But yeah, if not lossless, the data compression algorithm can cause the source to lose dynamic range, depending on many variables.
However, if the dynamic range is not even there on the album to begin with, caveat emptor - 24 bit 192 kHz cannot give a poor dynamic range CD anything more than what it started with. The DR site below gives pretty clear examples how bad some albums can be.
Here's a site, for instance, that ranks the "DR" by artist / album to give you an idea of what's bad, and good. Go to the FAQ page for more info. Note they don't rank data compressed music at all, as depending on the algorithm, it can a wide range of numbers, none truly representing the original recording as released by the studio.
Dynamic Range of Albums
Also, Foobar 2000 has a DR Meter plug-in component if you want to measure your own stuff.
The guy in the video above has no idea, IMHO, what he's talking about by coming to the conclusions he makes about what we "need" Other than the general statement, that I agree with, that with data rates, uncompressed is preferred. But compressed at 320 kbps (4:1) is way better than 128kbps, and that better than 96 or 48 kbps - all typical rates you can get on internet streams from "free" internet stations.
But yeah, if not lossless, the data compression algorithm can cause the source to lose dynamic range, depending on many variables.
However, if the dynamic range is not even there on the album to begin with, caveat emptor - 24 bit 192 kHz cannot give a poor dynamic range CD anything more than what it started with. The DR site below gives pretty clear examples how bad some albums can be.
Here's a site, for instance, that ranks the "DR" by artist / album to give you an idea of what's bad, and good. Go to the FAQ page for more info. Note they don't rank data compressed music at all, as depending on the algorithm, it can a wide range of numbers, none truly representing the original recording as released by the studio.
Dynamic Range of Albums
Also, Foobar 2000 has a DR Meter plug-in component if you want to measure your own stuff.
The guy in the video above has no idea, IMHO, what he's talking about by coming to the conclusions he makes about what we "need" Other than the general statement, that I agree with, that with data rates, uncompressed is preferred. But compressed at 320 kbps (4:1) is way better than 128kbps, and that better than 96 or 48 kbps - all typical rates you can get on internet streams from "free" internet stations.
Just a passing thought. Compression can mean:
1) A digital audio file that has been transcoded from "lossless" to "lossy". Transcoding a WAV file to a MP3, for instance.
2) n a recording studio or at a radio station (or possibly by music streaming services), compression is applied to reduce the dynamic range of an audio signal, making loud parts quieter and boosting softer parts.
In context with posts to this forum, it would be helpful to specify which type of compression the poster is referring to. Sometimes when reading posts, I wonder if the term compression is used interchangeably.
1) A digital audio file that has been transcoded from "lossless" to "lossy". Transcoding a WAV file to a MP3, for instance.
2) n a recording studio or at a radio station (or possibly by music streaming services), compression is applied to reduce the dynamic range of an audio signal, making loud parts quieter and boosting softer parts.
In context with posts to this forum, it would be helpful to specify which type of compression the poster is referring to. Sometimes when reading posts, I wonder if the term compression is used interchangeably.
Last edited: