Computer audio - a beginner's perspective

Posted by: JonR on 19 August 2010

Because, yes folks, despite being an owner of Naim products for some years, I am virtually at a loss to know where to start. I have taken a look at a fair few of the threads in this section and well, basically, my head hurts Roll Eyes

So it was with this in mind that I decided to make a last minute trip to Studio AV tonight to see the Uniti products, HDX and DAC, and to get a handle from the Naim guys about what the options are and, importantly IMO, what would appear to me to be some basic principles on which to base a prospective computer- or distributed audio set up. This, it should be noted, is geared towards achieving optimum sound quality.

So what I learnt tonight, if memory serves, is as follows:-

1) Rip to WAV
2) Use spDIF
3) Use a wired network, preferably Ethernet
4) Use a Draytek router

Since those of you who frequent this section of the forum are obviously experts, I'd be very interested to guage your opinion on the above, and also hear what other suggestions you might have. Also, I would very much like to hear your thoughts about which of Naim's Uniti/streaming products appeal to you and why.

Thanks in advance for any reply.
Posted on: 19 August 2010 by pcstockton
Sounds spot on to me.

Dont forget:
5) Enjoy!
Posted on: 19 August 2010 by winkyincanada
quote:
Originally posted by JonR:

....Since those of you who frequent this section of the forum are obviously experts...



Eek
Posted on: 19 August 2010 by naimUnT
I am a happy NaimUniti owner! I use "Twonky Media" on my PC and wired ethernet connection (Cat 6) from router to Uniti. Then go to UPnP on Uniti and it should 'see' TwonkyMedia on my PC. Hit 'enter' and you will see all your ripped files on TwonkyMedia. You can use other Media Managers but TwonkyMedia works for me!
Posted on: 21 August 2010 by JonR
Thanks for the input so far.

Should we add Cat6 Ethernet cable to the list? What's special about this cable over, say, Cat5 for instance? And what's all this about 'uPnP renderers' ? Does choice of 'renderer' have a significant effect on sound quality too?
Posted on: 21 August 2010 by Geoff P
quote:
Originally posted by JonR:
Thanks for the input so far.

Should we add Cat6 Ethernet cable to the list? What's special about this cable over, say, Cat5 for instance? And what's all this about 'uPnP renderers' ? Does choice of 'renderer' have a significant effect on sound quality too?
Cat5 is fine by most accounts; I use it works great for me.

Err.. a UPnP renderer is a geek name for a media player ( something that has a DAC in it and outputs analog audio) eg a nDAC or a Unitiserve or a Linn akurate DS and so on, so you bet they don't all sound the same.

E-mail me if you like Jon

regards
Geoff
Posted on: 21 August 2010 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
4) Use a Draytek router
Why?

Don't understand why my Juniper router wouldn't be good enough.

Posted on: 21 August 2010 by {OdS}
quote:
Originally posted by JonR:
Should we add Cat6 Ethernet cable to the list? What's special about this cable over, say, Cat5 for instance?


Cat-6 cable supports speeds up to 10 gigabits/second where cat-5 cable is limited to 100 megabits/second. So, using cat-6 cable is not required but certainly won't hurt and will be future proof.


Christian
Posted on: 22 August 2010 by ferenc
quote:
Originally posted by Geoff P:
quote:
Originally posted by JonR:
Thanks for the input so far.

Should we add Cat6 Ethernet cable to the list? What's special about this cable over, say, Cat5 for instance? And what's all this about 'uPnP renderers' ? Does choice of 'renderer' have a significant effect on sound quality too?
Cat5 is fine by most accounts; I use it works great for me.

Err.. a UPnP renderer is a geek name for a media player ( something that has a DAC in it and outputs analog audio) eg a nDAC or a Unitiserve or a Linn akurate DS and so on, so you bet they don't all sound the same.

E-mail me if you like Jon

regards
Geoff


A note: nDAC is not media renderer, as it has no network interface and does not understand multimedia protocols like UPnP/DLNA.
Posted on: 22 August 2010 by adymcd
Why is wav best is AIFF not equal? I thought with wav you could not have your artwork shown or am i wrong?
Posted on: 22 August 2010 by Geoff P
quote:
A note: nDAC is not media renderer, as it has no network interface and does not understand multimedia protocols like UPnP/DLNA.
oops sorry but the general comment is correct I think.

quote:
Originally posted by adymcd:
Why is wav best is AIFF not equal? I thought with wav you could not have your artwork shown or am i wrong?
It is a matter of personal taste which lossless format you choose to work with. WAV doesn't lend itself naturally to tagging in the same way that FLAC for example does.

However it is not impossible to do. The ripping software I use - dBPowerAmp - is able to tag and include album art in WAV files.

regards
Geoff
Posted on: 23 August 2010 by Eloise
quote:
Originally posted by Geoff P:
quote:
A note: nDAC is not media renderer, as it has no network interface and does not understand multimedia protocols like UPnP/DLNA.
oops sorry but the general comment is correct I think.

quote:
Originally posted by adymcd:
Why is wav best is AIFF not equal? I thought with wav you could not have your artwork shown or am i wrong?
It is a matter of personal taste which lossless format you choose to work with. WAV doesn't lend itself naturally to tagging in the same way that FLAC for example does.

However it is not impossible to do. The ripping software I use - dBPowerAmp - is able to tag and include album art in WAV files.

regards
Geoff

Yes you can tag WAV files, but very few playback applications will read the tags.

AIFF and WAV are both completely uncompressed formats. Both are open formats with AIFF being Apple developed and WAV Microsoft developed. FLAC and Apple Lossless (ALAC) are both lossless compressed formats - that is the compression can be reversed to give you back the original file FLAC is more universally supported but ALAC is required for iTunes - unfortunately ALAC is not supported on Naim's UPnP devices (Uniti / UnitiQute). Decompression on the fly during playback may affect sound quality though this is far from universally accepted.

Eloise
Posted on: 23 August 2010 by 0rangutan
quote:
Originally posted by {OdS}:
cat-5 cable is limited to 100 megabits/second.

Nope - CAT5e is good to 1Gbs. Standard advice - if installing new, use CAT6. If you have existing CAT5, don't bother changing it.
Posted on: 23 August 2010 by rich46
quote:
Originally posted by John Bleasdale:
quote:
Originally posted by {OdS}:
cat-5 cable is limited to 100 megabits/second.

Nope - CAT5e is good to 1Gbs. Standard advice - if installing new, use CAT6. If you have existing CAT5, don't bother changing it.


cat 6 has a better spec but idoesnt make any difference in this application.

cat 6 seem to be better constructed and not much more dosh,.. id still buy cat 6 anyway
Posted on: 23 August 2010 by {OdS}
quote:
Originally posted by John Bleasdale:
quote:
Originally posted by {OdS}:
cat-5 cable is limited to 100 megabits/second.

Nope - CAT5e is good to 1Gbs.


My mistake Smile
Posted on: 23 August 2010 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
with AIFF being Apple developed and WAV Microsoft developed.
Do those awfully nice Apple people now claim to have invented the Amiga Interchange File Format (AIFF); oh well the Commodore was never very good at marketing or customer service for that matter, but Electronic Arts might have something to say: no wonder the business world switched to the mediocrity of the IBM PC Frown
Posted on: 23 August 2010 by Eloise
quote:
Originally posted by ROTF:
quote:
with AIFF being Apple developed and WAV Microsoft developed.
Do those awfully nice Apple people now claim to have invented the Amiga Interchange File Format (AIFF); oh well the Commodore was never very good at marketing or customer service for that matter, but Electronic Arts might have something to say: no wonder the business world switched to the mediocrity of the IBM PC Frown

It was my understanding that Apple co-developed AIFF (Audio Interchange File Format) which was based on and expanded on EA's IFF (Interchage File Format) format.
Posted on: 23 August 2010 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
quote:
Originally posted by ROTF:
quote:
with AIFF being Apple developed and WAV Microsoft developed.
Do those awfully nice Apple people now claim to have invented the Amiga Interchange File Format (AIFF); oh well the Commodore was never very good at marketing or customer service for that matter, but Electronic Arts might have something to say: no wonder the business world switched to the mediocrity of the IBM PC Frown

It was my understanding that Apple co-developed AIFF (Audio Interchange File Format) which was based on and expanded on EA's IFF (Interchage File Format) format.
Apple probably added about one minute of research to it - EA developed with a lot of help with the Amiga development team and Metacomco. Not that it matters, after all didn't Bill Grates invent the Internet or at least he thinks he did Big Grin

On the Amiga, IFF was mainly used for graphics, but you could store music that way.



Amiga OS with its dock - oh now hang on didn't Apple invent that some 15 years after it was on the Amiga - and didn't Apple and Microsoft invent pre-emptive multi-tasking OSs for their computers some 10 years after it was on the Amiga and ...

ATB Rotf

Fear not, I'm just grumpy because the new Amiga I was after has been delayed yet again until early next year .... one day it will happen and not an Intel chip in sight.
Posted on: 23 August 2010 by JonR
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
Yes you can tag WAV files, but very few playback applications will read the tags.

AIFF and WAV are both completely uncompressed formats. Both are open formats with AIFF being Apple developed and WAV Microsoft developed. FLAC and Apple Lossless (ALAC) are both lossless compressed formats - that is the compression can be reversed to give you back the original file FLAC is more universally supported but ALAC is required for iTunes - unfortunately ALAC is not supported on Naim's UPnP devices (Uniti / UnitiQute). Decompression on the fly during playback may affect sound quality though this is far from universally accepted.


Yes very nice, but what is your point, exactly? Are you saying that you would prefer to rip to AIFF rather than WAV because it supports tagging, but other than that they sound the same?
Posted on: 23 August 2010 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
other than that they sound the same?
if they don't sound the same I'd be stunned as it would like saying a vinyl record with a blue label sounded better than one with a green label - the musical data in AIFF and WAV are the same, it is just the peripheral stuff that's different.

In theory AIFF, WAV, FLAC and ALAC should sound the same as the data that plays from them is the same.

Then again I can't hear any difference using fancy software, but others can.

I can hear a difference between optical out and the hiFace though.
Posted on: 24 August 2010 by Joe Bibb
quote:
Originally posted by JonR:
Are you saying that you would prefer to rip to AIFF rather than WAV because it supports tagging, but other than that they sound the same?


Yep.

Besides, just rip the same CD with the same machine and programme. Then you can easily compare. Get someone else to select the tracks to take any expectation bias out of it. I wouldn't recommend it as a hobby though. Big Grin

The thing that amuses me is that you will see an awful lot about this sort of thing and it really doesn't matter. You can convert them in bulk to another format if you ever want to. I like ROTF's analogy with vinyl - if I can stretch it a tad further the only problem I have with WAV is that you have to get your own cover and sleeve notes. Life is too short. Winker

Joe
Posted on: 24 August 2010 by tonym
quote:
Originally posted by rich46:
...cat 6 seem to be better constructed and not much more dosh,.. id still buy cat 6 anyway


But don't make the mistake of buying the non-flex stuff (I mean, who'd be daft enough to do that? Roll Eyes) as it tends to fracture very easily if flexed about during installation. The flexible Cat6 cable costs the same anyway.
Posted on: 24 August 2010 by Eloise
quote:
Originally posted by tonym:
quote:
Originally posted by rich46:
...cat 6 seem to be better constructed and not much more dosh,.. id still buy cat 6 anyway


But don't make the mistake of buying the non-flex stuff (I mean, who'd be daft enough to do that? Roll Eyes) as it tends to fracture very easily if flexed about during installation. The flexible Cat6 cable costs the same anyway.

Just a minute ... aren't you meant to use the solid-core (non-flex) stuff for installation. The flexible stuff is meant for cable runs from wall ports to devices!

Eloise
Posted on: 24 August 2010 by tonym
I guess you're right for large commercial installations Eloise, but for us ordinary folk who need to install long runs of cabling through little holes in walls and round a few bends, it's really bad news! Been there, had a break in a 20 Metre run of cable which I'd lovingly concealed behind skirting and under carpets; had to pull the whole lot up. How I laughed!

I really can't see what advantage it can be in these circumstances to use the solid stuff - it's also much easier to fit the 'orrible little plugs on the ends if it's flexible.
Posted on: 24 August 2010 by JonR
Soooo.....flexible cat6, non-solid-core ethernet cable then? Confused
Posted on: 24 August 2010 by {OdS}
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
Just a minute ... aren't you meant to use the solid-core (non-flex) stuff for installation. The flexible stuff is meant for cable runs from wall ports to devices!


At work, we've used kilometers of flexible cat-6 cable inside walls. No problem so far Winker