Chromecast Audio as endpoint? [Delivered; B333]

I hear what you say but there is more to audio quality than bit depth.
Chromecast Audio does what it does but it’s no cheap miracle to great audio, Nor does it claim to be.
As long as the listener is happy with it, it’s OK though.

I do not wish to stir up a hornets nest here, but for a lot of people a digital front end that is ‘good enough’ is all that is needed. It makes far more sense to me to spend money on better loudspeakers if improved sound quality is desired. Here is a technical bloggers analysis and measurements of the Chromecast Audio.

It’s not a hornets nest, but people need to understand that there are many problems that just big loudspeakers etc can’t fix.
You can only amplify the source, but if the source is compromised then you are amplifying the problems. In computer terms GIGO
You need the best possible source then amplify that. Also we know that diminishing returns come into play eventually, but not at £25.00.
From my point of view I want the cleanest source I can get and then build my Hi Fi around it.
Each to their own though, it’s your music and your money. Enjoy it.

There are as many detractors as there are supporters of the Chromecast, the same for most devices, especially DACs it seems. Connected via optical to my Yamaha internal Dac it has a very acceptable sound. No ’ treble glare’ as one critic has put it. I’m sure there’s a hair’s breadth between this arrangement and other more expensive offerings, as there is between most DACS in the sub £1000 arena. My father in law is trying one through his Devialet at this current time and is very impressed with the sound the combination produces. I’m sure gapless will come along and Roon integration will be icing on the cake for me.It’s wireless, yes, but if it sounds good…

Thanks for that link. It is an interesting read. I’d be using analogue out.

Using it in a main rig ‘may’ be silly, but to me it’s more about hardware support: it opens the door to many different products from the likes of Sony and LG that make wireless speakers for home-use. Some are not even that bad at all :slight_smile: Much like Airplay actually.
More hardware, more choice, more chance to compete with Sonos, Heos etc.

Maybe as a workaround it’s possible to initiate the stream from a mobile device? You’d control it with a tablet or phone most of the time anyway. And then conveniently forget to remove it from the desktop versions.

Hi Danny. Can you comment on your progress in terms of sync between devices? Can they be synced with RAAT devices or only with other chromecasts?

Thanks

I would make the point that using a CCA with different loudspeakers, (not necessarily bigger), people will always hear a difference. With better loudspeakers they will hear an improvement. The relatively poor jitter measurements of the CCA will remain inaudible, so the source is not compromised. There will probably be a point beyond which most people, (me included) would be uncomfortable using a cheap CCA in the hifi chain, but that point would not come for me until I was wanting speakers costing 5k GBP or more.

As you say it is up to the individual how they assemble their hifi and how to allocate costs to the component parts. Their main aim should be to enjoy the music.

Good points and the reason people consider it inaudible is because your brain compensates for the deficiency. There is too much evidence on this to refer to in a short post and I am no expert here.

The result of the compensation is personal fatigue. You get tired, you have had enough music, you turn it down.

With quality sources and a good chain onwards, you tire far less if at all, you just enjoy the music and your brain has little ‘work’ to do.
The result is you just find you can listen all day.

Chris

There is a lot of believe in your post and a lack of real facts.
Please explain the “deficiency” our brains has to compensate.

to see how airport compares: http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/airport-express-audio-quality-2014.htm

The way CCA works with most media apps, and direct streamed is very appealing. And I imagine we will see hardware upgrades to better the sound in time. So it’s not something that is set in stone, and upgrading would be affordable.

Now your going to need to study the latest research in Phsyco acoustics and how the brain has evolved to perceive sound.
A lot of this work has been applied in the development of MQA.
Things like, if you listen to a very high end system it is common to notice sounds previously un noticed to you.
The thing is, when you go back to your lesser system, your brain will now hear sounds that you never perceived before. Strange, isn’t it. This makes Simple AB testing unscientific.
Good review of Chromecast Audio here Here

Time for research, Chris

I am wondering whether the reviewer had gone into the setting to switch on the high dynamic range setting. I also had a big banner across the video saying this video was under review. He did not display any measurements.

i feel a really strong voodoo vibe

Especially this “This makes Simple AB testing unscientific.” sounds like “you may not hear a really difference with our expensive devices and we also can’t give a scientific prove - but you have to believe us, it’s worth the money”

1 Like

The difference between poor and quality Hi Fi is easy to determin. One of the tests is listener Fatigue.
To be accurate with A B testing, you need to be aware of how your brain perceives sound and trained in listening for it be be of real value to anyone other than your self. You have to account for expectation bias as well.

This is how the whole ‘Snake Oil’ side of the industry has developed.
You have to go back to actual science if you wish to truly understand and judge things.
Phsyco Acoustics is science, you can study it at university. Just because a person doesn’t understand something, doesn’t make it Voodoo.
You could do know worse that listen to the man and study what he has done in the audio world.Bob Stuart

Lossy compression is based on psychoacoustics, which is just fine. But it is neither lossless nor is it high resolution. It’s just a trick that works well. I do not see a point in having psychoacoustics play a role in lossless and/or high resolution playback and recording. I believe it has a role in making things sound nicer than they are, but then this is not about faithful reproduction but about creating something new.

This is done in the studio using a ton of more or less subtle effects. Years ago I used an Aphex Aural Exciter (I think it was model “c”) on my very highend audiophile system and it bet the shit out of every other modification I made to the system. This is applied psychoacoustics at its best, but it has no connection at all to truthful reproduction of sound. Bob Stuart knows for sure, but then, we all have to make a living. Nothing wrong about that.

The “regular” Chromecast puck, so not the audio version, is this also on the roadmap? If so, could this open the possibility to play perhaps DSD files to a receiver or pre-amp that can accept DSD over HDMI?

I was in a rush when I left my initial comment about your video link “review”. Reading some of the comments below the video indicates that something was amiss with the review. As I said there is a banner which obliterates the video on Win10 and Microsoft Edge which says :-

“This review is under investigation. Please wait until a revised version is published”.

Then the reviewer has posted in the comments section :-

“…My review of the Chromecast was a reaction on its hallelujah reviews on the web. In the mean time it is clear that my review is not doing the product justice. So with the help of some friends I’m trying to get a better impression”.

So in view of those indicators drawing attention to the relevancy of the review, please explain why you thought it was a “Good review of Chromecast Audio”.

I believe the reviewer gave his personal opinions at the time based on what he heard but something must have been horrendously wrong during his testing, which at some point he intends to address.

It’s a good review because he will amend his opinions. Rare in the audio world.
I’m not saying Chromecast isn’t a hand piece of kit. It’s just not the top end of audio. Also if opinions lead people to dismiss research and better euipment, then we do them a diss service.
Convenience over quality all over again.

I do not get your logic. You did not alert people that the review was ‘under investigation’, and I believe that is because you did not realize that fact when you posted the link. If you did realize it, you would not have posted the link.Your response is a ‘cop out’. From your previous posts I doubt you have actually heard one. Here’s a quote from one of your earlier posts “From what I have been told, Chromecast audio is not a high audio quality device”.

Of course there is better equipment than a CCA, and people will know that. For myself, I like to hear improvements, and see improved measurements, if I am to spend additional money on hifi components. For its low cost, functionality, and (IMO) high sound quality, it is a great little device.

I have heard of a $10,000 DAC which intentionally introduces harmonic distortions, because listeners are said to prefer it to an unmolested neutral signal. Well that is not for me. Like you say you need to do your research.