advertisement


Any Innuos users here?

Mullardman said:
1.I can 'see' my Zen mini from my PC and interrogate and edit the music library from PC. This is useful as I find any 'keyboard' operation far easier with a full size keyboard c.f. a tablet. However, I can find no way of controlling replay from the PC. It's not a major deal.. but it confuses me.


Any tips much appreciated.
Click to expand...


from a Windows Desktop either Squeezeplay or Jivelite

https://sourceforge.net/projects/lmsclients/files/squeezeplay/windows/

https://sourceforge.net/projects/lmsclients/files/jivelite/windows/

or IP Address Zen:9000 eg 192.168.1.23:9000

I would only use these for control, I wouldn't recommend alterering any LMS settings via this route (only do that using the Zen Innuos route).

ronnie.

Jivelite is just a controller

Squeezeplay will allow playback through the computer.

There is also SqueezeliteX from the Windows store and a different skin for LMS called Material but I don't know if that would a) suit or b) is encouraged by Innuos.
 
Correction. Grabbed Squeezeplay on the PC. It is there, it finds my music and will allow me to select a song to play..The 'play' pregress bar shows rthe song 'running' but.. no sound. And yes.. the server and amp are switched on..

:confused:
 
Right. Around 200 albums in FLAC have only used 4% of the 2tb drive. And I've had nagging doubts about choosing FLAC over WAV. I suspect that the statement in the Innuos manual to the effect that 'WAV may or may not sound better in your system', is a polite snub to those who use Innuos in connection with certain popular but 'lesser' audio kit.

So, I've almost decided to start again and rip everything in WAV. As a test, I've just added two Joni Mitchell albums (Blue and Ladies of the Canyon) on both FLAC and WAV. I'll do a listening test tomorrow and see if I can hear any difference.

Usefully,rather than creating two separate albums according to coding, the library structure puts both FLAC and WAV under the same album heading, offering the FLAC and WAV tracks alternately.. as it were....

Should I decide to go with WAV.. I've looked at the Innuos manual for a way of 'bulk deleting' all FLACS. There's nothing obvious.(to me...) Others may know better. But still, deleting a couple of hundred albums individualy shouldn't take a fraction of the time it took to rip them..
 
I would be surprised if you hear an improvement in using WAV. There is zero technical reason to expect to but it consumes more disc space and has no tagging facility.

The clue is in the name. FLAC is Free Lossless Audio Compression - so when played it is fully restored to be exactly as the PCM off the CD would be. The amount of processor power or work needed is utterly trivial for a modern chip to do.
 
WAV is pointless and counterproductive when it comes to handling metadata. FLAC is the best truly editable format. sound is identical to WAV, both are lossless.

Simple test:
Rip to WAV
Rip to FLAC
Convert FLAC to WAV
Convert WAV to FLAC
Check file sizes (they will identical)

IF a players playback has different audible results, the sofware is fcuked.
 
Mullardman said:
Right. Around 200 albums in FLAC have only used 4% of the 2tb drive. And I've had nagging doubts about choosing FLAC over WAV. I suspect that the statement in the Innuos manual to the effect that 'WAV may or may not sound better in your system', is a polite snub to those who use Innuos in connection with certain popular but 'lesser' audio kit.

So, I've almost decided to start again and rip everything in WAV. As a test, I've just added two Joni Mitchell albums (Blue and Ladies of the Canyon) on both FLAC and WAV. I'll do a listening test tomorrow and see if I can hear any difference.

Usefully,rather than creating two separate albums according to coding, the library structure puts both FLAC and WAV under the same album heading, offering the FLAC and WAV tracks alternately.. as it were....

Should I decide to go with WAV.. I've looked at the Innuos manual for a way of 'bulk deleting' all FLACS. There's nothing obvious.(to me...) Others may know better. But still, deleting a couple of hundred albums individualy shouldn't take a fraction of the time it took to rip them..
Click to expand...


I have found that the easiest way to manage music is to use a computer - you will see the innuos as a network attached drive. Just delete whatever files you don’t want.

If you use Roon it is easy to see different versions of the album in different formats, and filter by format.

Most of my rips are AIFF, using XLD software on a mac. AIFF is uncompressed like WAV but has the metadata integrated. However I very rarely buy physical CDs now and mostly listen to Tidal. I have not done any rips on the innuos yet.
 
The argument for WAV sounding better is that the CPU power to do the decompression processing adds some small amount of electrical noise which is audible. I have never bothered to test but ripped to an uncompressed format just in case. I just didn't want the metadata hassle that Wav involves.

I think you would need to have a very high end system with absolutely no weak links anywhere in the chain (eg power supplies, cables, vibration control) to hear a difference, and even then the difference would be extremely subtle. I am not OCD enough to bother, but interested in hearing your thoughts anyway - please describe your full system chain when you report back.
 
Uncompressed files are buffered in the RAM before playback. There's much more complex stuff going on inside the CPU than a small remedial task such as decompression of a file.
 
andrewd said:
I just didn't want the metadata hassle that Wav involves.
Click to expand...

This bit intrigues me. I've read that WAV 'doesn't like metadata'. I've read in this thread that I would need to be 'sophisticated' to use metadata with WAV. I ran this past my son in law who has a degree in audio production or somesuch and he basically said that there's no issue with metadata and WAV. So far, in my admittedly very small experience, there is no issue.

I think you would need to have a very high end system with absolutely no weak links anywhere in the chain (eg power supplies, cables, vibration control) to hear a difference, and even then the difference would be extremely subtle. I am not OCD enough to bother, but interested in hearing your thoughts anyway - please describe your full system chain when you report back.
Click to expand...

This of course remains to be seen. At the moment I've not even tested the difference between my DAC and the internal DAC in the Zen Mini.

At the moment the 'chain' is. Zen Mini > analogue out> VanDen Hul yellow something or other 1/2 metre interconnect which I had lying about > LFD Zero MkV> Van Damme 4mm twin core blue- single wired (Mark Grant construction) > Rogers Studio 3/AB3.

When I try my own DAC, I will carefully evaluate both bog standard optical - v -the only digital co-ax I possess ( Nordost 'Moonglow') -v- any half of any old interconnect pair..

As you may have guessed.. I'm not overly concerned with poncy interconnects.. If I hear a difference it will most likely be down to the DAC.

I'm inclined to run with WAV.. like yourself.. 'just in case'.

For 'serious' listening.. I usually employ my Michell Orbe SE/Audiomods S5/Dynavector17D3/EAR 834P.
 
Mullardman said:
Right. Around 200 albums in FLAC have only used 4% of the 2tb drive. And I've had nagging doubts about choosing FLAC over WAV. I suspect that the statement in the Innuos manual to the effect that 'WAV may or may not sound better in your system', is a polite snub to those who use Innuos in connection with certain popular but 'lesser' audio kit.
Click to expand...

It's not a snub. They are far too polite for that. All they are saying is that some people say WAV sounds better than FLAC and other people say it makes no difference. There is no harm in trying and comparing both options. In theory, WAV reduces the load on the processor compared to FLAC, but at the same time increases the load on the storage (not just capacity but throughput too) and network subsystems (this last one is only really relevant if you stream to other locations).

The metadata issue is complicated. WAV and FLAC handle metadata differently. The short version is that metadata stored in or alongside WAV files is not so universally understood and supported by hardware manufacturers and software developers. Consequently, if you choose WAV then your music will be just a little bit harder to move between devices and playback software.
 
Cereal Killer said:
WAV is pointless and counterproductive when it comes to handling metadata. FLAC is the best truly editable format. sound is identical to WAV, both are lossless.

Simple test:
Rip to WAV
Rip to FLAC
Convert FLAC to WAV
Convert WAV to FLAC
Check file sizes (they will identical)

IF a players playback has different audible results, the sofware is fcuked.
Click to expand...

I could hear the difference in my system, all be it was subtle, but nevertheless, it could be heard. It is also what Mike Valentine recommended when he visited one day last year and he is in the recording business and records digitally as well as in the analogue domain. There is more to getting the best from rips other than the file size even if they are shown as identical in size.
 
andrewd said:
Yes, you are most likely right that this is an insignificantly small difference.
Click to expand...
While setting up our music server, an Audiostore Prestige 3 with 2TB of SSD storage, we tried a few albums which were ripped to FLAC level 5 (i.e. compressed but lossless), FLAC level 0 (supposed to be uncompressed) and AIFF.

The FLAC versions were ripped using the Prestige server's built in posh TEAC disc drive.
The AIFF versions were a real faff to do. It took a 2011 mac mini with apple superdrive (i.e. not the best drive) running XLD or dBPoweramp software to rip them on to our Synology NAS drive. The ripped albums were then copied across on the network from the NAS drive to the music server. Given this faff, the AIFF versions should have been worse than a straight rip using the Prestige 3's built in TEAC drive.

Rather annoyingly, there was a consistent preference between the three versions:
First AIFF
Second uncompressed FLAC
Third compressed FLAC

The differences were fairly subtle, yet important to us. The FLAC versions sounded slightly duller and flatter than the AIFF version of each track. Those subtle, fine detail cues that give the listener a sense of the acoustics of the space in which the music was recorded were lost. The AIFF versions sounded that bit more alive and engaging.

Why annoying? Because I then had to rip over 1000 cds in order to load all of the AIFF albums on to the Prestige 3 server. It took weeks. Groan.

The rest of the system that made the sound quality differences so evident was Chord M Scaler + DAVE, Naim 52/135 and ART Alnico speakers.
Perhaps the format differences would be less evident on a less resolving system.

Damn, but I still wish to this day that the choice of codec would make no difference...

Best regards, FT
 
  • Like
Reactions: GT
Cereal Killer said:
WAV is pointless and counterproductive when it comes to handling metadata. FLAC is the best truly editable format. sound is identical to WAV, both are lossless.

Simple test:
Rip to WAV
Rip to FLAC
Convert FLAC to WAV
Convert WAV to FLAC
Check file sizes (they will identical)

IF a players playback has different audible results, the sofware is fcuked.
Click to expand...

Here's something to try on a rainy Sunday afternoon...

Take a WAV file
Strip out any metadata
Create a checksum value from the WAV file
Convert the WAV file to FLAC
Convert the FLAC file back to WAV
Create a checksum value from the second WAV file
Compare the two checksum values

The two checksum values will be identical. This proves that all of the original bits are preserved during the FLAC compression / decompression process. It doesn't prove that any given transport will sound better or worse when playing back FLAC or WAV files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top