Wiim Pro - Gapless playback with Chromecast audio?

[GioF_71]

Other than the gapless issue and sampling rate restrictions, I must say that audio quality over chromecast remains undistinguishable from the other methods. At least to my ears.

 

[Brantome]

I read once again what you were saying and one question arises.
You say:

There’s no resampling of the received file as Qobuz will only send a 24/96 file for playback based on the device capability

But we don't see a 24/96 version for every 24/192 release. How do you know there is a 24/96 release being streamed, and that it's not Qobuz resampling to 24/96 when streaming to a Chromecast?

That’s my understanding of how streaming services distribute their files based on the device and network capabilities - there’d be no point sending a 24/192 file if the device (or indeed the chosen streaming quality) said it couldn’t handle it. Say you had set your streaming quality to 44.1 - would you expect Qobuz to send a 24/192 track as 24/192 or at the 16/44.1 resolution you had set? That’s why I said where it gets that lower resolution file is another matter…

For example, I’m aware that Amazon Music uses “adaptive streaming“ based on Apple’s HTTP Live Streaming (or HLS) protocol - see https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=78221

 

[GioF_71]

Yes, as you say, I'm sure they don't stream a larger file to a renderer which is known to not be able to decode it.
But if I had to guess, I would say that they resample on the fly, keeping downsampled versions of every release seems a much worse strategy to me.
I will have a look at that article.
Thank you

 

[CrystalGipsy]

Chromecast can be gapless I get it gapless through Roon there is no resampling or fixed rates. It’s possible to do it but they did work with Google directly when developing their support for Chromecast they did not just use the API.

 

[d6jg]

Likewise LMS can play gapless to a Chromecast using the Chromecast bridge plugin. The Chromecast Audio (retired too early) can do 24/96 whereas the TV devices can handle 24/192. You can’t sync them with other SB players though.

 

[Mr Ee]

Yes, as you say, I'm sure they don't stream a larger file to a renderer which is known to not be able to decode it.
But if I had to guess, I would say that they resample on the fly, keeping downsampled versions of every release seems a much worse strategy to me.
I will have a look at that article.
Thank you

Whereas I would have guessed that rather than recoding every 192 chromecast stream on the fly down to 96, they'd do a single conversion, store it once and just deliver that.
Surely far cheaper, and easier, for a single conversion and storage than compute costs for every stream.

 

[d6jg]

I’m sure you will find that the various versions are supplied to the streaming services by the record companies and the streamers do not resample themselves.

 

[CrystalGipsy]

I must say that audio quality over chromecast remains undistinguishable from the other methods. At least to my ears

I have and still find it a bit harsh on top. Compared Roon via it and using Squeezlite and as of yesterday RAAT, I prefer the latter two l

Whereas I would have guessed that rather than recoding every 192 chromecast stream on the fly down to 96, they'd do a single conversion, store it once and just deliver that.
Surely far cheaper, and easier, for a single conversion and storage than compute costs for every stream.

Qobuz has multiple lossless versions of the same album in their catalogue. Most of the time they have both cd and a hires. Roon shows you only the lossless . Setting the streaming limit to 192 only allows you to stream up to that there is no upsampling of anything. It plays what version you choose based on your settings. 192 albums are pretty rare though. If you choose higher than your device then depending on that device it will fail to play or downsample. Chromecast will downsample internally to match what it supports. For the lossy streams these I believe will be transcoded on the fly to mp3 at the rate you choose.

 

[GioF_71]

Whereas I would have guessed that rather than recoding every 192 chromecast stream on the fly down to 96, they'd do a single conversion, store it once and just deliver that.
Surely far cheaper, and easier, for a single conversion and storage than compute costs for every stream.

Well when I was writing my comment, I also thought it could be the other way around, like you say.
Storage is only relatively cheap otoh, and if you take into account the data duplication for the content delivery networks, the impact increases.
But still, how many "native" (without downsampling on the fly) streams can a given server handle, and how many with downsampling?
And also, given the total peak concurrent streams, how many of those are hi-res content being served at a lower sampling rate?
If this number is low (again, what does 'low' mean?), it might be worth downsampling on the fly. If it's high, maybe storing the downsampled version makes sense.
I believe I don't have the numbers to say how they actually do, so on my side it's pure speculation. The good thing for me is that most likely when I use my chromecast, the downsampling doesn't happen on my side on a low-powered device where this processing might have a negative impact. So far infact I did not notice any issue when streaming 24/192 via WiiM built-in chromecast.

Edit: missing word "cheap", it stayed in my keyboard

 

[Mr Ee]

Well when I was writing my comment, I also thought it could be the other way around, like you say.
Storage is only relatively otoh, and if you take into account the data duplication for the content delivery networks, the impact increases.
But still, how many "native" (without downsampling on the fly) streams can a given server handle, and how many with downsampling?
And also, given the total peak concurrent streams, how many of those are hi-res content being served at a lower sampling rate?
If this number is low (again, what does 'low' mean?), it might be worth downsampling on the fly. If it's high, maybe storing the downsampled version makes sense.
I believe I don't have the numbers to say how they actually do, so on my side it's pure speculation. The good thing for me is that most likely when I use my chromecast, the downsampling doesn't happen on my side on a low-powered device where this processing might have a negative impact. So far infact I did not notice any issue when streaming 24/192 via WiiM built-in chromecast.

Yeah, it's one of those situations where it really doesn't matter how it's done, as long as it just works, but we want to know anyway!

 

[GioF_71]

Chromecast can be gapless I get it gapless through Roon there is no resampling or fixed rates. It’s possible to do it but they did work with Google directly when developing their support for Chromecast they did not just use the API.

Yes like LMS does... but this works probably because there is a server (roon/lms) involved. Probably, for a desktop app, doing this task is a heavy burden. And also, consider that in this case, the application would have to serve the data to the chromecast, while in the current model afaik, the chromecast pulls the stream and plays it. It's very different I believe. But I am curious to hear what you and others think.
Thanks for the contribution!

 

[GioF_71]

I have and still find it a bit harsh on top. Compared Roon via it and using Squeezlite and as of yesterday RAAT, I prefer the latter two l

I don't question your observations. I tend to stay happy with me not hearing any difference!

Qobuz has multiple lossless versions of the same album in their catalogue. Most of the time they have both cd and a hires. Roon shows you only the lossless . Setting the streaming limit to 192 only allows you to stream up to that there is no upsampling of anything. It plays what version you choose based on your settings. 192 albums are pretty rare though. If you choose higher than your device then depending on that device it will fail to play or downsample. Chromecast will downsample internally to match what it supports. For the lossy streams these I believe will be transcoded on the fly to mp3 at the rate you choose.

Yes I really hope that the chromecast device (even a built-in as in our WiiM devices) does not do the downsampling on its own... like @Brantome said a few posts earlier.

 

[CrystalGipsy]

I don't question your observations. I tend to stay happy with me not hearing any difference!




Yes I really hope that the chromecast device (even a built-in as in our WiiM devices) does not do the downsampling on its own... like @Brantome said a few posts earlier.

It would for any 192/24 material as CC is really only supported up to 96/24. This is how Roon reports the Wiim. Most apps won’t report what’s going on under the hood and will still show you the sample rate of the source material not what is actually going to the DAC. Google don’t mention any support for 192/24 for music and their own devices only support up to 96/24. Whilst the protocol might be able to push 192/24 it’s out of spec.