Because too much wireless , wireless headphone, wireless speakers add to the electrical background too much already... More technological improvement sometimes is less... And a cable can substract some quality or add some to the final result... https://www.news-medical.net/health/Does-WiFi-Affect-the-Brain.aspx
|
When you listen to home audio there are no diversions and your ears are extremely sensitive instruments. Nuances of sound characteristics and noise is incredibly obvious. So, the absolute highest possible quality of interfacing is required. Wireless stuff isn't even close to competing with wired stuff.
|
I have experience with live sound reinforcement, and wireless mics have never been as reliable and foolproof as wired. As well, my KEF LS50 first generation work flawlessly, every time I listen to them. I have read many forum postings about the wireless versions having glitches, dropouts, etc. I like interchanging speaker cables as a hobbyist, as well. Cheers- |
@mahgister, @cleeds, @ghdprentice Thanks for you responces! Much appreciated. Makes sense what you've all said. But wait, don't people wirelessly stream Hi-Def files? Just saying.
|
Audiophile quality streamers that are capable of true audiophile quality sound exist. I own an Aurender W20SE ($22K) and Aurender has introduced the new N50 which is a three box solution and cost $38K. These devices may be operated off a wifi extender and give sound quality comparable to an analog system of similar cost. They catch all the bits, cache them and then restream them so they will sound the same as a CD or a physical media source. So, this part of it can be done. Less expensive streamers like and Aurender N200 can compete with physical media at these lower costs. The lure that has made these "wireless" devices possible has been adding a library of music for virtually no cost. There is no huge payoff for doing this between other components. |
Wireless definitely has the advantage of convenience. For me personally it's really more about reliability. I have suffered in one way or another through many versions of wifi, sometimes in very congested areas sometimes not. Devices overheat for no apparent reason and wifi drops, your neighbors new Comcastg router just added 8 new wifi signals on your band and is crowding you out.... that's my biggest beef with it. The other one is EMI/RFI interference and noise potential. Not sure if that's real or not but I worry. From a pure numbers game, assuming you have a good connection and no competition Wifi has so much more bandwidth than audio will ever need, and I've heard good things about Wifi 7's ability to be stable even in a crowded environment, so, sure! Try it. |
Wireless WiFi data connections for streaming work 100% fine as long as you have a strong connection. That’s all I use. The key term here is it’s just another network data connection. You just need enough bandwidth to keep the data streaming. There is no sound making involved until the data hits the streamer and then goes to the DAC. Same story with modern hi res smart TVs. All you need is the network bandwidth. I own a Cambridge Audio Evo 150 all in one among other hifi gear. The only wires with that when streaming is to the speakers . So nice and sound quality is top notch/ big league for sure. Obviously wireless subwoofers are a thing as well. I use one with a tv soundbar but have not tried in a good system. I’ve heard some very impressive sounding Bluetooth headphones recently. AptX lossless does CD resolution over Bluetooth these days. So there is now also that.
|
I have no technical knowledge on wireless versus wired, just my own user experience. My experience is that wireless can be much more convenient, when it is working. At the gym, no wires is a must. At home, a traditional CD player into a good DAC, seems to sound "better." Maybe because there is no stress that it can't connect. In contrast, almost daily Roon cannot find the core, taking 2-3 minutes of fiddling. Connected, Roon is great. In sum, whenever possible, I'm wired. |
The big fat wires normally connecting amps and speakers have to transmit power measured in tens or hundreds of Watts. We are talking microwave ovens worth. by comparison, and you do not want to accidentally cook something in the radio beam, like a bird or your head. Wireless data transmission over short distances usually needs only tiny amounts of power. Many applications run for months or years on a single button-cell power source. The only way to get rid of the amp to speaker wires is to put the amp(s) in the speaker box. But you still need to run mains power so wireless is rarely actually wire less. |
I agree with 'wire everything you can'. With one exception in my case :). My REL Carbon Limited subs run wirelessly on REL's Longbow system. Why? I had node (booming) issues with the subs in traditional (easily wired) positions. I found with the wireless, I could move the subs around to find their best positions. Turns out it was all the way to each side and asymmetrical. I have a basement with odd wall shapes. In this case, I achieved better sound by moving the subs to spots where wires were difficult at best. From Tone's review of the Carbon Limiteds:
My Auralic Aries Streamer can also run wirelessly, but it is most definitely wired. |
all the usual reasons that wireless is convenient but inferior. Slower speeds, more dropouts, much more jitter and therefore queuing demand (although jitter is filtered by your bridge), and a very noisy transmitter receiver, made worse by high usage/loads.
For most it probably won make. BIG deal but if you are chasing th best possible and have a really good system, the small effort is worth it. |
There are times when convenience is useful. It is never paramount. I don't stream, I've got more LP's and CD's than I can ever listen to. When not listening intently I prefer as much silence as I can get, and that includes the AC and the rooftop exhaust fan. When I listen I focus on the sound, on the music. I just finished listening to an album of stuff from Zimbabwe in the 80's. Last night it was Carl Nielsen"s Sixth Symphony. I listen to these things like an explorer, always discovering new stuff. Having background music in a car makes me crazy. Bottom line: what other people do is fine with me but that's not where I am. If I had all my equipment hardwired within one box that is what I would do. I'm not going to send the music to the speakers by radio. I'm not going to take an analog signal. digitize it, then reassemble it. For internet radio, sure. Otherwise, life is too short. I'm not arguing against convenience. Sometimes that is necessary. But to me, throwback as I am, the very concept of a server is anathema. I know that stuff sounds pretty good, or can. But joining the digital milieu is not my gig. My AirPods? Good for noise suppression when they reroofed the house, or for calls when going for a walk. Hard to take the stereo with you! |
Regarding all in 1 streamers, I forgot to note the Cambridge Audio Evo supports Bluetooth output connectivity to speakers as well, so possible to be totally wireless streaming with that kind of “future-fi” device. Toss in the latest cd res Bluetooth protocols and you are golden there in terms of matching what is possible with CDs historically. High res beyond cd is nice but has significant diminishing returns. I’d be hard pressed to distinguish most CD res recordings from alternate high res options. The science that went into defining CD res as suitable for a hifi digital standard (Nyquist Theorum) many years ago turned out to be quite solid. |
Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure none of the Aurender streamers are truly "wireless." Rather, they're designed for wired ethernet. To get them to work wirelessly, a wifi dongle is required, or you need to run ethernet cable from the wifi router or extender. For some of us, that's rather like a kludge. I think there's a reason Aurender doesn't include wifi capability, even on an apparently "cost no object" 38K component. |
My system is essentially wireless (but only partially). My streamer (Linn ADSM/3 with Katalyst) requires an ethernet connection. This is not convenient in my house setup. I tested it with an ethernet cable stretched across the room, across a hallway, and across another room. It sounded fantastic. I then move one of my mesh satellites next to my streamer and ran a short ethernet from the satellite to the ADSM. Basically I fooled my streamer into thinking it was hardwired to the internet, while in reality it was running wireless. I COULD HEAR NO DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY!!! |
A lot of answers touching on the reasons, especially the carrying of required power and potential (voltage). The ultimate disadvantage of wireless is headroom, even at multi-GHz connections. What this means is you're listening to a dynamic range of frequencies between 20Hz and 20,000Hz. Those frequencies have to be fit onto a channel with only so much bandwidth at 2.4GHz, 5GHz, 6GHz, or other carrier frequency. Someone also mentioned interference so imagine sharing your music with one of the many other components on that wireless band and its sidebands and harmonics. You start to compete for priority and, as a result, sound quality suffers. If it's JUST data, you're usually okay because those are 1s and 0s. But Bluetooth is a good example where you're basically broadcasting and receiving a radio signal at 2.4GHz. Its a crap load better than 104.3MHz, but still not better than lamp cord 🙂 |
