Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions Adaptation for PC Streaming to a NAD Receiver?

Guys: I have done extensive reading about NAD A/V Receivers and am pretty impressed. However I would like to stream music from my PC to a T765 A/V & the NAD doesn't do this, at least that is my conclusion. Does anyone know if there is a technology that can be used to do this? Thanks for your replies and assistance....Lee

I'd use a Squeezebox.

You could also use iTunes (Mac/PC) and Pandoar with an Airport Express and Airfoil. Or Sonos.

T-minus 10 seconds until "I hate iTunes/Apple" screed posted.

I'm wondering about the same thing? I'm looking at either Apple TV or Western Digital Live plus. Any thoughts on either of these 2 units from my research they seem pretty good.

I use an Airport Express, which works pretty well, except when it crashes maybe once a month or so. Easy enough to restart, but kind of annoying. I would assume the ATV would be similar. I have heard good things about the WD Live, too.

Oooh. Apple TV is a good idea.

Lee, you're correct that the T765 doesn't have an input that connects directly to your computer's audio output. Since you're considering a new receiver, I'm a bit curious about what would be impressive enough about the 765 that you'd get it rather than a unit such as one of the Denons or Onkyos that has such an input. Although the 765 is typically excellent for amplification, it has been around for a few years and some of the features are somewhat dated.

Be that as it may, I assume that your main interest is the streaming classical stations, as is mine. What I've used for about nine years to connect the USB output of my laptop to one of my receivers is the Xitel Hifi Link(now called MP3 Streamer ). Another product with a similar purpose, but using a separately purchased optical cable to make the connection is this . For the use in question a simple device such as these, which allows a direct wired connection, is fine.

Thanks for all your suggestions. I will be streaming music from Rhapsody from my laptop, something I should have mentioned. But omission of these kinds of details become more apparent to me as I participate in and on this forum. I am very new to technology at this level.

It seems the Audio Advantage Micro II suggested by John will do the trick for me if and when I go with the NAD.

John, you've probably read that the 765v2 is a receiver that accepts modular upgrades as technology develops. These units allow retention of the main receiver. One can upgrade as needed or desired (if available of course). My interest however is audio with surround. I've investigated many options. I've also read your many posts and understand your thinking. Many out there agree with you (other than just on this particular forum). Many do not. I personally have experienced a noticeable difference in quality of sound from one receiver to another. The differences are not always very obvious, but some are, at least to me. I listen to consistently the same material and take into consideration power, tone (which must always be neutral) etc. I listen for specific sounds and instruments to assure the amplifier within the receiver is reproducing what I want, expect and have already heard that pleases me from the music. As humans, we too are instruments. We hear and interpret sound. Our brains may very well hear what other brains cannot or may dismiss as inconsequential or may not process at all. What is pleasing to one may not please another, you know I'm talking about the subjective nature of man. So I went through a lot of research and found the Axiom M80's. I like them very much. I am doing the same with receivers now. I claim no special abilities for hearing. I only know what I like and want. My profession includes assessment of human perception which cannot always be measured in a lab. Whether or not a receiver distorts slightly in favor of warmth or any other kind of distortion, if it is what I'm looking (listening) for I'll buy it. Of course I am not tugging the M80's around with me so there are some assumptions I must make as to performance with my speakers. That's a risk I am willing to take however. In any case I've dismissed the Denons, at least for now (you know that I am using one now, although an older model). Onkyo, HK, Arcam, Rotel, B&K and NAD are the front runners for me. I wanted opinions on streaming into a NAD to assure if that is the receiver I choose it will work with Rhapsody. A long explanation and justification? Yes, that is because I value your opinion and input and our tastes in music are similar. These interchanges are important and enjoyable to me. You apparently enjoy them as well given your tenure on this forum..Regards..Lee

Refreshing and fascinating post, Lee. Thank you.

That is a great post, Thanks Lee!

Maybe Roku? Heck, even a PS3 if you've got one already.

Tivo.

Lee, some of the language in your reply may indicate that you're not really grasping the basis of some of the points that I and others(for example, see Alan again commenting recently here )make in this matter. You refer to my "thinking" and say "agree with you" as if this was something as trivial as a mere personal opinion. On the contrary, this isn't based on personal experience, but rather a study of well-established principles of audio technology which aren't subject to being repealed by contrary opinions expressed on audio forums which lack solid evidence to support them.

Again, the point is that these units measure audibly flat and with inaudibly low levels of noise and distortion, and carefully controlled(controls not present in casual listening) blind tests fail to support claims that audible differences nevertheless can be heard. None of us can simply "Just trust your ears", as the charlatans who abound in this business urge when they lack a factual basis for their product's claimed superiority. Failing to realize this leads to miscalculations such as your "dismissing" the Denons which surely satisfy instruments which are far more sensitive than our fallible ears. These units can't be bought by attempting to "listen" for something that just isn't there.

Lee, I own a NAD T785HD and am very pleased with its performance in my large room. I especially like the modular upgrade system that NAD has employed and they seem to be following through on this as they have introduced a 3D module if you are so inclined. This AVR is a brute and doesn't break a sweat playing my front 3, 4ohm Axioms and 4 QS8s as loud as you want.

Now I personally hook the NAD to the paid version of Pandora through an Acer laptop with an HDMI output, fed into the NAD. This works very well for my needs. I also use a Netgear Neo TV 550 to stream video and music from my main PC via cat5. It also has a HDMI hookup to the NAD this too works well.
I use Pandora for casual listening and the Oppo 83SE for more critical listening. I also have NAD's "B" speakers fed out to the deck when entertaining or relaxing out there. If this type of setup is acceptable to you I think you too will like the NAD AVR.

Agreed. The Pandora interface is done pretty well. I like that it defaults to a floating mode so there's no screen burn in.

Thanks radtek2 for your confirmation.

Hi John: I do not think your points, Alan's and other like-minded folks as trivial. They are objective and scientific conclusions. Your comments especially encourage those such as me to spend wisely and not on unnecessary power and features. I consider the specs along with other factors; aesthetics, features, cost, overall quality based on repair records etc....

My reasons for not including the Denons is a subjective decision. Yes, I've heard differences in receivers but as I indicated I can't make any definite conclusions but only assumptions since I'm not testing each receiver blindly, in the same room, with the same speakers and under the same conditions with my eyes covered.

I can't and won't argue inaudibles as measured in a lab scientifically. But I will argue that people perceive sound differently and we too are instruments that measure and process sound subjectively. Preferences and tastes are not the same from one person to another just as one genre of music may please one and be an anathema of sound to another. Yes I admit this point is going outside the realm of scientific engineering measurement. To stay within those boundaries is to easily prove its conclusions...hence if there is no measured audible distortion to (the human ear coming from one or another particular receiver and all else is equal, buy the one that is least expensive after all it's just physics. A good and sound argument. I think there is more to it and my listening experience bears this out. I can't prove it to you, and it can't be measured. I'm sure you're just shaking your head back and forth thinking "he just doesn't get it!")

Audio Advisor is offering the Nad T765 on sale.

I don't know the V2 version? Probably not for that price.

The guy's house I went to when I auditioned axioms in 2007 had a squeezebox and I was pretty impressed.

I wouldn't count on Rhapsody providing you with very good recording quality. I suggest you build a digital library in FLAC format and stream that to whatever receiver you decide to buy for pure lossless m80 awesomeness.

St. PatGuy: Yes it is v2 & and a great price. V1 doesn't have the module upgrade capacity...Thanks.

Actually, Rhapsody's quality is excellent. I've never heard any sort of compression artifacts. Though, I've never A/B'd against a real CD, I'm quite impressed with what they offer.

Plus, they just enabled (optional) 192kbps AAC streaming to phones (if your data plan can handle it). So even music on the go sounds good.

No problem, Lee. Glad I could help!

I rip all of my digital library in FLAC via a Vortexbox Appliance, serve it up through Squeezebox and am extremely happy with both the ease of ripping and the sound quality. It's totally plug and play or if you want you can build your own Vortexbox with the free software provided.

Lee, I was aware of that 765 deal at the time of my previous reply, but because of my comment relating to some dated features I didn't link to it. My thought re the 765 still stands, and if you do decide to get an NAD, I'd suggest you go with at least the 775 here, with more updated features, including Audyssey room correction.

Chris, I had heard that the quality wasn't the best but have never listened to it myself. Good to know that isn't necessarily true.

Hi Chris and all,

I agree with you, Chris, on the sound quality of Rhapsody; I've not heard any compression artifacts on the admittedly limited number of selections I have on my portable player.

What is often overlooked in many forum discussions about data rates and audible artifacts is the complexity of the musical programming.

As someone who spent days on a professional listening panel auditioning various compression schemes at various data rates in a experimentally extremely well-controlled listening environment, I can state that for most musical content, it was surprising how many of the test selections passed the listening tests at very low data rates. At 192 kbps and higher, it was only with concentrated headphone listening (the phones were high-end electrostatics) and repeated A/B/X comparisons that some instruments sounded flawed: mainly harpsichord, and castinets.

These tests, by the way, were repeated by similar panels of "golden ears" in the U.K. (BBC music producers) and the Australian Broadcasting services and the results were the same.

ON the other hand, there was one test selction, an a cappella version of "Tom's Diner," by Suzanne Vega, that proved to be one of the most critical test signals. At any data rate below 320 kbps, Vega's voice took on a slightly metallic quality that was quite audible and offensive.

Using data rates above 320 kbps, all of the test selections including complex orchestral works by Ravel, with plenty of percussion, were artifact-free.

For those interested, the A/B/X comparisons required the listener to compare uncompressed digital files to various codecs (unnamed) at random and see if we could detect any audible differences. You always had the choice of listening to the headphones or high-end tri-amped professional monitors. Some compression artifacts that were easily detectable with headphone comparisons totally passed with loudspeaker listening.

While I've been amazed at how much excellent music remains untainted by data rates as low as 192 kbps, I never forget the Suzanne Vega example.

Regards,
Alan

oooooh!

A new, odd sig line!

Sig adjusted.

Thanks John, I know you think highly of the Audyssey MultEQ XT technology and am convinced it would improve the sound quality of my system in its playing environment. There is an upgrade module for the 765 that has this feature but buying the 765 and adding this module would cost more than the advertised 775 at this point and it's at a great price. As it is my first order for business was to obtain the main M80 speakers initially for stereo listening (and as I write I am listening to Sibelius and the M80's are just singing away!).

I think a power source has to be my next investment before any other expansion of speakers for surround & subwoofer purposes. I also believe the NAD's are rated very conservatively & I am leaning toward the older and upgradable 765 & 775 now for its solid engineering and reserve power. Another minor issue is the requirement for phono pre-amp since one isn't built into the NAD's and I have some 400 vinyls, a decent Denon turntable and a great Shure V15 Type IV MM cartridge. I know I should jump on this deal now but I am not by nature impetuous but rather take my time to carefully study my options and then wait for the next time a deal arises.

Yeah, Lee; I see that the AM 200 module alone lists for $600. For that amount of money I'd get an entire receiver, such as the Onkyo 808 at Accessories4less, which would do the job just fine.

Hello Captain4105,

Glad to hear you're enjoying your M80s.

One caveat I'll mention on complex components with "modular upgrade capacity": while in theory it would seem to be ideal, several engineers I've spoken to, including a former Axiom engineer, reject modular AV receiver designs because of potential long-term relibility problems.

The multi-pin modules typically require many tiny plug-in pins that over time may or could become intermittent.

Onkyo tried a modular receiver some years ago and abandoned that type of design. When Axiom considered developing an AV receiver, I spoke with engineer Tom Cumberland about a modular approach. He rejected it immediately because of the aforementioned problems.

Perhaps NAD has overcome these engineering objections with their modular approach.

Regards,
Alan