Can anyone tell me how the wireless protocol works?

[stop-spinning]

I am interested in how the wireless protocol works with a Squeezebox Touch (or Duet I guess for that matter)?

I noticed when I used one some while back that there was a large buffer in the Duet - when I disconnected the wireless link to the computer - the Duet was playing for about 15 or so seconds afterwards - which seem to be a decent size buffer.

So I just wondered - when playing music initiated from the Personal Computer, there is a slight delay before starting - so does music first get 'copied' to the Squeezebox over the wireless network - then once copied (which should be perfect if using TCP/IP and CRC checksums)- it then actually gets played from the copy on the SB itself?

[pippin]

In every streaming system (digital) the music is first copied to the target, it's being delivered in packets.
However, the SB doesn't have to wait for the full 15s buffer to fill, it can start to play as soon as the first decidable packet is there (depends on the codec) and will fill the buffer in the background.

[JJZolx]

I am interested in how the wireless protocol works with a Squeezebox Touch (or Duet I guess for that matter)?

There is no 'wireless' protocol. The streaming protocol over the network is the same for both wired and wireless connections.

I noticed when I used one some while back that there was a large buffer in the Duet - when I disconnected the wireless link to the computer - the Duet was playing for about 15 or so seconds afterwards - which seem to be a decent size buffer.

Right, but the length of time the audio will play from the buffer will depend on the degree of compression of the data. It might be 15 seconds for WAV (PCM), or it might be a couple of minutes for MP3 at some low bitrate.

So I just wondered - when playing music initiated from the Personal Computer, there is a slight delay before starting - so does music first get 'copied' to the Squeezebox over the wireless network - then once copied (which should be perfect if using TCP/IP and CRC checksums)- it then actually gets played from the copy on the SB itself?

The buffer is prefilled to some degree (I think measured in bytes) before playback will begin. The faster the server and the network, the quicker this happens. And why a faster network connection (such as wired 100 Mbps ethernet) will be more reliable. If there's a network or server interruption, the faster network allows the buffer to refill more quickly and avoid underruns.

[stop-spinning]

So in essence the musical data should be copied perfectly over wireless to the SB Touch from the source (just like when you copy a hi-res photo or video file from one computer to another and the image is still all there when viewed from the target PC without any loss whatsoever).

If this is the case, then why is wireless discouraged for sound quality reasons? Surely this the best way to isolate an electrically noisy computer source from the likes of a PC for example (assuming the simplicity of the SB Touch is much more electrically quieter than an all out monster gaming computer).

If the overheads of WPA encryption and decryption is stressing out the SB Touch then just send the Music over an open wireless network instead (as long as you don't send your credit card details over this same link).

[w3wilkes]

If you have a reliable wireless connection then there should be no difference in the sound quality of a wired connection. Bits are bits. If you have a bad wireless environment you could experience dropouts in the music from buffer underruns.

[Mnyb]

If this is the case, then why is wireless discouraged for sound quality reasons? .

Yeah why , indeed these are opinions from audiphiles the same people that can argues that digital cables in silver sounds better or use shakti stones and you read in on the internet the foremost source of reliable unbiased information

[pippin]

If this is the case, then why is wireless discouraged for sound quality reasons? Surely this the best way to isolate an electrically noisy computer source from the likes of a PC for example (assuming the simplicity of the SB Touch is much more electrically quieter than an all out monster gaming computer).

Because some People like to bullshit around about SQ and also people always WANT to find something to optimize. It's the same type of nonsense as to decode lossless formats of the server, use specific OSs for your server or selling high-end power cables.

[probedb]

If this is the case, then why is wireless discouraged for sound quality reasons? Surely this the best way to isolate an electrically noisy computer source from the likes of a PC for example (assuming the simplicity of the SB Touch is much more electrically quieter than an all out monster gaming computer).

Because people are idiots

I'm surprised no-one has recommended filling rooms where the wireless signals travel with a different gas because it results in better sound quality. Of course you'd have to buy a gas mask because said gas would be toxic to breathe. This would then lead onto the sale of audiophile gas masks....

Or am I taking it too far?

[JJZolx]

If this is the case, then why is wireless discouraged for sound quality reasons?

RFI is the reason usually stated. Many audiophiles will not operate a wireless network in their homes for the same reason.

[stop-spinning]

Yes but there's RFI everywhere - one more wireless connection won't make a difference surely?

Anyway - whats the lesser of two evils - directly connected to an electrically noisy computer - or RFI (which is all around us anyway)?