Which sounds better streaming or dig out?
Posted by: Tog on 12 December 2010
Many recent posts have championed very different ways of getting digital music into our Naim kit.
Lots of comment about the best ways to use UPnP servers/renderers/streamers and just as many extolling the virtues of using PCs like the Mac as a digital transport via USB or optical.
Do we know which one sounds best?
I've ended up using both - partly because the quality of control software is better for dig out and because I suspect that for my own ears, streaming may sound better.
Linn clearly think so and Naim seem to be following the same path...
What do you guys think...?
Tog
Posted on: 12 December 2010 by Peter_RN
Hello Tog
We have only tried the streaming method but find it an excellent way to listen to our music. The sound quality is an improvement over CD without doubt in our opinion; that makes us very happy. Convenience of use is a no brainer and UPnP has worked faultlessly for us, can't ask for more than that really.
Peter
Posted on: 14 December 2010 by Tog
Linn believe streaming is much better and cuts out some of the signal processing that causes problems over optical or coax.
Tog
Posted on: 14 December 2010 by matt303
Streaming will give constant results for a device where as a DAC connected to a computer can be affected by the replay software, OS mixer or device drivers messing with the data before it is sent from the digital out to the dac. With streaming the sound 'rendering' is all handled by firmware and hardware developed by the maker of the streaming device so the computer/NAS and network type have no effect on the sound.
Posted on: 14 December 2010 by okli
I have some mixed version with my current setup after very short testing:
UPnP -> Qute -> Nait XS
additionally Macbook with toslink adapter to digital input in Qute and as above. I've played the same FLAC files from my NAS and from a USB stick in MB with VLC player. Surprisingly, the vocals from MB are somehow clearer and brighter than from UPnP. In opposite the low freqs and highs are "muddy" and in general the "picture" from UPnP is better, so I prefer it, but perhaps with real sound interface and playback software on the MB the things could be improved... But for the moment I'll stay with the streaming solution.
Posted on: 15 December 2010 by Tog
So far streaming seems to be ahead ... There must be more opinions out there guys.
Tog
Posted on: 15 December 2010 by Jan-Erik Nordoen
Comparing Serve streaming to Qute, vs Serve dig out to Qute : streaming >> dig out.
Comparing Serve playing locally via dig out to nDAC, vs Serve receiving streamed data from NAS, then to dig out into nDAC : dig out >> streaming.
Same network. Go figure.
Jan
Posted on: 15 December 2010 by garyi
Technically a lot of us will be streaming and digi out at the same time, me for instance!
My NAS has all music stored there and right now its being picked by my mac mini running the latest beta of aryewave which it has to be said is simply stunning.
I don't want to make a thing because in the past I have been doubtful about what differences applications etc could really make to the same source file.
I am now satisfied that differences do exist and this puts me in the difficult position of having to agree with Patrick.
I am also exiting via a USB dac bought from the ebay, which I don't think functions to the max but in combi with the above app just sounds sublime.
LIstening a heck of a lot to The Evpatoria Report.
Posted on: 15 December 2010 by AMA
quote:
Linn believe streaming is much better and cuts out some of the signal processing that causes problems over optical or coax.
Tog
Streaming is definitely the easiest way to feed DAC with low jitter bitstream -- but definitely not the only way. There is nothing inherently wrong with S/PDIF protocol and it can easily transmit low jitter bitstream as well. Many top gears are split into the transport-DAC through S/PDIF, including such great sounding machines like dCS Scarlatti (which some people prefer to CD555) or MBL or ARCs or Mark Levinson or PS Audio of many, many others... I can say for myself that while listening nDAC against a KDS I for sure was not convinced that the latter is handling the bitstream in a better way.
Posted on: 15 December 2010 by james n
Either - depends on the setup of the machine and the interface to the DAC. I've had superb results from the Mac / Dac route. I've had superb results streaming (with a Linn ADS). Both as good as each other with the Linn being far more stable - just plug and play where the Mac / Dac took a bit more work.
James
Posted on: 15 December 2010 by AMA
Unlike DACs the market of streaming transports is still in its infancy. What we know today is that properly set streamer transport can output the perfect bitstream and pairing with DAC can outperform the most expensive CDPs and single-box streamers.
I still believe the single-box streamers will take a lead in the industry when the audiophile companies learn the computer section of streaming approach.
Posted on: 16 December 2010 by Alamanka
quote:
Originally posted by Jan-Erik Nordoen:
Comparing Serve streaming to Qute, vs Serve dig out to Qute : streaming >> dig out.
Comparing Serve playing locally via dig out to nDAC, vs Serve receiving streamed data from NAS, then to dig out into nDAC : dig out >> streaming.
Same network. Go figure.
Jan
Jan-Erik,
On the second test, the Dig out is always used to output toward the Dac, so there is no comparison of streaming vs dig out.
To my understanding, the second test is actually a comparison of UnitiServe as a Transport versus UnitiServer as a Streamer.
Conclusion: UnitiServe as a Transport >> UnitiServer as a Streamer
(Still unexpected result!)
Please let me know if I misunderstand. Thanks.
Posted on: 16 December 2010 by Alamanka
quote:
Originally posted by Alamanka:
quote:
Originally posted by Jan-Erik Nordoen:
Comparing Serve streaming to Qute, vs Serve dig out to Qute : streaming >> dig out.
Comparing Serve playing locally via dig out to nDAC, vs Serve receiving streamed data from NAS, then to dig out into nDAC : dig out >> streaming.
Same network. Go figure.
Jan
Jan-Erik,
On the second test, the Dig out is always used to output toward the Dac, so there is no comparison of streaming vs dig out.
To my understanding, the second test is actually a comparison of UnitiServe as a Transport versus UnitiServer as a Streamer.
Conclusion: UnitiServe as a Transport >> UnitiServer as a Streamer
(Still unexpected result!)
Please let me know if I misunderstand. Thanks.
I think I misunderstood. Probably in your test, the Serve was playing locally a FILE, not a CD.
But still what is compared is not the Dig out, but the File playing capability vs Streaming capability of the Serve.
This is a different question, but maybe you could do additional test:
- NAS (assuming you have Upnp software on it) directly streaming to Qute
This would tell if Streaming capability of Serve is better, equal or inferior to Streaming of Qute.
Posted on: 16 December 2010 by Tog
quote:
Originally posted by AMA:
Unlike DACs the market of streaming transports is still in its infancy. What we know today is that properly set streamer transport can output the perfect bitstream and pairing with DAC can outperform the most expensive CDPs and single-box streamers.
I still believe the single-box streamers will take a lead in the industry when the audiophile companies learn the computer section of streaming approach.
If I put my logical hat on (goose feather with velvet trim) streamers will be better given the more direct path, less signal processing and the robust nature of wired ethernet. My emotional hat(don't ask) tells me they will also be more cost efficient for a similar SQ (ie cheaper)
Notice the future tense - are we there yet?
Tog
Posted on: 16 December 2010 by Asenna04
All,
After having the nDAC for almost a year and feeding it with Squeezebox Touch, I have recently experimented with playback via USB input. And I am pleasantly surprised with the enhanced sound quality vs the Touch.
Now, I know there are different paths for the digital signal when it reaches the DAC via USB and the S/PDIF. The USB signal goes through the Blackfin DSP which has other controls (local clock and front panel controls) and the S/PDIF signal goes directly to the SHARC DSP. This makes me wonder if the USB path is equal to the 'potential' of the S/PDIF path. By that I mean you got to 100% performance from the USB and the performance of S/PDIF is subject to a number of factors i.e. Transport, Jitter, Digital Cable quality etc. For sure there are a lot more factors in the S/PDIF path that can affect sound quality compared to USB. Also the USB has the shortest route to the DAC DSP, I remember one of the rules of good hifi in the past was minimise the path the signal has to go through (although I appreciate that was for audio signal).
So now if above hypothesis is correct:-
Then what options can we use for the USB path. The way the DAC is designed, it is to plug in a USB memory stick and listern to it like that. From user point of view, this will require either copying the files you want to listern to the USB drive or having a number of USB drives with music on them and you just plug them in.
Now it gets more interesting. It would be great is if you can have a USB memrory device connected to the nDAC USB connection and you can remotely transfer music files to it either via a ethernet cable or wirelessly. You can control it by a computer or from a iPhone App designed to do that. So you basicly browse the music you have on the computer or NAS and select what you want to listern to. When selected, the music files are copied to the device connected to the USB drive (the iPhone App shows the progress of that process) and you can hit play when it is done.
I know this is shot in the dark, but I don't think it is beyond the current technology and it is mosly likley to be a lot cheaper then an equivalent sounding transport/streamer.
OK, I will take a dive now before you start shooting!
ASenna04
Posted on: 16 December 2010 by Tog
I'm probably being thick (it has been known - many many times before) but isn't this the same as attaching a flash based ipod touch?
Tog
Posted on: 16 December 2010 by js
quote:
Originally posted by Asenna04:
All,
After having the nDAC for almost a year and feeding it with Squeezebox Touch, I have recently experimented with playback via USB input. And I am pleasantly surprised with the enhanced sound quality vs the Touch.
Now, I know there are different paths for the digital signal when it reaches the DAC via USB and the S/PDIF. The USB signal goes through the Blackfin DSP which has other controls (local clock and front panel controls) and the S/PDIF signal goes directly to the SHARC DSP. This makes me wonder if the USB path is equal to the 'potential' of the S/PDIF path. By that I mean you got to 100% performance from the USB and the performance of S/PDIF is subject to a number of factors i.e. Transport, Jitter, Digital Cable quality etc. For sure there are a lot more factors in the S/PDIF path that can affect sound quality compared to USB. Also the USB has the shortest route to the DAC DSP, I remember one of the rules of good hifi in the past was minimise the path the signal has to go through (although I appreciate that was for audio signal).
So now if above hypothesis is correct:-
Then what options can we use for the USB path. The way the DAC is designed, it is to plug in a USB memory stick and listern to it like that. From user point of view, this will require either copying the files you want to listern to the USB drive or having a number of USB drives with music on them and you just plug them in.
Now it gets more interesting. It would be great is if you can have a USB memrory device connected to the nDAC USB connection and you can remotely transfer music files to it either via a ethernet cable or wirelessly. You can control it by a computer or from a iPhone App designed to do that. So you basicly browse the music you have on the computer or NAS and select what you want to listern to. When selected, the music files are copied to the device connected to the USB drive (the iPhone App shows the progress of that process) and you can hit play when it is done.
I know this is shot in the dark, but I don't think it is beyond the current technology and it is mosly likley to be a lot cheaper then an equivalent sounding transport/streamer.
OK, I will take a dive now before you start shooting!
ASenna04
Not doable(sic) as any Ipod type device would be the player as opposed to the nDAC. There is no way to view a library with the nDAC as player. You can use the Ipod quite conveniently but not as the device you describe.
I think you're more hearing the limitations of the SB than anything else. The dig out from Naim renderer is better than the USB if you pay attention to the cable, grounding, etc.
Posted on: 16 December 2010 by Asenna04
quote:
Originally posted by js:
Not doable(sic) as any Ipod type device would be the player as opposed to the nDAC. There is no way to view a library with the nDAC as player. You can use the Ipod quite conveniently but not as the device you describe.
I think you're more hearing the limitations of the SB than anything else. The dig out from Naim renderer is better than the USB if you pay attention to the cable, grounding, etc.
I was refering to playback from USB Memory stick rather then an iPod. I believe there is a difference. With an iPod, the iPod acts as a streamer and 'pushes' the data to the nDAC and there can be come compromise there. With a USB Memory stick, it is the nDAC that is pulling the data from the Memory stick and processing it. I am trying to not change that process by having the nDAC read the data from the USB attached memory device. You just change what is on the memory device with the application running on the computer and controlled by an iPhone App.
I hope this clarifies.
But your responses makes me ask this question:
Is the sound quality from the nDAC the same for playback from an iPod Vs USB Memory stick?
Regards,
ASenna04
Posted on: 16 December 2010 by js
We're talking about the same thing. The rest was an expanation of same. The viewing the library part was the key. The answer is no.
Posted on: 16 December 2010 by js
I havent tried but putting any DAP player with wav files in MSC mode should let the dac see the files but there's no access other than next.
Posted on: 17 December 2010 by Jan-Erik Nordoen
quote:
Originally posted by Asenna04: It would be great is if you can have a USB memrory device connected to the nDAC USB connection and you can remotely transfer music files to it either via a ethernet cable or wirelessly. You can control it by a computer or from a iPhone App designed to do that. So you basicly browse the music you have on the computer or NAS and select what you want to listern to. When selected, the music files are copied to the device connected to the USB drive (the iPhone App shows the progress of that process) and you can hit play when it is done.
I know this is shot in the dark, but I don't think it is beyond the current technology and it is mosly likley to be a lot cheaper then an equivalent sounding transport/streamer.
Not a shot in the dark at all. For example, the UnitiServe allows you to open music *Shares*, i.e., music locations outside of the Serve itself, such as a USB key plugged into the back of the Serve, which then sees the content of the USB and allows you to navigate through it. Of course, it helps that the Serve can be connected to a network, which the DAC cannot.
Assuming that this is all controlled by software in the Serve, then why couldn't that software be used inside a standalone USB key which, after plugging it into the DAC, connects wirelessly or by ethernet to the network ?
Perhaps Naim has such a device in mind, which would help explain why there's a USB connection on the
back of the nDAC
Hmmm, my 2TB NAS has a USB plug on the front... I wonder if...
Posted on: 17 December 2010 by Jan-Erik Nordoen
quote:
Originally posted by Jan-Erik Nordoen:
quote:
Originally posted by Asenna04: It would be great is if you can have a USB memrory device connected to the nDAC USB connection and you can remotely transfer music files to it either via a ethernet cable or wirelessly. You can control it by a computer or from a iPhone App designed to do that. So you basicly browse the music you have on the computer or NAS and select what you want to listern to. When selected, the music files are copied to the device connected to the USB drive (the iPhone App shows the progress of that process) and you can hit play when it is done.
I know this is shot in the dark, but I don't think it is beyond the current technology and it is mosly likley to be a lot cheaper then an equivalent sounding transport/streamer.
Not a shot in the dark at all. For example, the UnitiServe allows you to open music *Shares*, i.e., music locations outside of the Serve itself, such as a USB key plugged into the back of the Serve, which then sees the content of the USB and allows you to navigate through it. Of course, it helps that the Serve can be connected to a network, which the DAC cannot.
Assuming that this is all controlled by software in the Serve, then why couldn't that software be used inside a standalone USB key which, after plugging it into the DAC, connects wirelessly or by ethernet to the network ?
Perhaps Naim has such a device in mind, which would help explain why there's a USB connection on the
back of the nDAC
Hmmm, my 2TB NAS has a USB plug on the front... I wonder if...
Correction: The UnitiServe software accesses the USB key through the *USB Devices* option, not through the music *Network Shares* option.
Jan
Posted on: 20 December 2010 by Asenna04
quote:
Originally posted by Jan-Erik Nordoen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jan-Erik Nordoen:
quote:
Originally posted by Asenna04: It would be great is if you can have a USB memrory device connected to the nDAC USB connection and you can remotely transfer music files to it either via a ethernet cable or wirelessly. You can control it by a computer or from a iPhone App designed to do that. So you basicly browse the music you have on the computer or NAS and select what you want to listern to. When selected, the music files are copied to the device connected to the USB drive (the iPhone App shows the progress of that process) and you can hit play when it is done.
I know this is shot in the dark, but I don't think it is beyond the current technology and it is mosly likley to be a lot cheaper then an equivalent sounding transport/streamer.
Not a shot in the dark at all. For example, the UnitiServe allows you to open music *Shares*, i.e., music locations outside of the Serve itself, such as a USB key plugged into the back of the Serve, which then sees the content of the USB and allows you to navigate through it. Of course, it helps that the Serve can be connected to a network, which the DAC cannot.
Assuming that this is all controlled by software in the Serve, then why couldn't that software be used inside a standalone USB key which, after plugging it into the DAC, connects wirelessly or by ethernet to the network ?
Perhaps Naim has such a device in mind, which would help explain why there's a USB connection on the
back of the nDAC
Hmmm, my 2TB NAS has a USB plug on the front... I wonder if...
Correction: The UnitiServe software accesses the USB key through the *USB Devices* option, not through the music *Network Shares* option.
Jan
And also it is not realistic to assume that simply by having the software in the USB will enable the wireless feature. The Software capability has to be in the DAC and it also needs Wifi functionality.
I think the big missing link here is the Wifi feature. If the DAC had wifi, then everything else is quite simple. Its firmware can be updated to control it with n-stream which can read the stored music in USB memory stick and also be updated to write to the USB stick as well.
Now, since it does not have Wifi, can this be added by a device with Wifi and has SSD memory be plugged in the rear USB slot to do this? I believe the USB slot is powered so it can get the power from there.
That is the challenge for the electronic enginners out there. But I guess it will need collaboration by Naim to allow integration with n-stream App.
ASenna04
Posted on: 20 December 2010 by AMA
quote:
If I put my logical hat on (goose feather with velvet trim) streamers will be better given the more direct path, less signal processing and the robust nature of wired ethernet. My emotional hat(don't ask) tells me they will also be more cost efficient for a similar SQ (ie cheaper)
Notice the future tense - are we there yet?
Tog
As I said before, pure streamers is the simplest solution.
But Linn and Naim are still experimenting with streaming technologies -- they are audiophile companies and never were in this sector before. They have to build a team of experts in this area -- a team and then play a lot of games before ending up with top-notch solution. need to tame computer with its noise, non real-time OS, instabilities in order to make GUI comfortable and hardware robust and bitstream perfect.
It's also about a future proof. With 18 K$ KDS you can hardly follow up the growing quality of new DACs which come up every new year. Have a look at how 3.5 K$ nDAC outperforms the 20 K$ DACs from 90-s and beginning of 2000-s. The same for transports: 2K$ Logitech Transporter is at least on par with the most expensive reference transports from the past.
But once computer-part of streaming solutions will be adopted and get down in cost there will be not a big deal in equipping the S/PDIF DAC with appropriate "network streamer" feature in compliance with industry standards. This will be a built-in feature for all DACs -- just another input in a row.
Posted on: 20 December 2010 by Tog
@AMA Good point - well made
It will be difficult for companies like Naim and Linn to keep up with upstarts from Europe and China who will produce Dacs that can rival even the nDac very quickly.
Tog
Posted on: 21 December 2010 by realhifi
quote:
Posted Tue 21 December 2010 04:43 Hide Post
quote:
If I put my logical hat on (goose feather with velvet trim) streamers will be better given the more direct path, less signal processing and the robust nature of wired ethernet. My emotional hat(don't ask) tells me they will also be more cost efficient for a similar SQ (ie cheaper)
Notice the future tense - are we there yet?
Tog
As I said before, pure streamers is the simplest solution.
But Linn and Naim are still experimenting with streaming technologies -- they are audiophile companies and never were in this sector before. They have to build a team of experts in this area -- a team and then play a lot of games before ending up with top-notch solution. need to tame computer with its noise, non real-time OS, instabilities in order to make GUI comfortable and hardware robust and bitstream perfect.
It's also about a future proof. With 18 K$ KDS you can hardly follow up the growing quality of new DACs which come up every new year. Have a look at how 3.5 K$ nDAC outperforms the 20 K$ DACs from 90-s and beginning of 2000-s. The same for transports: 2K$ Logitech Transporter is at least on par with the most expensive reference transports from the past.
But once computer-part of streaming solutions will be adopted and get down in cost there will be not a big deal in equipping the S/PDIF DAC with appropriate "network streamer" feature in compliance with industry standards. This will be a built-in feature for all DACs -- just another input in a row.
Isn't this what the NDX is? A DAC with a streamer "input"? Maybe I am missing something from this discussion but it would appear that Naim has already taken this lead and is presenting what is a complete solution right now. Take your pick, streaming or digital out from an nServe to an NDX along with the NDX's ability to find other streaming sources on the network such as internet radio, etc. What am I missing here?
