Jump to content

Good news for streamers and future streamers


YK Thom

Recommended Posts

This week I saw NAD's announcement of a new affordable streamer they will be releasing March. I have been investigating a few different units the past few months. I have been using my old Apple TV (2nd gen) as a glorified WiFi antenna for streaming from my computer. I think this is the one. Canadian company to boot! Affordable here but really inexpensive for you lads in the states.

 

https://nadelectronics.com/nad-electronics-announces-cs1-network-audio-streamer/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, YK Thom said:

This week I saw NAD's announcement of a new affordable streamer they will be releasing March. I have been investigating a few different units the past few months. I have been using my old Apple TV (2nd gen) as a glorified WiFi antenna for streaming from my computer. I think this is the one. Canadian company to boot! Affordable here but really inexpensive for you lads in the states.

 

https://nadelectronics.com/nad-electronics-announces-cs1-network-audio-streamer/

 

Looks an awful like a Sonos component with a revised exterior . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, YK Thom said:

I'm really looking forward to the reviews. The same company makes Bluesound.

 

Yep, I know.  I'm surprised they came out with this.  I assume it's because there are a lot of people that won't step up to get a Bluesound Node @ $600.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CCG said:

Looking forward to hear the new NAD.

Was wondering what is the difference between the previous node 2i and the new one in sound?

From what I've read the sound is pretty much the same but there are more features such a the voice assistants and such.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:

The highest bit rate stream for Spotify is 320 kbps. I'd hardly call that high fidelity. If you are only using it in the car or for background music, no worries. For serious listening, it's a no go for me.

 

 

My go to source for serious listening is my LP collection but I have a lot of MP3's at 320 that I can just enjoy the music without being choosy. I have compared a CD to 320 and there is a difference that is noticeable in an A/B comparison but I can still enjoy my music downloaded at 320. Anything less than 320 does does not cut it for me though. As a good friend of mine with a huge music collection always said to me, musicians listen to music audiophiles listen to equipment. If I really like a 320 download I may buy the CD but for me a 320 MP3 is most of the time acceptable. For serious critical audiophiles I can understand their view of 320 MP3's though. Lacking some detail for sure.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MP3s may be acceptable and I agree I can listen to them. But storage is cheap these days, so no reason not to store your music as FLAC or some other non compressed format. And there are at least three online streaming sources that will pass at a minimum, 16/44 quality audio. Not to mention all the many internet radio stations that now stream in FLAC. I see no reason to ever listen to 320 kbps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, henry4841 said:

Price is my reason. https://www.mp3million.com/artists  May not be the best but at least I get to hear the music. 

 

I get it. I pay 15.00/month for Qobuz and I consider that a bargain considering the access to most everything I want is at my fingertips. And the quality of streaming music is fast approaching that of seedees or local files. Sometimes, depending on the release, it's better than what I already own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, heresyForthe1sttime said:

I think that quote says it all - listening to equipment vs. music.     Very few people are capable of reliably telling the difference when between 320kbps vs. FLAC.  High res audio appears to be a marketing ploy. 

 

I don't consider FLAC to be "hi rez". If anything 16/44 should be considered native or normal resolution. And I don't think higher resolutions matter as much as the care that was taken in the actual recording process. Some 16/44 recordings can sound better than 24/192. But all MP3s are going to be behind the curve in sound quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...