The "Official" Aurender Discussion Thread

[Mazza]

If you go to Qobuz on Conductor and select the ‘my music’ tab & all your purchases are there. You can then add them to library which I was told will upload them though I have always downloaded them and mounted manually on the HDD

[agladstone]

On 4/7/2018 at 5:39 AM, Vincent1234 said:

Storage is so cheap these days that I would always go for the maximum quality. WAV sounds better than FLAC so for any critical album it's a no brainer for me. The W20 even has 12Tb, but I really wouldn't know how to get it filled, especially since Tidal/MQA is becoming a more and more important source for me.

I do all think WAV files have a slight edge vs. the same files converted to FLAC. 

Perhaps I was mistakenly thinking of DFF and DXD files as not being able to tag them

or attach meta data. Although I’ve been mostly converting WAV to AIFF for years now since AIFF is much more Tag and Meta Data friendly and it is essentially identical to WAV. 

I have an extremely large music collection (90+ TB’s and growing!) , so I wish 12TB’s were feasible in the N100H!!

As of now, 5TB’s is the largest 2.5” HDD, so that is the current limit with the N100H. 

I suspect in the near future we will be seeing consumer priced 8TB or larger 2.5” HDD or SSD. 

[mjb]

On 4/8/2018 at 1:55 PM, Mazza said:

If you go to Qobuz on Conductor and select the ‘my music’ tab & all your purchases are there. You can then add them to library which I was told will upload them though I have always downloaded them and mounted manually on the HDD

And if/when you cancel your subscription, will they stop playing or automagically disappear from the library?

[mjb]

2 hours ago, agladstone said:

I do all think WAV files have a slight edge vs. the same files converted to FLAC.  

Should I convert my FLAC collection back to WAV then?

[Foxman50]

10 minutes ago, mjb said:

Should I convert my FLAC collection back to WAV then?

 

No you should copy a couple of albums and convert to WAV so you can compare to the FLAC version. I store my files in uncompressed FLAC, same file size as WAV, however there is a definite difference between the two.

 

i prefer the FLAC version it is a little more edgy while the WAV more relaxed. Maybe im just used to the FLAC version.

 

i do find FLAC slightly easier to work with from meta data point of view.

[isquirrel]

Both HD Tracks and QOBUZ allow you to download in a number of formats. I always choose .AIFF as it sound the same as WAV is uncompressed and allows for easier tagging. QOBUZ allows you to download your files again in a different format.

[Mazza]

2 hours ago, mjb said:

And if/when you cancel your subscription, will they stop playing or automagically disappear from the library?

 

I don’t know what happens but my trial streaming subscription ends soon, so I can tell you then. But it doesn’t matter because you can download your purchases at any time

[rwwjr44]

To get the best sound from FLAC be sure to set your ripper to "Uncompressed" encoding. The files are bigger and IMHO sound better. Most rippers default to "level 5" (0-8 and uncompressed).

[mjb]

Well, this is a worrying development - I’ve religiously ripped everything to FLAC, now I learn WAV sounds better. And with no scientific basis.  Will simply transcoding magically lift my experience?

[Vincent1234]

13 minutes ago, mjb said:

Well, this is a worrying development - I’ve religiously ripped everything to FLAC, now I learn WAV sounds better. And with no scientific basis.  Will simply transcoding magically lift my experience?

Well, I think I offered an explanation earlier on. FLAC needs more processing than WAV, which in general does not help SQ. Furthermore, why would you need a 'scientific basis'? I would suggest to simply listen to some of your most beloved albums in FLAC and WAV. Then decide if it's worth your while to convert more FLAC's to WAV's. For Windows there's a fine, free program called Audacity to easily convert FLAC to WAV.

[russellbobby]

24 minutes ago, mjb said:

Well, this is a worrying development - I’ve religiously ripped everything to FLAC, now I learn WAV sounds better. And with no scientific basis.  Will simply transcoding magically lift my experience?

Just enjoy your music. With the extra storage space and the metadata ease that Flac affords it more than offsets the very small bump in SQ.  that wav files may bring.  But as I purchase a few downloads from HD Tracks I always lean towards the WAV files if they are available.

Depending the resolution of your system you may not even able to tell the difference.

[merge03]

The whole "WAV vs FLAC" debate has raged on many forums before.  And by FLAC, let us assume strictly uncompressed FLAC only.

 

In general, there isn't a winner.  A lot depends on the specific hardware platform, the core operating system, the application software, and having two good encodings of the exact same source material.  Good luck, have at it.

 

As Vincent stated, listen to the two and pick whichever one you like.  But don't assume that one "data packaging technology" (aka file format) is better than a different data packaging technology.  Again we're talking strictly about uncompressed FLAC vs WAV.

[rwwjr44]

22 hours ago, mjb said:

Well, this is a worrying development - I’ve religiously ripped everything to FLAC, now I learn WAV sounds better. And with no scientific basis.  Will simply transcoding magically lift my experience?

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, rwwjr44 said:

 

 

Be vary careful not to rush to judgement and accept this as fact. I highly recommend listening for yourself and doing some research.

[Vincent1234]

36 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Be vary careful not to rush to judgement and accept this as fact. I highly recommend listening for yourself and doing some research.

I couldn't agree more. No matter what any objectivist at CA is measuring, I do hear differences between FLAC and WAV files. Just use your own system and your own ears and decide based on that. No more, no less.

[Mazza]

Why not set up your own blind test?

 

Prepare various versions of the same track, set them up as a playlist and let the Aurender random play them on a loop. 

 

Maybe be a bit more objectivity that way. 

[agladstone]

On 4/10/2018 at 1:20 PM, mjb said:

Well, this is a worrying development - I’ve religiously ripped everything to FLAC, now I learn WAV sounds better. And with no scientific basis.  Will simply transcoding magically lift my experience?

The differences between uncompressed FLAC vs. WAV are very minimal from my experience. I’d say from my own A/B testing that I’ve always found the WAV version to my SLIGHTLY better. 

Thus, for me, I mostly have uncompressed FLAC and DSD files in my collection, and very few WAV files. For the most part, the convenience, tagging, and compatibility of FLAC balance out the slight edge of WAV’s sound quality. I’d say, if there are a small collection of your favorites and/or true “Audiophile recordings” , you can re-rip them to WAV, but otherwise, it’s not really worth worrying about it. 

[Emerald Core]

 

so how does the N100C coax potentially sound better than USB ? 

I assume it was released to based on their research that Coax could bring a better sound quality. Otherwise why bother re-release an already good product with one extra output? someone correct me if i was mistaken. 

 

 

[Mazza]

6 minutes ago, Emerald Core said:

 

so how does the N100C coax potentially sound better than USB ? 

I assume it was released to based on their research that Coax could bring a better sound quality. Otherwise why bother re-release an already good product with one extra output? someone correct me if i was mistaken. 

 

 

compatibility with legacy DACs?

[Emerald Core]

Just now, Mazza said:

compatibility with legacy DACs?

 

That is one reason. I am trying to think of other possible upgrades they have possibly done. What about the power supply section? 

[mjb]

9 minutes ago, Emerald Core said:

 

so how does the N100C coax potentially sound better than USB ? 

I assume it was released to based on their research that Coax could bring a better sound quality. Otherwise why bother re-release an already good product with one extra output? someone correct me if i was mistaken. 

 

 

I can’t comment on „better“ or not, and I’m sure it could be argued for pages as some pre-amps sound better with one input type, others with another - but I think it was released on the premis that several potential customers don‘t have a USB input on their pre-amp (legacy DAC‘s), or as an option to find which input you do have sounds better.

[Emerald Core]

off-topic: 

 

 

[russellbobby]

Yes just back from Axpona.  Huge Aurender presence. Few Lumins, I saw  1 Antipodes. Static display of the new Auralic  G2    Aurender was huge on the Digital side!!  An A10 was paired with the Paradigm Personas 5 fs mated with Anthem electronics and it was one of the better sounds of the show.

[biosailor]

4 hours ago, mjb said:

I can’t comment on „better“ or not, and I’m sure it could be argued for pages as some pre-amps sound better with one input type, others with another - but I think it was released on the premis that several potential customers don‘t have a USB input on their pre-amp (legacy DAC‘s), or as an option to find which input you do have sounds better.

I never quite understood why Aurender puts an N100C on the market. Sure legacy DACs, yes. But they also have the UC100 USB/SPDIF converter. How does this converter compare then to the N100C? To me it looks a bit confusing.

[The Computer Audiophile]

N100C is a response to consumer, dealer, and distributor demand.