Do music servers improve SQ over spinning discs?

[miguelito]

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge" Daniel J. Boorstin.

 

I don't know about your claims that you cannot get the master bits back exactly after error correction. But regardless of whether this is true or not, it would apply the same to ripping or CD playing, no?

[Paul R]

It is ironic that quite a few have come to CA to come to the conclusion that there still is a gaping hole in what the end customer desires and what is currently available.

 

In addition all that futzing around with time-consuming and complicated work arounds, constant hardware, OS, and software updating, the requirement of needing an electrical and computer engineering degree to accomplish much of it is frustrating as hell.

 

All the tweaking I have done is not out of a curiosity or fun factor, but purely because otherwise computer audio is not enjoyable/listenable to my ears. With the streamers and streamer/DACs we are getting closer (almost full circle....remember Squeezebox?) but it is still not simple for the end consumer of music.

 

Cheers

 

I think you make a very valid point, but I also think that you are out there in the 1% of audio. Really stretching the limits - to the advantage of us all.

 

Most people can listen to a stock Mac Mini playing bit perfect iTunes very happily, even some who are very much audiophiles. And at the same time, this whole thing is very individual too.

 

This person like Macs, that person likes Windows, this other person likes Linux, that person can only live with a streamer. (shrug) It's all good.

 

I do think that simpler is better, and refuse to go futzing around with a Windows or Mac PC to improve the sound by what is to my ears, only tiny improvements. The improvements from DACs, amps, and especially speakers is much more dramatic to me.

 

-Paul

[bigblue]

Agree w Eloise on the suggestion. Playing from a library is a distinctively different experience.

 

Also a few points I'd make:

1- CDs will generally sound as good or better generally (assuming good hardware).

2- A computer can do things to improve on redbook - eg HQPlayer

3- You can get a DAC that will be better than the Oppo for not much money (Ifi?)

4- You can access high res downloads and have them as part of your library

 

One drawback is SACDs if you have many and no way to rip them. I can rip SACDs with a PS3 and all that jazz but I would not call the process seamless - and that's if you can find an appropriate PS3.

 

miguelito, regarding no 3. You might have missed my post but the Dac I have is the MSB Analog dac with the Power Base upgrade. The Oppo is used as a transport only. And yes - that dac is way better than the Oppo .

 

In my opinion a perfectly ripped cd should sound better than the spinning disc. The reason would be that:

1) the data is bit perfect

2) stored in a non vibrating environment (SSD).

But the problems come when you want the goodies of the hard drive. There are simply too many variables and pit falls to navigate. You can get great sound - but it takes time, knowledge and money.

[alfe]

I don't know about your claims that you cannot get the master bits back exactly after error correction. But regardless of whether this is true or not, it would apply the same to ripping or CD playing, no?

 

The same apply for ripping or CD playing, the phenomenon is called effect length due to density and pit size(I3) the amplitude of the samples is affected.

If you want to know more about the pit structure I can write something about it.

[miguelito]

miguelito, regarding no 3. You might have missed my post but the Dac I have is the MSB Analog dac with the Power Base upgrade. The Oppo is used as a transport only. And yes - that dac is way better than the Oppo .

Yes, missed that.

 

In my opinion a perfectly ripped cd should sound better than the spinning disc. The reason would be that:

1) the data is bit perfect

2) stored in a non vibrating environment (SSD).

But the problems come when you want the goodies of the hard drive. There are simply too many variables and pit falls to navigate. You can get great sound - but it takes time, knowledge and money.

Errr... I don't know about the claims after point 2.

[miguelito]

Oh, agreed! 100% agreed in fact.

Ah... Bitchiness gets you nothing! I say Nothing! And that goes for both of you kids.

[jtwrace]

With the streamers and streamer/DACs we are getting closer (almost full circle....remember Squeezebox?) but it is still not simple for the end consumer of music.

Cheers

 

But it really is. Renderers are so simple it's silly.

 

 

If only I had moved my mini to the office as I set up the Aries, I would've been fine.

Well, we all make choices. ;-) The ARIES has brought so much listening pleasure to my life. I get more listening done in the same amount of time it's great. Sonically, it's just fantastic IMO.

[MNG]

If the disc is reasonably well made and extracted (i.e., "ripped") to a computer drive in a raw PCM format such as .aif or .wav, to me the results, played from the computer, sound indistinguishable from the master used to create the discs.

 

Not wishing to sidetrack this thread, but I have a couple of questions if that's ok. Does .wav or .aif sound better than, say, FLAC as a consequence of the reduced computation required within the DAC to convert the file? I presume that this is the same reason that some claim that setting the server to convert to .wav prior to sending the file on to the DAC yields a sound improvement. Is this latter the same as playing a stored .wav file in terms of sound quality, or is it simply better to save the file as .wav or .aif in the first place?

 

Finally, does a FLAC file that is converted to .aif sound the same as a file that was saved as .aif originally? I ripped all of my CD's to FLAC some while ago and would hate to think that I didn't make the best decision originally.

 

Thanks.

[tranz]

Not wishing to sidetrack this thread, but I have a couple of questions if that's ok. Does .wav or .aif sound better than, say, FLAC as a consequence of the reduced computation required within the DAC to convert the file? I presume that this is the same reason that some claim that setting the server to convert to .wav prior to sending the file on to the DAC yields a sound improvement. Is this latter the same as playing a stored .wav file in terms of sound quality, or is it simply better to save the file as .wav or .aif in the first place?

 

Finally, does a FLAC file that is converted to .aif sound the same as a file that was saved as .aif originally? I ripped all of my CD's to FLAC some while ago and would hate to think that I didn't make the best decision originally.

 

Thanks.

 

Having the Flac converter processes run in the background causes more electrical pulses and more read and write activity. I prefer uncompressed. With disk space prices these days, there is no reason to compress.

 

Converting Flac to Aif and back makes no difference to the file itself. It is like using zip. Many years ago I transferred back and forth dozens of times with no resulting change. There are some conversations out there but the perceived difference likely has more to do with disk fragmentation and where physically the data of the file is spread across the platters and subsequent read activity.

[tranz]

But it really is. Renderers are so simple it's silly.

 

 

 

Well, we all make choices. ;-) The ARIES has brought so much listening pleasure to my life. I get more listening done in the same amount of time it's great. Sonically, it's just fantastic IMO.

 

Easier, sure, and I was also impressed with the Aries. But don't forget you still need to setup an UPnP server, controller, home network, potentially a NAS, software updates and not to mention the continuous barage of bugs and fixes on both DS Lightning and firmware.

 

Popping a cd in the player is still much easier.

 

Tidal embedded in a receiver is another interesting option that is easier, and I love the traction it is getting. But it does not yet sound as good.

 

Cheers

[MNG]

Having the Flac converter processes run in the background causes more electrical pulses and more read and write activity. I prefer uncompressed. With disk space prices these days, there is no reason to compress.

 

Thanks for the response, but my question was regarding format rather than compression. Barry said that .wav (or .aif) sounded better than FLAC and I was trying to understand why - still am. I don't see how compression is an issue since you can rip as FLAC0 with nil compression.

 

Compression is a separate issue I think and consensus on that seems to be that standard FLAC5 gives the best result. I've seen this stated by several expert sources but never with a good explanation until I read an interview with a senior engineer at StreamUnlimited. This company is an offshoot of Phillips and was a specialist team that was set up to spearhead development of digital media. They design and build the streaming engines that most music component builders use in their streamers, including my own Chord DSX1000.

 

His argument was that using uncompressed FLAC presented the streamer with too large a file and that the computation activity demanded from accepting and converting such a large file was detrimental to sound quality and that FLAC5 gave best results in their opinion.

 

I use a Melco N1-A and am wondering whether it is worth installing Minimserver over the top of the standard Twonky in order that I can set the server to convert to .wav on the fly before passing the file to my DSX1000. Many Minim users claim this to be beneficial and Barry's comments seemed to support that idea.

[Audio_ELF]

I use a Melco N1-A and am wondering whether it is worth installing Minimserver over the top of the standard Twonky in order that I can set the server to convert to .wav on the fly before passing the file to my DSX1000. Many Minim users claim this to be beneficial and Barry's comments seemed to support that idea.

At the end of the day: there is the theory and there is what people experience.

 

Many people will tell you they find better sound quality playing WAV (or AIFF) than when they are playing FLACs. There are even some theories (mostly around the workload on the processor decompressing the FLAC) as to why this is the case.

 

Eloise

[MNG]

At the end of the day: there is the theory and there is what people experience.

 

Many people will tell you they find better sound quality playing WAV (or AIFF) than when they are playing FLACs. There are even some theories (mostly around the workload on the processor decompressing the FLAC) as to why this is the case.

 

Eloise

 

Yes. Choice is a good thing but sometimes too much becomes a distraction!

[Audio_ELF]

Yes. Choice is a good thing but sometimes too much becomes a distraction!

Yes thats also true ... MinimServer offers a lot of options for browsing as well so might be worth it for those options.

 

Only you can decide (from reading people's reports) what you consider worth trying. Given you took the step of getting a Melco rather than a standard NAS it looks like you are open to trying tweaks on the more extreme end; so I would suggest you might find transcoding to WAV worthwhile.

[MNG]

Thanks, I will give it a try. If I recall correctly, you were one of those whose comments directed me towards Minimserver in the first place - thank you. I have it set up on my Synology NAS and I like it, but the Melco has become my NAS for music now and set up is less straightforward than with a normal NAS, hence my query.

 

My aim is always just to get whatever I have set up as optimally as I can so that I can then just leave it and forget about. I am almost there now with that, I think.

[Audio_ELF]

Thanks, I will give it a try. If I recall correctly, you were one of those whose comments directed me towards Minimserver in the first place - thank you. I have it set up on my Synology NAS and I like it, but the Melco has become my NAS for music now and set up is less straightforward than with a normal NAS, hence my query.

 

My aim is always just to get whatever I have set up as optimally as I can so that I can then just leave it and forget about. I am almost there now with that, I think.

Have you tried the transcoding on the Synology? If you find an improvement (compared to FLAC direct on the Synology) then that would offer the potential for an improvement with Melco and Minimserve doing transcoding.

 

Your alternative might be to transcode from FLAC to uncompressed FLAC and try that on the Melco.

 

And for testing even manually convert some tracks to WAV to compare on the Melco (though tagging of WAV may not be supported with Twonky).

[bdiament]

Not wishing to sidetrack this thread, but I have a couple of questions if that's ok. Does .wav or .aif sound better than, say, FLAC as a consequence of the reduced computation required within the DAC to convert the file? I presume that this is the same reason that some claim that setting the server to convert to .wav prior to sending the file on to the DAC yields a sound improvement. Is this latter the same as playing a stored .wav file in terms of sound quality, or is it simply better to save the file as .wav or .aif in the first place?

 

Finally, does a FLAC file that is converted to .aif sound the same as a file that was saved as .aif originally? I ripped all of my CD's to FLAC some while ago and would hate to think that I didn't make the best decision originally.

 

Thanks.

 

Hi MNG,

 

There are at least as many opinions on this as there are people to provide them.

My preference is to use raw PCM in either .aif or .wav format. I use the former since it is the same format in which I record, mix (when mixing is needed), and master. When using .aif for the files in my music library, I also like the tagging ability. To my ears, the so-called "lossless" formats like .flac and .alac do not sound the same, so I don't use them and don't recommend them.

 

But that's just me. As I said, other folks have different perspectives. My best suggestion is to start with a raw .aif or .wav file, make a copy to .flac and compare that to the original file. See if you hear any differences and if you do, see if they are meaningful to *you*.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[tranz]

Thanks for the response, but my question was regarding format rather than compression. Barry said that .wav (or .aif) sounded better than FLAC and I was trying to understand why - still am. I don't see how compression is an issue since you can rip as FLAC0 with nil compression.

 

Compression is a separate issue I think and consensus on that seems to be that standard FLAC5 gives the best result. I've seen this stated by several expert sources but never with a good explanation until I read an interview with a senior engineer at StreamUnlimited. This company is an offshoot of Phillips and was a specialist team that was set up to spearhead development of digital media. They design and build the streaming engines that most music component builders use in their streamers, including my own Chord DSX1000.

 

His argument was that using uncompressed FLAC presented the streamer with too large a file and that the computation activity demanded from accepting and converting such a large file was detrimental to sound quality and that FLAC5 gave best results in their opinion.

 

I use a Melco N1-A and am wondering whether it is worth installing Minimserver over the top of the standard Twonky in order that I can set the server to convert to .wav on the fly before passing the file to my DSX1000. Many Minim users claim this to be beneficial and Barry's comments seemed to support that idea.

 

Guess I jumped straight into why. Let me try to clarify as I was talking about the format.

 

Please keep in mind that a Flac file will always need to be un-FLACed before it is sent to a DAC. Just like you always need to unzip a file to read it. Now you can even have uncompressed Flac, but it will still require the extra process to un-Flac it causing the same potential audio impact. Granted this is not heard on all systems hence the sometimes heated arguments.

 

I am also a fan of Minimserver, but if Twonky works...No need to run 2 UPnP servers though as in either case transcoding will happen using a separate process.

 

I do use Flac in the CD ripping stage as it captures the meta data. Then I translate it to native PCM when adding it to the library. This way no Flac decoder process is running during playback.

 

As Eloise and Barry mentioned, it is easy to try in your system to see which you like better.

 

Hope that helps.

[miguelito]

Popping a cd in the player is still much easier.

Call me antiquated but I like popping a CD and listening to the whole album. There's some magic to it reminiscent of the vinyl days... One day I'll get my vinyl gear together - I'm just concerned with all those cartridge firmware updates or my tonearm not connecting to my wifi network!

[miguelito]

I am also a fan of Minimserver, but if Twonky works...No need to run 2 UPnP servers though as in either case transcoding will happen using a separate process.

All my files in my main system are either AIFF or DSF (both of which allow metadata). For my portable I FLAC the AIFF so that I can fit twice as much. Have I heard a diff between FLAC, ALAC, and AIFF? I have not done a comparison but some people have and they tend to prefer AIFF/WAV. So I decided for AIFF from the get go when I re-ripped all my CDs again.

[alfe]

deleted, sorry change my mind:)

[MNG]

Thanks to Audio Elf, Barry and Tranz for the replies to my questions. You are right and I need to try it on my own system, of course. I'm just trying to figure out whether it is worth it or not before doing so.

 

There is a risk as well because if I do prefer .aif to FLAC, all my CD's are ripped to FLAC and There's no way I want to go through all of that ripping process again!

[Audio_ELF]

There is a risk as well because if I do prefer .aif to FLAC, all my CD's are ripped to FLAC and There's no way I want to go through all of that ripping process again!

Well (most people will agree) there is no need to recipes everything as the conversion between lossless formats is completely "perfect" and utilising something like XLD (on Mac) or dbPowerAmp (on Windows) it's just a case of a few clicks and leaving your computer overnight / for a few days.

[Paul R]

Call me antiquated but I like popping a CD and listening to the whole album. There's some magic to it reminiscent of the vinyl days... One day I'll get my vinyl gear together - I'm just concerned with all those cartridge firmware updates or my tonearm not connecting to my wifi network!

 

(grin) I prefer clicking on a album and letting it play. Guess that could just as well be a CD player as a remote control. But the remote control usually has a better display.

 

-Paul

[guildenstern]

I'd say I have turned audio into an important hobby. But I am not sure I will have the same patience with computer audio . When coming home from work I want to listen to music rather than installing new software upgrades just to realize that the upgrade was not yet compatible with.... Thats the reason I have been looking at products such as Aurender and Aria from Digibit. But then you have a prize tag that is fairly steep compared to the solutions you have put forward.

 

If you want to come home and push play, then the Auralic Aries, much discussed in these pages, is an effective device. After a bit of setup (to install MinimServer), it cooperates nicely with the Synology NAS to which I've ripped about 1500 CDs, and also downloaded some albums from HD Tracks and similar sites.

 

I think the Aries sounds great -- definitely better than the Sonos system I have used for years. To give credit to Sonos, it was the Sonos system that moved me into networked music. With Sonos, I found myself enjoying more music, and reaching into long unexplored parts of my collection. (Scanning album covers on the iPad is easier than craning one's neck to read the spines of CDs.)

 

I used the S/PDIF digital output from a Sonos Connect into my Bryston DAC, but the Aries sounds even better feeding the Bryston DAC. The software that drives the Aries, the Lightning DS app on iPad, is a work in progress, not quite as slick as Sonos, but still, in my opinion, a user-friendly app, making one's music readily accessible. The smart folks at Auralic should soon deliver updates to improve the Lightning DS app, but as I said, it's pretty darned good even in its current state.

 

In Post #9 of this thread, member "One and a half" says he has gone back to a CD system, and describes various delays and complexities in his experience of computer audio. I'm not questioning his experience, but it's strikingly in contrast to mine. I do experience the occasional computer or network-related frustration, but only rarely. Overall my experience with networked music, currently via the Aries and Synology NAS, has changed the way I enjoy music, and for the better.

 

I still have three excellent working CD players in my home, but I can't recall the last time I used one to play a disc. Now that my music is on the networked drive, I enjoy more of it, and more often, with sound quality that's as good as or better than any CD-based system I've used over the years, and with the added advantage of being able to play high-res files (though I have only a few at this time). I'm happily networked, and for me there's no turning back.