HDX - why no audio in?

I rather think you've all embroiled yourself in a debate about technical stuff that avoids the fundamentals that come waaay before that.

The HDX is aimed at the younger end of the market. I am not about to spend £4.5k on a £1,500 sound and spend my time ripping 922 CDs to a HD. Someone with only a small collection of CDs (maybe even CDs full of MP3s) might do so and would be well impressed with that £1,500 sound in comparison to what they're used to.

With all due respect, that same age group is unlikely to have significant amounts of vinyl (beyond perhaps 12" singles) and I hardly see most Naim vinyl lovers wanting to indulge in the even more arcane process of ripping vinyl to HD etc. That, at best, would be a teeny weeny niche. Hands up who wants to take even 10 LPs and move to HD. The process is appalling and just not worth the effort. At least the CD rip is relatively seamless and user friendly.

So, whatever the purpose and functionality of an additional device it's hard to see a market for it at all.

Mike

Mike,
I respectfully yet totally disagree. I dont know very many "youngsters" with a spare $10,000 laying around. And most of them understand their way around a computer.

And most of them are satisfied with ipods and a pair of ear buds.

I would assume it will actually be bought by older people without the desire to fiddle with computers and learn how to properly rip a disc. Those already put-off by the digital revolution but understand the beauty of 24/96 playback.


Steve,
Not so my friend. I wish that was true. There are many ways to skin a cat, some better thn others. In the end I would categorize rips as either 1) Bit perfect- 100% accurate copies, or 2) Not perfect.

And yes you CAN add more than is there. IT all comes down to the offset of the drive used for the rip.

This is the first source of inaccurate rips, as most software programs and/or hardware "rippers", DO NOT account for the drives offset and can therefore NEVER produce a bit-for-bit perfect copy.

For example, if your offset is "negative" you will add bits to the ripped sample, and vice versa.

Without be able to set the drive's "read" offset, as you cannot in itunes, you will NEVER get a perfect rip.

As i said before though, whether or not it makes an audible difference is another discussion.



Gary1,
Why not use EAC in either case? I would. As ive said in the past. Even if I owned an HDX, i would still do my own rips. First reason, I use FLAC. WAV is WAY too big. 24/96 wav files? I would have to double my hard drive space.

I would not expect Naim to be the masters of developing ripping software. Although it appears that with the exception of one aspect of the HDX's ripping process, it is nearly identical to what I would want done.

The HDX's use of C2 correction is not the way to go in my opinion, and I have done MASSIVE amounts of research and testing.

Otherwise the HDX ripping process is basically the same as you would set-up EAC to do "proper" rips. Secure mode, gap detection, offset corrected etc...

So I would simply use EAC, you can change anything down the road if you want to. Like when a different codec becomes fashionable. MP3s and FLAC wont be around forever. They will be succeeded b something superior just as everything is.

ramble ramble....
Patrick

Patrick, EAC is fine, but I would expect Naim if they release the DAC would want to ensure as best as possible that user get the best rip possible and therefore the best playback possible and would therefore provide software to rip through the computer or possibly even EAC instruction. If your secure with EAC and have it set up properly I believe a previous thread stated quite clearly that this was equivalent to what the HDx does.

I do agree with you that one aspect people are missing is the ability to playback 24/96. What if Naim released their catalog as 24/96 discs or downloads. I'd be interested in this for sure.

Furthermore, I do agree with you and my dealer has stated quite clearly that he feels that the method of ripping has a huge effect on the playback quality and he's a recording engineer.

I would expect Naim to recommend that 24/96 be ripped as flac files and at some add this as a software update to the HDx or perhaps again release a software version to set-up with your PC/MAC/NAS.

quote:

Originally posted by gary1:

I would expect Naim to recommend that 24/96 be ripped as flac files and at some add this as a software update to the HDx or perhaps again release a software version to set-up with your PC/MAC/NAS.

If Naim wanted to support FLAC they would have from the start.

Secondly, I do not want nor expect Naim to develop ripping software. They are an audio company, not a software developer.

What Naim developed/adapted for the HDX is fine. But for a PC ripping platform, I think others will be much more thorough, customizable and scaleable.

As long as the Naim product is not responsible for the quality of the rip, I dont expect them to care how the rip came to be, or the quality of such a rip.

Similar reasoning to their CDPs. They do not suggest certain recording over others. They dont care what CD you put in the player, well recorded/produced/engineered or not.

quote:

I use FLAC. WAV is WAY too big. 24/96 wav files? I would have to double my hard drive space.
If Naim wanted to support FLAC they would have from the start.

Hard drive space? Cheap as chips–1 TB drives will soon be near the $100 mark. FLAC's advantage lies in its tagging, not necessarily its computational efficiency.

FLAC will be supported for local playback at time of HDX's release, BTW, among others. As NetStreams' own StreamNet devices are limited to rendering MP3 and WAV files (at present), it was important to imbue the NS-series servers with the ability to deal with MP3 and WAV at the outset.

quote:

The HDX's use of C2 correction is not the way to go in my opinion, and I have done MASSIVE amounts of research and testing.

...borne out in your production servers, I am sure.

Accurate C2 error reporting is important, especially when dealing with some copy-protection schemes (but you knew that already). What one chooses to do with this subsequently is up to the designer–"correct" it / interpolate it / ignore it, depending on context.

Rather than guessing, why not wait to try one in the flesh? How can you be sure that a unit works in the manner you anticipate if you've never seen, heard or operated it?

dD,

Cheap as chips? Let me know when I can touch a 4TB NAS for $400. Ill buy two. If it is within a year Ill buy you one as well.

Why double or triple the storage space unnecessarily? Yes, tag support for FLAC is nice, although Ive never known any other way.

FLAC will be supported for playback yes, but how about for ripping? That is my concern.


Thanks for the eye roll Dave, but you underestimate the amount of work ive done. I have NEVER once encountered a copy protection issue when not employing C2 pointers, in over 3500 individual disc rips. Not once. And as I said it is not a deal breaker. I simply said in my experience it is better to not use it. Less possible errors, theoretically.

Once again though, whether or not the minutia requires this type of detail is another argument.

And I certainly will try one out when possible. Although at $10k+ I wont be buying one most likely. By the time they are available s/h at an affordable price (to me), they will be as obsolete as cassette decks.

You of all people know how fast things are moving.

A Naim DAC on the other hand will be applicable for years and years to come.

But yes, i cannot wait to hear how Naim handles the processes and the presentation it brings. i am sure it will be amazing. Just out of my personal budget with mostly redundant (for me) features.

Thanks for the comments,
Patrick

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

Steve,
Not so my friend. I wish that was true. There are many ways to skin a cat, some better thn others. In the end I would categorize rips as either 1) Bit perfect- 100% accurate copies, or 2) Not perfect.

And yes you CAN add more than is there. IT all comes down to the offset of the drive used for the rip.

This is the first source of inaccurate rips, as most software programs and/or hardware "rippers", DO NOT account for the drives offset and can therefore NEVER produce a bit-for-bit perfect copy.

For example, if your offset is "negative" you will add bits to the ripped sample, and vice versa.

Without be able to set the drive's "read" offset, as you cannot in itunes, you will NEVER get a perfect rip.

As i said before though, whether or not it makes an audible difference is another discussion.



Patrick

Hi Patrick,

Can you point me to some of the research. I'm facinated by the idea that the 1s an 0s can't be totally transferred from optical disc to hard drive storage, without losing some of them (or bits of them).

Using EAC, I've yet to see any difference at all when comparing FLAC, WAV or Apple Lossless successful rips. I've certainly never heard even a suggestion of a difference in sound using the same track.

I don't think the ripping process is anything other than a red herring here. The HDX will, IMO, be defined by the quality of the DAC and output stages used. Even now, decisions may well be being made as to how good it will be allowed to be (compared to the CDP players).

Best,

Steve

Steve, same dacs, same output stages...three different rippers all sound different as we tested so its not as you suggest I am afraid.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Stephenson:
Steve, same dacs, same output stages...three different rippers all sound different as we tested so its not as you suggest I am afraid.

Hi Paul,

Any idea what is making the difference?

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:
Can you point me to some of the research. I'm facinated by the idea that the 1s an 0s can't be...
Steve

Steve... it is a fairly simple thing to imagine. If there were no issues, all CDPs would be of the same quality.

from wiki...
CD audio has two major design constraints that make it difficult to obtain accurate copies in the form of a standard digital file. First, the system is designed to provide audio in real time in order to ensure continuous playback without gaps. For this reason, it does not provide a reliable stream of data from the disc to the computer.

Secondly, the designers felt that it would be preferable for major scratches in the disc to be covered up rather than resulting in total failure. Normally, an error correction system such as Reed Solomon would provide either a perfect copy of the original error-free data, or no result at all. However, CD audio's Cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon coding includes an extra facility that interpolates across uncorrectable errors. This means that the data read from an audio CD may not in fact be a faithful reproduction of the original.

Another practical factor in obtaining faithful copies of the music data is that different CD drives have widely varying quality for reading audio. Some drives such as Plextor are thought to deliver extremely accurate copies [1] while other may do little or no error correction and even misreport error correction information.

Obtaining an accurate digital extraction or "rip" under these circumstances is difficult. iTunes includes an "error correction" mode in its CD importing system. Technical information about this mode is not available from Apple, but it probably [2] ensures that iTunes will attempt to error-correct all data it reads off the disc. However, iTunes does not report if interpolation occurred due to uncorrectable errors.

There is specialized software that will attempt to correct errors, and also attempt to report if errors could not be corrected. See Software aiming to provide an accurate/secure rip They use a variety of techniques, such as making use of error correction information, knowledge of the peculiarities of different drives, and ripping multiple times and comparing the results. All of these programs are still susceptible to some degree to poor CD drives.



This last bit is what the HDX, and EAC do. It is widely considered to be the best we can do as it presently stands.

To rip otherwise is silly.

Dont misunderstand my comments above re the HDX ripping method. It is wonderful. Secure mode, gap detection, offset corrected, etc... It is going to make VERY good rips.

They should REALLY consider FLAC though. There is not one good reason not to make things smaller. It is more efficient, easier to move, easier to backup etc... Sure storage is getting cheaper. But we are getting more files in turn and bigger ones to boot.

It all even out in the end.

I guarantee that the 3 TBs of music I have now, which seems like a lot, will be the norm in a few years. How much will I have at that point?

Allen, Steve,

I have never said that the differences presented by various ripping methods will result in an audible difference. I doubt I could sense the dissimilarities Paul has experienced.

Yes I can spot an MP3 every single time (in comparison to a Lossless), whether it is a 320, or a V0.

But i am not sure I would hear a difference between a FLAC from EAC, ALAC from Itunes, or a WAV from the HDX, provided they are all error free.



I come from the perspective of wanting the process to be as perfect as possible, regardless of my inability to differentiate sonically.

It makes me feel good and therefore I enjoy the music more to know I am not missing out on anything.

But NO ERRORS is first and foremost, with gap detection, log files, cue sheets etc....

Without an error free rip, or at least the potential to have one, I wouldn't bother.

Also, I am then able to make a perfect copy if I happen to lose or damage a disc. Imagine doing that with vinyl when it became scratched.

-patrick

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
They should REALLY consider FLAC though. There is not one good reason not to make things smaller. It is more efficient, easier to move, easier to backup etc... Sure storage is getting cheaper. But we are getting more files in turn and bigger ones to boot.

Patrick, have you missed something, or is it not listed in plain sight on the HDX page that FLAC will be a supported playback format?

If, on the other hand, you are referring to a file format for disc rips, it has been explained earlier that this would be unsuitable for StreamNet use at the present time (nor would it be considered computationally efficient for use as a "professional" file format, into which one could record in real-time at higher sample rates, say, for analogue archive purposes).

WAV is a far more universal file format (now BWV with headers) and has been around for ages.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
dD,

FLAC will be supported for playback yes, but how about for ripping? That is my concern.

Patrick

Dave,

have YOU missed something, or is it not listed in plain sight, on my previous post?

I understand how it works.

And yes I am well aware of the prevalence of WAV and its ubiquitous nature.

"Been around for ages"... yes, but it is time to turn the page.

"(nor would it be considered computationally efficient for use as a "professional" file format, into which one could record in real-time at higher sample rates, say, for analogue archive purposes)"

What does this have to do with the HDX, you lost me???
When I did all of my 24/96 transfers, I went to .wav then converted to FLAC.

I am not sure why there is a "problem" with me ripping to and using FLAC.

It is my preference. It is how I roll. And in my opinion, the HDX should be able to rip to any codec I want. If I want 192kb MP3s, so be it. For $10,000 I want some flexibility.

Lastly, my quote from above:

"Dont misunderstand my comments above re the HDX ripping method. It is wonderful. Secure mode, gap detection, offset corrected, etc... It is going to make VERY good rips."

What more do you want from me?

quote:

I am well aware of the prevalence of WAV and its ubiquitous nature. "Been around for ages"... yes, but it is time to turn the page.

Works fine for thousands of broadcast professionals who work with audio on a daily basis.

quote:

"(nor would it be considered computationally efficient for use as a "professional" file format, into which one could record in real-time at higher sample rates, say, for analogue archive purposes)"

What does this have to do with the HDX, you lost me???
When I did all of my 24/96 transfers, I went to .wav

Yep...

quote:

then converted to FLAC. I am not sure why there is a "problem" with me ripping to and using FLAC. It is my preference. It is how I roll.

Fine–but do you understand why FLAC is not a practical ripping file format for this range of servers? In order to maintain compatibility with other DigiLinX hardware, WAV and MP3 need to be the primary transport file formats.

The HDX player is derived from (runs same software as) the other NS-series servers–therefore, it is subject to the same software requirements as the rest of the range.

quote:

And in my opinion, the HDX should be able to rip to any codec I want. If I want 192kb MP3s, so be it. For $10,000 I want some flexibility.

I want sound quality first and foremost–and, I want to be able to load up my iPod with the same files stored on NAS. At present, this is much easier to do with WAV (untagged) or MP3 (tagged) file formats (on the Mac) than with FLAC.

And given my background as a recording engineer, I trust WAV (and BWV). I know what the headers look like. I know how to edit individual samples or loop points–and I am confident in its integrity.

Offline audio processing of FLAC files requires a (full or partial) decode step that WAV does not require–add these up and suddenly one needs more processing resources to accomplish the same end, merely to save space and retain file tags. Transcoding from FLAC to WAV, then, is an extra step required for network transport that uses DSP power that may already be limited....

quote:

Works fine for thousands of broadcast professionals who work with audio on a daily basis.

First of all, I didnt know we somehow became In broadcast professionals and were editing samples.

Secondly, it doesn't work fine for everyone. For example NPR (National Public Radio) plays MP3s as their "bump" music. Rarely do they use WAV or the original CD. They buy most music on Itunes.

Also, my best friend who is the senior producer for "Talk of the Nation", and before that "Morning Edition", said lossless formats (including FLAC) will never be used because they "take up too much space", and the sound quality of MP3s is fine for radio and internet broadcasts.

Lastly, the "professionals" do not need to access their archives instantly as an audio listener does. They compress EVERYTHING they save nowadays, which makes the FLAC processing a moot point.

quote:

I want sound quality first and foremost–and, I want to be able to load up my iPod with the same files stored on NAS.

That is an oxymoron if I ever heard one
I did not think the Ipod was considered a top-flight source in these groups.

quote:

And given my background as a recording engineer, I trust WAV (and BWV). I know what the headers look like. I know how to edit individual samples or loop points–and I am confident in its integrity.

I am pleased that it is a perfect product for you. I do not edit samples nor loop points. Neither does anyone else using an HDX.

I see that you are a Mac guy and now it makes sense why you personally do not support FLAC. You cant really use it.

I was not understanding why you wouldn't just say this "it would be nice if it could rip to FLAC, as I know it is popular, but our software doesn't have the resources nor has it been developed to do so with Digilink hardware."

Now it makes sense.

quote:

Transcoding from FLAC to WAV, then, is an extra step required for network transport that uses DSP power that may already be limited.

Absolutely. Once again, things are becoming clear. Yes FLAC encoding is very resource intensive. On my laptop, when ripping, it cannot perform other activities easily.

So i understand that the HDX doesn't have the "power" to use FLAC front-end. But I am wondering how all of the other machines out there are able to?

In the end though, I can imagine it to be not a very big deal to take the HDX's WAV rips and convert to FLAC myself if I find the need. I hadn't thought of that. Not a huge deal there. But then would have to tag manually...

It seems you have a significant emotional interest in FLAC's superiority as a storage format, and I can understand this given your investment of time spent ripping a few TBs' worth of CDs to NAS using FLAC, on a PC!

However–iPod compatibility is pretty important for most of us (not withstanding its ubiquity, and more so than the Mac-PC debates), especially when you consider that it is also, after all, a storage device–it need not be the "renderer" for the files stored upon it. This allows playback of non-DRMed files for portable applications (e.g., car) at a file level, rather than at a control-only level (as many iPod-compatible devices do). There are also now third-party devices which stream digital audio from the iPod dock connector, for use with an external DAC, bypassing the analogue output stage.

The majority of iPod owners use the Apple-supplied iPod firmware with WAV, MP3, AAC or WMA file types, though FLAC rendering on the iPod can be enabled by using non-commercial third-party firmware.

On the Mac itself (as well as Windows PCs running iTunes), many use Apple Lossless (which evolved from Apple's acquisition of Emagic Gmbh, and, consequently, their ZAP Zero-loss Audio Packer). It is the transport file format for AirTunes, and was chosen on the basis of both computational efficiency and bit-rate consistency, especially when playing back multiple storage-compressed channels.

Relatively speaking, the advantages of using FLAC for storage (given a sensible scheme for metadata management) are rendered less important by the rise of cheap hard disks, as FLAC typically will not storage-compress audio files by a factor greater than 2:1 (actually on the high end of most lossless codecs' compression ratios).

dD,

Good to know you can get an Ipod to play FLACs. I did not know that. How does one import them? In all of my tinkering I have never been able to get Itunes to recognize nor play a FLAC. It is encouraging that you can at least play them on an ipod.

On another side of things. I dont know one single "audiophile" that owns an "MP3 player" Ipod or otherwise.

And the player owners i do know have no idea what ALAC, FLAC, or what bit rate means.

Keep in mind I am both a Mac as well as a PC user.
I have both.


Lastly, the size of the resulting FLAC file after a conversion from WAV, is solely dependent on the demands of the music contained... as you know.

Album length aside, the more "information" to be compressed, the bigger the file.

An Andreas Segovia recently was compressed about 67% (550 WAV to 180 FLAC). Whereas Naked City's (John Zorn) Grand Guignol was only 34% (680 WAV to 450 FLAC.)

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
On another side of things. I dont know one single "audiophile" that owns an "MP3 player" Ipod or otherwise.

I have a Muvo (or something) as I like my home music to be excellent and my portable to be cheap and cheerful (and small).