|
The audio player on my android phone lets me pick a device to steam to. Can I make it stream to my PC by just running some program? Will wifi work, or do I need to dick around with a bluetooth adapter?
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
I am assuming it's using DLNA/UPnP protocol. There are a number of clients on Windows you can use. VLC or foobar2000 might be your best bets. As well as a bunch of hardware options (WDTV Live for example, hooked up to your A/V receiver, Xbox 360, PS3, etc). Yes, it works over wifi. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jan 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Cool, it's working now with foobar. Also, foobar has gotten a whole lot nicer since the last time I used it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Can someone tell me if this desktop amp: http://www.crutchfield.com/p_772N22/Audioengine-N22.html?tp=34948&awkw=25697562265&awat=pla&awnw=g&awcr=6620202625&awdv=c#details-tab would pair alright with my bookshelf speakers? http://www.aperionaudio.com/intimus-5b-bookshelf-speaker These speakers have been collecting dust since I moved to 3.1 and I'm thinking I'll get some dipoles probably if I go back to 5.1... hoping I can make them work as desktop speakers in my office maybe. I'm thinking this would probably be too small of an amp to sufficiently power these but I'm really terrible at understanding impedance and power ratings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:Can someone tell me if this desktop amp: Good question. The N22 is designed to be used with these guys here which are quite similar aside from the 4 ohm rating. So yes, it should be plenty sufficient assuming you didn't want to play them at ear-exploding levels. For desktop/small room use you should be golden.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:Good question. The N22 is designed to be used with these guys here which are quite similar aside from the 4 ohm rating. So yes, it should be plenty sufficient assuming you didn't want to play them at ear-exploding levels. For desktop/small room use you should be golden. good to know, thanks! I guess I may be getting ahead of myself here though. I don't have a DAC or any kind of amplifier currently. I have an old soundblaster x-treme music audio card but haven't been using it since switching to onboard sound when I built my last PC. Whenever I wear my headphones and turn audio off I can hear all kinds of interference from moving my mouse and everything else on screen. Should I be looking for a new soundcard or DAC before I'm worried about getting an amp to use bookshelf speakers? or is there a reasonably priced solution out there that would serve as both a DAC & headphone & speaker amp?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:good to know, thanks! A DAC would absolutely help, since an amp would just make the noise worse. I don't know of an all in one desktop/headphone amp with DAC, but I use a fiio amp/DAC combo (e17 and e09k), which has RCA preamp outputs that run to my power amp. You could probably build a setup like that for around 350 or less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
I'm getting some processor noise in my sound, even with an external DAC (Edirol UA-1X). I've tried every USB port on my PC, they're all noisy. The noise seems to lessen somewhat if I load both cores of my CPU 100%. I've found some evidence by Googling, that it may have something to do with CPU frequency scaling, the suggestion is to disable all frequency scaling, but I'm not very fond of that idea. Now, a digital USB signal *should* be immune to these things, but my best guess is that the DAC is getting some noise on the USB power and letting it get past into the analog signal. There is absolutely no noise from my amp if I disconnect the DAC from the PC, so the issue is with the USB connection. Can I do anything about this, or would my best option be to completely sever the electrical connection by going optical from the onboard sound card to an optical input-capable DAC, such as the aforementioned FiiO D3?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Does your USB cable have a ferrite bump near at least one of the ends? Finding one that does or some clip-on ferrites may help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
It doesn't have a ferrite bead on it, actually. I'll see if I can scrounge one somewhere. But all my electronics knowledge (which is admittedly limited) tells me that any frequencies a ferrite bead would filter out are all way outside the audible range. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:But all my electronics knowledge (which is admittedly limited) tells me that any frequencies a ferrite bead would filter out are all way outside the audible range. I don't know where you got that idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
eddiewalker posted:I don't know where you got that idea. Because ferrite beads are generally used to filter out high-frequency RF/EMI interference in the MHz and high-kHz range, which can be harmful to high-speed digital and analog signals such as DVI, HDMI and VGA? E: That said, I guess the EMI/RF could mess with the DAC chip, point taken. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
They're also used to get ignition noise out of car stereos, cell phone noise out of baby monitors and maybe even keeping computer noise out of a headphone amp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Well, the ferrite bead I chopped off a spare antenna cable did make a difference, but it didn't get 100% rid of the noise. However, a FiiO D3 and a ~*gold-plated TOSlink cable*~ (at $3, it was the cheapest I could find) got completely rid of it. Now there's only the slightest hiss in my headphones when I crank the amp to 100%, and that would equal roughly 10 bazillion dB if I were to play any music at that setting. Job's done. Plus, the D3 has slightly higher level output than my old soundcard, so I don't have to crank the amp nearly as much for movies with low volume. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:~*gold-plated TOSlink cable*~ 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
japtor posted:Is there any point to this? No, none at all. It's completely ridiculous and superfluous. But it was by far the cheapest TOSlink cable available, so that's the one I bought, gold plating and all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
I'm in the process of building a combo home theater / stereo system and I currently have a Denon AVR-e400 receiver. It seems pretty great. Now to start hunting down the rest of the gear... Well, I found a sick deal on some Focal 715s locally and I really am not an audio nerd so I'm confused how I would even hook these up properly to the receiver. Note: I have no plans at this time to be running 5.1 or 7.1 from this system. In the future this receiver may take that role, but not now. Are these 715s considered more than one speaker? I'm a bit lost. Pictures of things in question:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Those speakers can be bi-amped, where you'd basically use a different amp for the highs and the lows. See that gold bar bridging the top and bottom inputs on the speakers? Looks like they're set up to be powered normally. Just hook them up to the front speaker outputs on your receiver, red to red, black to black.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
eddiewalker posted:Those speakers can be bi-amped, where you'd basically use a different amp for the highs and the lows. See that gold bar bridging the top and bottom inputs on the speakers? Looks like they're set up to be powered normally. Thank you! I was starting to suspect that was the situation and that they'd work fine if I just hooked them up normally. I really appreciate your quick response. edit: by normally I meant "only one pair of wires to each"; I suspected that gold bar was bridging it feld fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
And just to clear something up, don't bother even thinking about bi-amping, it doesn't really do anything other than increase the available power to the speakers. You'd be much better served by just buying a bigger amp in the first place. With bi-amping, you'd need an active crossover filter, not to mention an extra amp. It's a whole bunch of added complexity and cost that isn't worth it. Audiophools will claim that you get better sound that way, but even with the separate binding posts, you're still feeding the signal through the speakers' own crossovers, completely negating any sort of imaginary benefit that you would gain from bi-amping and using a high-quality active crossover filter. And bi-wiring? That's just completely idiotic and even more audiophool woo-woo nonsense. The ONLY useful way to wire up two speakers with two amps is to get two identical amps that can be bridged into mono amps (which roughly doubles the power output) and then run one speaker off each amp. This is only useful if you need massive power, which you don't. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:you're still feeding the signal through the speakers' own crossovers Are you sure that bi-amping doesn't bypass the internal passive crossover? The only real benefit to bi-amping is that you can control the volume of the mids and the lows individually by adjusting the volume on each amp. But you can do that with a good EQ anyway. Either way, it's a big waste of money and effort.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Are you sure that bi-amping doesn't bypass the internal passive crossover? How would it unless you have some sort of crossover bypass switch? For the speaker to function correctly with the braces in place, each set of binding posts must have its own highpass/lowpass filter. The braces connect it all together to make sure the entire signal goes to both the high and low frequency parts of the crossover when using one amp. On speakers with only one set of binding posts, these connections are made on the crossover board itself, all they've done with the braces is to bring those connections off the circuit board so they can be removed and replaced as needed. I'm sure there are some speakers out there that allow you to bypass the crossover circuit completely, but most "bi-amp" speakers don't. To actually do bi-amping "right", you would have to open up your speakers and manually bypass the crossover. Otherwise you're still using the speakers' own crossovers in addition to the active crossover. Some speakers, such as the B&W Nautilus must be bi-amped (actually tri-amped), as they have no internal crossovers at all. They're hugely expensive though, not to mention the massive outlay on those three amplifiers (or six monoblocks!) and active crossovers you're going to need. E: There's some good advice on bi-wiring and bi-amping here: http://www.chuckhawks.com/bi-wire_bi-amp.htm KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Interesting. I guess it would depend on the speaker. I had a vintage pair of kenwoods that looks like you could switch between internal crossovers and tri-amping:
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Interesting. I guess it would depend on the speaker. I had a vintage pair of kenwoods that looks like you could switch between internal crossovers and tri-amping: Yeah, that definitely goes to the normal crossover on the single set of binding posts, and bypasses it on the three other sets of binding posts. I think it's pretty telling that this is on a set of vintage speakers, bi-amping is not nearly as widespread as it used to be. The reason for doing it in the old days was to avoid intermodulation distortion etc. in the amplifiers of the time. Modern amplifier designs have gotten so good at eliminating distortion and noise that it really isn't an issue anymore. It's the same thing with separate pre-amps and power amps. The benefits of keeping them separate were definitely real (if extremely difficult to hear) back in the day, mostly due to noise. There is basically no reason why you would do it now, when you can get 2x150W RMS integrated amp for a lot less than the equivalent pre-amp plus power amp setup, and the noise levels are so incredibly low due to better power supply designs and higher-grade components. Integrated amps these days bring a lot more to the table for your money than they did back then, remember that the 70s monster receivers were ridiculously expensive. Most amps were 2x30-50W RMS at the most. And of course, most people don't want a big set of separate hifi components anymore, either. They just want a speaker dock for their iPhone and that's that. Unless you're trying to fill a concert hall with music, for stereo playback a simple 2x50W RMS (or thereabouts) amplifier with one speaker cable going to each speaker is all you're ever going to need. Zip cord or lamp cord is fine unless you have a significant distance between the amp and your speakers. Going much further than that ventures hard into steeply diminishing returns and will cost you a lot of money for no benefit at all. But most guys into hifi are gadget fetishists. They want the newest and biggest and most powerful equipment they can get, never mind if it's actually going to make a difference. Personally I think this is great, because it fills the second-hand market with loads of affordable high-quality gear in perfect condition. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jan 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
For shits n giggles, check out the Seaton Catalyst speakers. They're internal/active amplified, with DSP/crossovers, and they're badass. Every time there is one of those speaker enthusiast bbq's where everyone brings their crazy DIY or high end speaker setups, Mark Seat on will bring his Catalysts and tear the room apart. And then everyone scores them best speaker ever. The JTR NOESIS speakers are of similar performance but are passive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
All of the best speakers I've ever hear were active designs. Back when I worked at Bang & Olufsen, it was pretty much universally accepted internally that all of their products were significantly overpriced, except for the BeoLab 5. The sheer amount of wizardry built into them is astounding. 2500 watts of digital amplification per speaker speaker, and a DSP that adjusts for room response using a built-in microphone and monitors the temperature of the speaker voice coils to adjust their response as they warm up. No distortion at all, even at the rated 108dB continuous max SPL. And one holy mother of a cabinet, they weigh in at ~60kg apiece. I know it sounds silly to claim that a set of Dalek-lookalike ~$25,000 speakers aren't overpriced, but they're truly the most amazing speakers I have ever heard. E: At the complete opposite end of the cost, size and power scale, the Audioengine A2s are probably the best desktop speakers I've heard. They'll never play super-deep and powerful bass, and I know I gush a lot about them, but they just sound so goddamn good. Good enough that I'm seriously considering replacing my NAD amp and Audiovector C2 floorstanders with a set of A5+s and the matching S8 sub when I sell my old motorcycle. I had a chance to listen to a set at the store while I was picking up my FiiO D3, and they sound every bit as good as the A2s to me, but with more bass extension and able to play a lot louder. As a bonus, I can put the Audioengine speakers on my desktop instead of having them off to my left side like the Audiovectors are right now. I've already got some hearing loss on my left ear, no reason to make it any worse 
KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
The Catalysts 12c's are like that. Minus room correction which can be handled by most upper entry level receivers these days. 1000 watts to the woofers, 800 to the mid and 300 to the tweeter, all sustained. I believe each speaker is around $2800, which is a bargain for the performance you're getting and also considering you don't need to buy amplification. You could also get by without a subwoofer since each speaker is almost as powerful as a Seaton Submersive. So yeah dropping $9000 on your front soundstage is expensive, but the heavy monolithic build quality and performance at least let's you see where the money is going. Not like these $100000 amps that can't even out perform a $300 Behringer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
They do seem kind of like a wood-cabinet version of the BL5 with a bit less fancy-pants DSP tech. They're also not sold in my country (or even the EU, it seems) and they're flippin' huge for my ~17 square meter living room
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
does anyone make a good table radio that isn't made in fukkn china? I wouldn't mind tracking down a used something or other
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:does anyone make a good table radio that isn't made in fukkn china? I wouldn't mind tracking down a used something or other Depends on what you want. I assume you're in the US and you want digital radio? Tivoli makes some pretty well-designed and well-regarded radios, most of the have some sort of MP3 playback and/or network streaming built in as well. They have both retro designs and some that are a bit more contemporary. Sound quality is pretty good for what they are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Tivoli makes some pretty well-designed and well-regarded radios i'm in the us and all i want is an FM/AM radio. no bluetooth, CD, etc necessary. just something with a great design
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Designed in the US, though. Finding something affordable that's actually put together in the US is probably going to be hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Does it have to be a digital tuner? Vintage receivers ('70s era) are gorgeous, relatively inexpensive on Craigslist, built like tanks, and they generally have really powerful (though analog) AM/FM stages- you know, from back when having a powerful radio in the house was important to people. The vast majority also have Aux inputs so you can plug in just about any kind of modern device too. I have a (loving massive) 1979 Yamaha CR-2040 and a (much much smaller) Pioneer SX-690 from '78 and they both get ridiculous radio reception, even without external antennae- not that I really give a poo poo about that, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Finding something affordable that's actually put together in the US is probably going to be hard. Even if you build your own radio you'd have trouble avoiding Chinese components.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:Plus anything that actually has the label "made in USA" is most likely minimally assembled there -ie they screw the imported finished mainboard onto the chassis and put it in a box. Reminds me of this: http://www.thetoasterproject.org/page2.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:Plus anything that actually has the label "made in USA" is most likely minimally assembled there -ie they screw the imported finished mainboard onto the chassis and put it in a box. Exactly. I agree with Electric Bugaloo that going vintage would be much easier, plus the older tuners are generally better because good radio reception was much more important back in the day. An old US-built Marantz or similar in good condition can probably be found for less than a new radio would cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Here's a weird one. I have a Fiio E17 DAC and E09K amp. Even with the volume turned up all the way, I can't hear any static... except when Gmail is open. This doesn't happen on the Google homepage or on Youtube, just Gmail. And it stays even when the window is minimized or I'm on another tab. As soon as I close the tab, it goes away. This is in Chrome. I don't have another browser to test with. It's not a problem, but it's just so drat weird. Any idea what's going on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Designed in the US, though. KozmoNaut posted:Finding something affordable that's actually put together in the US is probably going to be hard. KozmoNaut posted:An old US-built Marantz or similar in good condition can probably be found for less than a new radio would cost. Electric Bugaloo posted:Does it have to be a digital tuner?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:that's the worst kind of poo poo. gently caress that apple business model If you really need to stroke your  boner, I believe Bose still makes their Wave radios in South Carolina - although I heard they're moving everything to Malaysia, so I can't guarantee it (can't find anything on their site saying where it's made).Honestly, if I was going to spend that much money on a radio, I'd get a Tesslor. Just look at those loving things. Works of goddamn art. Made in USA isn't all it's cracked up to be, anyways. I used to work in a factory, and I wouldn't trust the junkies that worked with me to make a goddamn Hot Pocket. KillHour fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
TenementFunster posted:does anyone make a good table radio that isn't made in fukkn china? I wouldn't mind tracking down a used something or other
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 07:37
|
|