If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
I've become curious about what streaming audio/video is all about. For years now I've had pcs with shared folders that contain multi-media material that is accessible from all the pcs in the house. Three of the pcs are hooked up with video out to a tv and audio sent to the accompanying stereo. When you want to watch something you simply select the proper input for that tv and then access the network share, select what you want and it plays on that system. Has wrked fine ever since got first video card had video out on it more than a decade ago now. I do not think of this as streaming. Because this ability has been around for years now I don't really understand this streaming business when it's in house. For example, why does Windows want to stream anything when it's so easy "my way"? So I'm thinking the streaming must be for devices that can't decode anything themselves, e.g. tv's. The stream is not the raw "data" in the usual sense I think of it but rather what's sent down the wire is something else. If so, what? It's obvious when it's the Internet (and money) involved but ... again, why the streaming for personal in house use? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
pjp wrote:
I've become curious about what streaming audio/video is all about. For years now I've had pcs with shared folders that contain multi-media material that is accessible from all the pcs in the house. Three of the pcs are hooked up with video out to a tv and audio sent to the accompanying stereo. When you want to watch something you simply select the proper input for that tv and then access the network share, select what you want and it plays on that system. Has wrked fine ever since got first video card had video out on it more than a decade ago now. I do not think of this as streaming. Because this ability has been around for years now I don't really understand this streaming business when it's in house. For example, why does Windows want to stream anything when it's so easy "my way"? So I'm thinking the streaming must be for devices that can't decode anything themselves, e.g. tv's. The stream is not the raw "data" in the usual sense I think of it but rather what's sent down the wire is something else. If so, what? It's obvious when it's the Internet (and money) involved but ... again, why the streaming for personal in house use? I think you're spot on. That is streaming. What's changed is similar to what's changed with "The Cloud". Very little, but they've developed software to use it more efficiently; with syncing across devices, sharing, linking to Facebook and Twitter. "Streaming" has acquired better PR, with a glossy sales brochure. Plus a bit added by Smart TVs and hifi, and their software to link to your network. Stick with what you have. You obviously know what you're doing. Ed |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
On 11/8/2015 10:17 AM, pjp wrote:
I've become curious about what streaming audio/video is all about. For years now I've had pcs with shared folders that contain multi-media material that is accessible from all the pcs in the house. Three of the pcs are hooked up with video out to a tv and audio sent to the accompanying stereo. When you want to watch something you simply select the proper input for that tv and then access the network share, select what you want and it plays on that system. Has wrked fine ever since got first video card had video out on it more than a decade ago now. I do not think of this as streaming. Because this ability has been around for years now I don't really understand this streaming business when it's in house. For example, why does Windows want to stream anything when it's so easy "my way"? So I'm thinking the streaming must be for devices that can't decode anything themselves, e.g. tv's. The stream is not the raw "data" in the usual sense I think of it but rather what's sent down the wire is something else. If so, what? It's obvious when it's the Internet (and money) involved but ... again, why the streaming for personal in house use? I enjoy listening to classical and other music. I have a large collection of vinyl, cassettes, and CDs. However, my little home office on the second floor of my house is not large enough for my music system, which instead is on the first floor. This makes even wiring speakers into my office impractical since I would have to run down and then up stairs every time a medium has to be changed. Instead, I have several applications on my PC that can stream radio broadcasts to my PC's speakers. See my http://www.rossde.com/music.html for details. -- David E. Ross Is Kim Davis a hero or a villain? See my http://www.rossde.com/KimDavis.html. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 12:08:40 -0800, David E. Ross wrote:
Instead, I have several applications on my PC that can stream radio broadcasts to my PC's speakers. See my http://www.rossde.com/music.html for details. Your link to Passionato gave me a "server not found", but a couple of the other links there are new to me. Thanks! -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
I recently bought laptop with Miracast/WiDi and can wirelessly cast video,
audio or mirror screen to Smart TV. I use a soundbar for better audio but can easily be connected to hi-fi too. Daughter has older laptop & TV and can do similar using Chromecast dongle, main difference is with Miracast it goes directly to TV, with Chromecast it goes via router. Kenny "Stan Brown" wrote in message t... On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 12:08:40 -0800, David E. Ross wrote: Instead, I have several applications on my PC that can stream radio broadcasts to my PC's speakers. See my http://www.rossde.com/music.html for details. Your link to Passionato gave me a "server not found", but a couple of the other links there are new to me. Thanks! -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
On 11/8/2015 2:03 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 12:08:40 -0800, David E. Ross wrote: Instead, I have several applications on my PC that can stream radio broadcasts to my PC's speakers. See my http://www.rossde.com/music.html for details. Your link to Passionato gave me a "server not found", but a couple of the other links there are new to me. Thanks! I deleted the entry for Passionato. -- David E. Ross Is Kim Davis a hero or a villain? See my http://www.rossde.com/KimDavis.html. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
In message , G.
Morgan writes: pjp wrote: Means I can now connect my newer laptop to a tv as it came without any means to do so except the external vga port. I wouldn't buy a new lappy unless it had HDMI out or better. And if you have a TV like pjp's that (I presume) only has composite input, and want to - at least sometimes - drive it from the lappy? IME, you rarely get three generations of output: HDMI and VGA, or VGA and composite, but not all three. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If you want to make people angry, lie to them. If you want to make them absolutely livid, then tell 'em the truth. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
In message , Ed Cryer
writes: [] Another thing, as well. I listen to radio quite a lot. I've had all the radios on DAB for years, but I recently tried old FM. And blimey! It's better than the DAB, which is only streamed at 128KBits here in the UK. (It also is stuck with an inefficient coder - mp2, I think - on which 128K is not as good as 128K mp3 would be. Oh, hang on, you said "streamed" - did you really mean streamed, or are you talking about broadcast?) So I've switched them all over to FM and left them there. OK on that - yes, it's certainly better than DAB, most of the time and on most stations. I'm getting a feel for why so many younger people are using old vinyl records, with "retro" players. But not so sure about that: it depends what they're comparing to. If to streamed or other mp3 (or other) which has been encoded at the lowest bitrate someone thinks they can get away with, then yes, vinyl will sound better. If to _un_compressed (in both bitrate and amplitude!) CD, then I'd say they are fooling themselves (not to mention convenience of use). A _good_ record player cartridge has distortion in the whole numbers of per cent ... (-: Ed John -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If you want to make people angry, lie to them. If you want to make them absolutely livid, then tell 'em the truth. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer writes: [] Another thing, as well. I listen to radio quite a lot. I've had all the radios on DAB for years, but I recently tried old FM. And blimey! It's better than the DAB, which is only streamed at 128KBits here in the UK. (It also is stuck with an inefficient coder - mp2, I think - on which 128K is not as good as 128K mp3 would be. Oh, hang on, you said "streamed" - did you really mean streamed, or are you talking about broadcast?) So I've switched them all over to FM and left them there. OK on that - yes, it's certainly better than DAB, most of the time and on most stations. I'm getting a feel for why so many younger people are using old vinyl records, with "retro" players. But not so sure about that: it depends what they're comparing to. If to streamed or other mp3 (or other) which has been encoded at the lowest bitrate someone thinks they can get away with, then yes, vinyl will sound better. If to _un_compressed (in both bitrate and amplitude!) CD, then I'd say they are fooling themselves (not to mention convenience of use). A _good_ record player cartridge has distortion in the whole numbers of per cent ... (-: Ed John Nah! We've all been conned by the digital-is-best salesmen. The population is getting older, and older ears don't hear as well. But younger ones hear well enough. And they can hear the thin, drabby stuff that comes through; and they want better, and go for it. Ed |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
In message , Ed Cryer
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ed Cryer writes: [] I'm getting a feel for why so many younger people are using old vinyl records, with "retro" players. But not so sure about that: it depends what they're comparing to. If to streamed or other mp3 (or other) which has been encoded at the lowest bitrate someone thinks they can get away with, then yes, vinyl will sound better. If to _un_compressed (in both bitrate and amplitude!) CD, then I'd say they are fooling themselves (not to mention convenience of use). A _good_ record player cartridge has distortion in the whole numbers of per cent ... (-: Ed John Nah! We've all been conned by the digital-is-best salesmen. The population is getting older, and older ears don't hear as well. But younger ones hear well enough. And they can hear the thin, drabby stuff that comes through; and they want better, and go for it. Ed When digital _first_ appeared, i. e. CDs, it _was_ (and still is, if audio-level compression can be held at bay) very fine, and "digital" did indeed equate to high quality; whether really top-end analogue equipment could beat it was possibly open to debate, but certainly (once the price of CD players came down a bit), most people could afford a better CD player than record player - not to mention the care needed to get the best out of a top-end record player, and the convenience of the CD format. However, as time went on, and processing power was able to do on-the-fly decompression (initially, the processors available - domestically, at least - could just about handle the raw CD error-correcting, no decompression), "digital" signals were data-compressed to the point that the word no longer _guaranteed_ high quality. What data rates produce something acceptable is a source of endless debate, of course. Another aspect that seems to have vanished is speakers of any size; the compactness of digital equipment seems to have - inevitably, one could say - created compact equipment, which inevitably has smaller speakers built into it. While not denying that speaker design has improved a _bit_, I think this is probably part of the reason for "thin, drabby" being associated with digital; if put through proper speakers [though I'm not sure I'm familiar with the word drabby], _good_ digital can sound good. Some of the even cheap record-players being sold now do at least have sizeable speakers (if only because record-players tend to be over a certain size!). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ed Cryer writes: [] I'm getting a feel for why so many younger people are using old vinyl records, with "retro" players. But not so sure about that: it depends what they're comparing to. If to streamed or other mp3 (or other) which has been encoded at the lowest bitrate someone thinks they can get away with, then yes, vinyl will sound better. If to _un_compressed (in both bitrate and amplitude!) CD, then I'd say they are fooling themselves (not to mention convenience of use). A _good_ record player cartridge has distortion in the whole numbers of per cent ... (-: Ed John Nah! We've all been conned by the digital-is-best salesmen. The population is getting older, and older ears don't hear as well. But younger ones hear well enough. And they can hear the thin, drabby stuff that comes through; and they want better, and go for it. Ed When digital _first_ appeared, i. e. CDs, it _was_ (and still is, if audio-level compression can be held at bay) very fine, and "digital" did indeed equate to high quality; whether really top-end analogue equipment could beat it was possibly open to debate, but certainly (once the price of CD players came down a bit), most people could afford a better CD player than record player - not to mention the care needed to get the best out of a top-end record player, and the convenience of the CD format. However, as time went on, and processing power was able to do on-the-fly decompression (initially, the processors available - domestically, at least - could just about handle the raw CD error-correcting, no decompression), "digital" signals were data-compressed to the point that the word no longer _guaranteed_ high quality. What data rates produce something acceptable is a source of endless debate, of course. Fortunately CDs are still available, and with the higher quality DACs available today, can sound better than they ever did. Most DACs are poor, though, and many modern recordings are pre-ruined in the studio. Another aspect that seems to have vanished is speakers of any size; the compactness of digital equipment seems to have - inevitably, one could say - created compact equipment, which inevitably has smaller speakers built into it. While not denying that speaker design has improved a _bit_, I think this is probably part of the reason for "thin, drabby" being associated with digital; if put through proper speakers [though I'm not sure I'm familiar with the word drabby], _good_ digital can sound good. Some of the even cheap record-players being sold now do at least have sizeable speakers (if only because record-players tend to be over a certain size!). I'm amazed by the fullness of sound available from quite small speakers nowadays. But I think if I listened to one for any length of time, its limitations would soon become apparent. -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
In message , Mike Barnes
writes: [] Fortunately CDs are still available, and with the higher quality DACs available today, can sound better than they ever did. Most DACs are poor, though, and many modern recordings are pre-ruined in the studio. Indeed - probably the worst culprit being audio-level compression. (Which has the strange effect that old vinyls can be better than modern CDs, at least as far as dynamic range is concerned - despite the considerably more limited dynamic range of the medium.) [] I'm amazed by the fullness of sound available from quite small speakers nowadays. But I think if I listened to one for any length of time, its Indeed; they have come on a lot - and also, battery technology _really_ has, so it's practical to just throw a lot more power at them than it used to be. limitations would soon become apparent. Indeed. My old Solavoxes still sound good. (And they weren't particularly high quality [It was one of the pen-names of Amstrad, I think]! Just not ported.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said Pooh, when he looked up his name in the dictionary. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Streaming query
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ed Cryer writes: [] I'm getting a feel for why so many younger people are using old vinyl records, with "retro" players. But not so sure about that: it depends what they're comparing to. If to streamed or other mp3 (or other) which has been encoded at the lowest bitrate someone thinks they can get away with, then yes, vinyl will sound better. If to _un_compressed (in both bitrate and amplitude!) CD, then I'd say they are fooling themselves (not to mention convenience of use). A _good_ record player cartridge has distortion in the whole numbers of per cent ... (-: Ed John Nah! We've all been conned by the digital-is-best salesmen. The population is getting older, and older ears don't hear as well. But younger ones hear well enough. And they can hear the thin, drabby stuff that comes through; and they want better, and go for it. Ed When digital _first_ appeared, i. e. CDs, it _was_ (and still is, if audio-level compression can be held at bay) very fine, and "digital" did indeed equate to high quality; whether really top-end analogue equipment could beat it was possibly open to debate, but certainly (once the price of CD players came down a bit), most people could afford a better CD player than record player - not to mention the care needed to get the best out of a top-end record player, and the convenience of the CD format. However, as time went on, and processing power was able to do on-the-fly decompression (initially, the processors available - domestically, at least - could just about handle the raw CD error-correcting, no decompression), "digital" signals were data-compressed to the point that the word no longer _guaranteed_ high quality. What data rates produce something acceptable is a source of endless debate, of course. Another aspect that seems to have vanished is speakers of any size; the compactness of digital equipment seems to have - inevitably, one could say - created compact equipment, which inevitably has smaller speakers built into it. While not denying that speaker design has improved a _bit_, I think this is probably part of the reason for "thin, drabby" being associated with digital; if put through proper speakers [though I'm not sure I'm familiar with the word drabby], _good_ digital can sound good. Some of the even cheap record-players being sold now do at least have sizeable speakers (if only because record-players tend to be over a certain size!). Yes, I think you've captured the process very well there. I remember the early days of digital. At a time when we were all acclimatised to analogue, the Deutsche Grammophon digital recordings sounded much better; even on musicassttes. And once we'd heard those we went for digital every time. I remember that I would only buy digital eventually. Ed |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|