advertisement


WAV better than FLAC due to increased processing load on the CPU of the latter?

Why wrong? If you don't take the steps Linn do, it's perfectly reasonable for the different kinds of noise they measure to differentially and discriminably affect playback in the ways they describe it might. There's no law of the universe that says FLAC and WAV do sound the same kn all systems, just an expectation on my part that they ought to in a well engineered system. In contrast to Linn, Naim Audios own engineers say on the Naim forum that WAV on their systems sounds and measures better than FLAC, from which I conclude that Naim stuff isn't well engineered.

I am trying to say that the difference between processing flac and wav is irrelevant to the quality of the equipment. If the gear has the correct firmware/software in place and it has the capacity to run the software then all being equal you will get the same sound out. I'm not commenting on the quality of the resultant sound just that it will be the same.

My little mp3 player has the capacity to reproduce flac with a teeny battery that will play music all night (I have tried this). power requirements to decode flac is therefore bugger all.

I have a 24bit wav file and a 16 bit flac of the same music. I will do a comparison so at least I can say i have done my best for wav. (which is a pain to tag).
 
As item states in his defense, the FLAC/WAV thing has no potential for audiophoolery exploitation.

However, he is being disingenuous. What it does do is provide a seamless bridge for foo acceptance in the computer audio world.

For if people can be persuaded that something that makes no difference does make a difference, they can be persuaded to buy audiophile grade NAS's, ethernet cables, USB cables, hard drives, routers, switches etc, they may make a difference, & the foo fairy gravy train can roll on.

Chris
 
Ok, so I'm talking about a hub, which I assume is what the Linn diagrams are referring to when they say router. The point that Linn seem to be making is that using a switch with all your devices attached is better than a hub since you are creating a network segment that only contains the audio data and won't get bombarded with all other network traffic. My point was that most consumer devices are switches anyway, so there is not much need to worry about it.

my network is just like the Linn's suggestion but without the subnetwork that is implied by restricting the addresses. I have a central broadband whatsit and two netgear and one other switch about. the server connects to the players through one or two netgear switches GS608. Linn suggest using the router version because it has a managed interface via IP. The router /switch issue is completely irrelevant. Unmanaged is fine for home systems. My switch system is very reliable and I have no audible dropouts. My main system has two netgear switches. Copying 2.1 Gb of wav files along that network takes about 5 minutes. The music takes 65 minutes to play the same data. The netgear switches are good....what ever that means.

the network was connected to the internet at the same time...the music player using music on it's own hard drive.

PS Kate Bush's new Cd includes a thanks to the guy who invented the Klingon language.
 
I am trying to say that the difference between processing flac and wav is irrelevant to the quality of the equipment. If the gear has the correct firmware/software in place and it has the capacity to run the software then all being equal you will get the same sound out.

But in the case of Naim, in the opinions of their own engineers, all things are not equal and WAV sounds better than FLAC on their own equipment. They seemingly have the competence to measure such differences, but not to fix whatever it is that causes them. Linn say they can.
 
But in the case of Naim, in the opinions of their own engineers, all things are not equal and WAV sounds better than FLAC on their own equipment. They seemingly have the competence to measure such differences, but not to fix whatever it is that causes them. Linn say they can.

Let's have the data/report that Naim have published. You seem to imply that they can measure sound differences. I understood that these companies can measure the processing differences, but cannot correspond that to any perceived difference in the sound quality.
 
But in the case of Naim, in the opinions of their own engineers, all things are not equal and WAV sounds better than FLAC on their own equipment. They seemingly have the competence to measure such differences, but not to fix whatever it is that causes them. Linn say they can.

I would dearly love Naim to come up with a rigorous engineering explanation of this claim.

Chris
 
But in the case of Naim, in the opinions of their own engineers, all things are not equal and WAV sounds better than FLAC on their own equipment. They seemingly have the competence to measure such differences, but not to fix whatever it is that causes them. Linn say they can.

Oh really...

So it's not just BS to justify charging several grand for something that should be dirt cheap?

I would dearly love Naim to come up with a rigorous engineering explanation of this claim.

Chris

I wouldn't hold your breath whilst waiting...
 
This is a second router, no hub.

Linn is using second router to have one network completely independent from ISP router. They are even describing how to configure it.

http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/DS_Network_Setup:Configuring_the_Router

I don't think anybody is using hubs today.

Quite right. TBH I didn't look at the text, only the pretty diagrams. They describe configuring a second router as a separate subnet, presumably to isolate network traffic even further. Seems like overkill on a simple home network.
 
Quite right. TBH I didn't look at the text, only the pretty diagrams. They describe configuring a second router as a separate subnet, presumably to isolate network traffic even further. Seems like overkill on a simple home network.

Like I said, perhaps they're just trying to guarantee adequate bandwidth for their highest rez playback while the kids are uploading homemade pr()n. Then when people call up with a problem they can at least rule out browns-out.
 
Quite right. TBH I didn't look at the text, only the pretty diagrams. They describe configuring a second router as a separate subnet, presumably to isolate network traffic even further. Seems like overkill on a simple home network.

I agree. why you should need to mess with port forwarding etc is madness, it just creates a pseudo firewall and is complicated in the extreme.
 
Here is a statement from a Linn engineer:

"We have done extensive measurements on power supply disturbance recently, and have compared results for both FLAC and WAV streaming. Our findings are as follows :

1. If we measure the power rail that feeds the main processor in the DS we can clearly see identifiable disturbance patterns due to audio decoding and network activity. These patterns do look different for WAV and FLAC - WAV shows more clearly defined peaks due to regular network activity and processing, while FLAC shows more broadband disturbance due to increased (but more random) processor activity.

2. If we measure the power rails that feed the audio clock and the DAC we see no evidence of any processor related disturbances. There is no measurable difference (down to a noise floor measured in micro-volts) between FLAC and WAV in any of the audio power rails.

3. Highly accurate measurements of clock jitter and audio distortion/noise also show no difference between WAV and FLAC.

The extensive filtering, multi-layered regulation, and careful circuit layout in the DS ensure that there is in excess of 60dB of attenuation across the audio band between the main digital supply, and the supplies that feed the DAC and the audio clock. Further, the audio components themselves add an additional degree of attenuation between their power supply and their output. Direct and indirect measurements confirm that there is no detectable interaction between processor load and audio performance."

See here.

So, if you do it right, there need be no difference.

Nice catch - that was the Linn comment I was looking for earlier. It's interesting that they a) recognised the possibility of their being material differences, b) found those differences to be measurable and c) have to defend the DS against the slur of 'bad design' implied by there being an audible difference. This hasn't stopped some Linn forum members claiming they do not sound identical . . .

Either Naim is more honest than Linn, or Linn's DS devices are a lot better than Naim's.

The question is taken seriously by the people who know what they're talking about. Anyone who derides it is effectively claiming to have solved the problems that Linn, Naim, Yamaha, Bryston, MSB, Aurender, et al are still wrestling with. Does this seem likely?
 
Oh really...

So it's not just BS to justify charging several grand for something that should be dirt cheap?



I wouldn't hold your breath whilst waiting...

An email to naim direct will likely get you a technical explanation.
 
An email to naim direct will likely get you a technical explanation.

I'm still waiting for them to return my call from when my nap 90 died... 8 years ago!

So you'll have to excuse my complete lack of faith in all things naim...
 
It, a WAV file, cannot be 10x larger unless your FLAC file is infact an MP3... FLAC and ALAC both have a compression ratio of around 50% IE, about half the size.
 
Nice catch - that was the Linn comment I was looking for earlier. It's interesting that they a) recognised the possibility of their being material differences, b) found those differences to be measurable and c) have to defend the DS against the slur of 'bad design' implied by there being an audible difference. This hasn't stopped some Linn forum members claiming they do not sound identical . . .

Either Naim is more honest than Linn, or Linn's DS devices are a lot better than Naim's.

The question is taken seriously by the people who know what they're talking about. Anyone who derides it is effectively claiming to have solved the problems that Linn, Naim, Yamaha, Bryston, MSB, Aurender, et al are still wrestling with. Does this seem likely?

Linn & Naim take customer expectation seriously, Item.

Both produce trick cables. Both must know that it is fairy dust of the first water. But the lunatic audiophool fringe expect them to so they do.

Chris
 
I cheated, the wav is 24/96. And ...the wav sounds better, I'll have to try a 16 bit rip.

i can't tell any difference, but the 24bit jobby has a cleaner top end to the piano. All three sound amazing in my humble opinion. I'd pay money for either, which is what I have done.

snowflake - kate bush piano and master bush Jnr on voice.
 
Let's have the data/report that Naim have published. You seem to imply that they can measure sound differences. I understood that these companies can measure the processing differences, but cannot correspond that to any perceived difference in the sound quality.

You can't measure perceived differences. That's the crux of the problem.

Even the most ardent WAV-supremacists tell you that it's the kind of difference that flirts at the edge of audibility. Forget about stressful blind tests: you have to concentrate to pick it up at all. It's a subtle artefaction, but it has a characteristic quality that is widely described in similar terms, and corresponds with other artefacts of increased noise and jitter.

It really isn't a big deal, but it has to be - by the shortest nose - the 'gold standard' for playback: every good computer-based transport strives to minimise the number of concurrent operations. From that perspective, it's evidently madness to decompress on-the-fly. It just can't be right. Maybe FLAC isn't very wrong, but WAV has to be 'best practice' - especially when you're seeking the best performance from a less than perfect DAC. Not everyone can afford a DS.
 
I have a few 24/96 albums too. They are converted to ALAC (ATM) and are still only about 50% compressed. Will start with converting these to FLAC and WAV. My Olive 4HD is confirmed to be with me tomorrow. D-Day :)
 


advertisement


Back
Top