Wireless or directly connected Ethernet - that old chestnut

[airguitar]

I know a lot of audiophiles seem to choose Ethernet wired over wireless when it comes to streaming music - but can someone explain why? In my case I use a Squeezebox Duet - and from my understanding - wireless transmission from the source computer isn't being sent to the Duet as an analog music signal, it's sent via TCP/IP which will carry the information to the target (the Duet) perfectly - then the Duet holds the information in a large 30 second buffer where of course later on it gets converted to analog (in my case using an external DAC).

 

Many may reply that the wireless transmitter is a cause of interference to the electronics, but computer based WiFi isn't anywhere near as strong as mobile phone signals that pass through my lounge on a day to day basis (neighbours and family for example).

 

The other major advantage of wireless is complete isolation from the noisy electronics of a PC.

 

Latency cannot be a problem either due to the large buffer in the Duet.

 

So are we getting worked up over nothing perhaps?

[Audio_ELF]

In a lot of people's homes wireless isn't as reliable as wired leading your drop outs (especially in brick built houses such as common in the UK). If your wireless is reliable there is no technical reason why wired would be superior to wireless.

 

Even Naim will say similar if you push them: Wireless should sound the same as wired if your connection is good.

 

Problems mostly occur when you try (for example) to use a server connected wireless; then connect the streamer / player wirelessly and control it all via a wirelessly connected tablet / phone / handheld.

 

On the other hand some people will say the RF emissions caused by a wireless transmitter may cause interference.

 

Eloise

[One and a half]

Have a think about when the SB will no longer be around, there'e going to be 'some' device that converts Music files from a PC to music. Wireless is fine for using a tablet/phone gadget, for large data transfers, VNC, OS updates, Av controls, wireless can fall over.

 

It may be the wireless adpater that's gorrible in my notebook, but if I transfer several GB to the NAS, it gives up 20s into the transfer. No such issue with cable. Microwave ovens affect wireless, the neighbour's signals, cordless phones, list is pretty endless. You would need a lightning strike or close to an EMP to get anything into a CAT5(6). Cable is vulnerable to vermin's teeth...

[airguitar]

In a lot of people's homes wireless isn't as reliable as wired leading your drop outs (especially in brick built houses such as common in the UK). If your wireless is reliable there is no technical reason why wired would be superior to wireless.

 

Even Naim will say similar if you push them: Wireless should sound the same as wired if your connection is good.

 

Problems mostly occur when you try (for example) to use a server connected wireless; then connect the streamer / player wirelessly and control it all via a wirelessly connected tablet / phone / handheld.

 

On the other hand some people will say the RF emissions caused by a wireless transmitter may cause interference.

 

Eloise

 

Then I agree with NAIM - seeing as the analog music stream is not in the wireless signal - and it's simply data transmission which then gets reconstructed perfectly bit by bit on the DUET - apart from perhaps those that worry about RF emissions (which are all around us anyway, and far more powerful via the mobile phone network) - wireless "if good and reliable" which in my house it is - should be deemed the perfect way to stream music keeping that electrically noisy multitasking computer source at more than arms length away.

 

And just because I said bit perfect (which in the above example it is) - don't class me in the bit perfect crowd who ignore the 'timing' aspect of pushing the bits to the DAC (latency) - I do understand that issue exists, but with a large buffer, much of that is quashed.

[Paul R]

You are arguing the wrong point here - which method transfers a stream of data better - wired or wireless? The answer with *today's* equipment is wired connections transmit the data better - meaning more efficiently with less transmission delays and artifacts. The hardware and drivers for wireless connections are less reliable than their wired equivalents.

 

Does that translate into better audio? Well, it *can*. That does not mean it *always* will.

 

In our audio network, I bridge wired ethernet segments with wireless bridges and get great results. Perfect audio streaming, very good data streaming, good HD video streaming, and generally good response and speeds, with controlled and manageable latency.

 

So yeah- at least with today's equipment, wired connections make sense.

 

I know a lot of audiophiles seem to choose Ethernet wired over wireless when it comes to streaming music - but can someone explain why? In my case I use a Squeezebox Duet - and from my understanding - wireless transmission from the source computer isn't being sent to the Duet as an analog music signal, it's sent via TCP/IP which will carry the information to the target (the Duet) perfectly - then the Duet holds the information in a large 30 second buffer where of course later on it gets converted to analog (in my case using an external DAC).

 

Many may reply that the wireless transmitter is a cause of interference to the electronics, but computer based WiFi isn't anywhere near as strong as mobile phone signals that pass through my lounge on a day to day basis (neighbours and family for example).

 

The other major advantage of wireless is complete isolation from the noisy electronics of a PC.

 

Latency cannot be a problem either due to the large buffer in the Duet.

 

So are we getting worked up over nothing perhaps?

[airguitar]

You are arguing the wrong point here - which method transfers a stream of data better - wired or wireless? The answer with *today's* equipment is wired connections transmit the data better - meaning more efficiently with less transmission delays and artifacts. The hardware and drivers for wireless connections are less reliable than their wired equivalents.

 

Does that translate into better audio? Well, it *can*. That does not mean it *always* will.

 

In our audio network, I bridge wired ethernet segments with wireless bridges and get great results. Perfect audio streaming, very good data streaming, good HD video streaming, and generally good response and speeds, with controlled and manageable latency.

 

So yeah- at least with today's equipment, wired connections make sense.

 

Paul - this means you are still using wireless from your music source - it's just that in the last leg of your connection you are wired from the bridge. A great way of repeating your wireless signal I must say, plus it takes the decryption load off the target music streamer.

 

I think your wireless bridge method is probably as good as it gets - I like it. But in essence you are still using wireless to get from source to destination in the connection chain.

 

I agree that wired is better than wireless - but if you don't get any wireless dropouts the transfer of binary to the targets buffer will be perfect as stated before. Yes you have to be more careful with wireless - but the convenience is worth it.

 

I think its important to get across to everyone that they don't have to avoid wireless because 'audiophiles' dislike the idea, especially when using wireless bridges with the final leg Ethernet!

[Paul R]

Not sure I agree - using wireless connections on a server or player does seem to affect the audio quality. As I said, the wired connections just work better. You have to be careful what you mean there. Using wireless bridges is no big deal.

 

Using wireless adapters in a server or player usually *is* a big deal.

 

Even our Apple TVs are connected to the network with a wired connection, though admittedly to a switch that is bridged via Wireless.

 

-Paul

 

Paul - this means you are still using wireless from your music source - it's just that in the last leg of your connection you are wired from the bridge. A great way of repeating your wireless signal I must say, plus it takes the decryption load off the target music streamer.

 

I think your wireless bridge method is probably as good as it gets - I like it. But in essence you are still using wireless to get from source to destination in the connection chain.

 

I agree that wired is better than wireless - but if you don't get any wireless dropouts the transfer of binary to the targets buffer will be perfect as stated before. Yes you have to be more careful with wireless - but the convenience is worth it.

 

I think its important to get across to everyone that they don't have to avoid wireless because 'audiophiles' dislike the idea, especially when using wireless bridges with the final leg Ethernet!

[airguitar]

Wireless bridges are no big deal, but at least the bridge before the streamer decrypts the wireless stream, therefore taking the decryption load of the CPU of the target streamer (everything helps I am told). I still like the idea of the bridge for that reason alone.

 

If wireless works its not that bad - after all - Netflix at home runs over wireless and does not drop out once - high def video (which includes the audio too!) is far more demanding than 16 bit audio (sorry I'm not into 24 bit audio). Perhaps I should have mentioned before that I only listen to redbook quality audio streams - wireless N should take that in its stride