The uServe manual seems to discourage transcoding to WAV

Posted by: Bart on 18 October 2012

I saw an interesting "Note" in the UpNp section of the uServe user manual that pretty clearly seems to discourage transcoding to wav:

 

"Note:

 Native stream format offers the highest potential 
audio quality followed by Convert to WAV and finally CD 
44.1kHz/16 bit. The appropriate choice will depend on the 
capability of the playback hardware. Select Native initially 
and check that the playback hardware operates correctly 
with all stored file formats. If it fails to operate at any time 
select Convert to WAV. If it still fails occasionally select CD 
44.1kHz/16 bit."
 
Given the statements from Naim that .wav is preferred, I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling. 
Posted on: 18 October 2012 by Gavin B

I think it would be suggesting that playing the native format of files (e.g. FLAC?) is better than transcoding to WAV etc.  But it would be better if the native format was WAV.

 

I have no experience of this I'm afraid - just my interpretation of the words.

Posted on: 18 October 2012 by Jan-Erik Nordoen

As Gavin says.

 

The operative word is « potential ». Presumably transcoding on the fly requires more computing overhead with its associated drop in audio quality... if the playback hardware and listening bioware are up to the task of reproducing it and hearing it, respectively.

 

Jan

Posted on: 18 October 2012 by Guido Fawkes

I can't hear any difference ..  so I'm just going to play some Karine Polwart and stop worrying. 

Posted on: 18 October 2012 by Jon Myles

They are, frankly, making it up as as they go along.

There are not any Golden Ears in compressed media.

Naim believe Wav is best. Others cannot hear a difference.

Naim introduced the swing-draw CD mechanism because they said it was the best. And it's good.

Now UnitiLite has a slide out draw. Er.......

Conclusions, Own, Yours, Draw.

Posted on: 18 October 2012 by Jan-Erik Nordoen
Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes:

I can't hear any difference ..   


(unfurling stethoscope) Hmmm... your playback hardware seems topnotch, must be the ear-brain system then. I can recommend some aides-à-l`écoute, but they're by prescription only.

 

Who is Karine Polwart ?

Posted on: 20 October 2012 by m0omo0

Hi Bart,

 

I tried to explore this question before, but got no really satisfying answer...

 

https://forums.naimaudio.com/di...nt/13956224333039409

 

ATB

Maurice

Posted on: 20 October 2012 by Bart
Originally Posted by m0omo0:

Hi Bart,

 

I tried to explore this question before, but got no really satisfying answer...

 

https://forums.naimaudio.com/di...nt/13956224333039409

 

ATB

Maurice

Thanks a lot Maurice.  Agreed; still not satisfying really.  If Naim really do have a 'unified theory' about flac vs. wav and whether it's better to transcode on the server vs. making the player convert other-than-wav to PCM, it's still very obtuse.  And honestly, something I'm happy to just listen to and decide for myself on my system.  NOT a hand-wringer for me

Posted on: 20 October 2012 by DaveBk

I think there are too many variables to bave a single 'unified theory'. If you have a Naim Server, a single switch of a decent standard, and a Naim Streamer then Naim can probably come close to a consistent recommendation. I think this is summed up as they rip to to wav, and transport the wav to the streamer over the network. As soon as you introduce other kit into the equation it all becomes rather muddy... For a streamer with a less capable CPU than the server and media stored as FLAC, it may well be better to transcode to WAV on the server and reduce the work on the Streamer. This of course assumes the network has sufficient bandwidth available. If not then the extra traffic resulting from transporting more WAV data may be enough to degrade the network performance.

 

There are trade-offs to be made everywhere.