Improved SQ, with a better Processor?

My two cents

My guess is that's not the processor which is playing a role in the sound quality (or less so), but the main factor is the power supply in the background. I was exposed to some magic when I heard over the air play from a laptop. You would guess no difference what soever as it's over the air, but:

* Laptop on battery or on normal power is definitely a big difference in sound quality

* Laptop on a hifi furniture or not big difference

* Network cables a big difference....

So I guess your observation is more related to the quality of the power supply. For a NAS this is very often the weak spot.

But more experienced forum members like Simon might even be able to explain that indeed the processor also can make a big difference.  

No need to speak for Simon, but he has written that he uses a Raspberry Pi.  Surely not THE most powerful processor available for music.  I suspect that processor power has little to do with sound quality in-and-of-itself, so long as it's powerful enough to do the math in real time.

Sometimes my nas is a bit slow initially, but due to it putting its hard drives to 'sleep' -- it takes a few moments for everything to get up and running and apps to see data etc etc.

I doubt the Mac will give better SQ because of its processor speed as such.

No matter what gigabit or megabit speed all the supply/upstream stuff has, the Naim streamer (all audio streamers) will only support 100Base-T - 100 MHz.

Provided the QNAP does its job, which it does, it has more than enough spec to do stream into the Naim streamer & keep the buffer at 100%,   that's it.

Yes Bart, I read that Asset do a version for Raspberry PI, and other small Form Factor PCs. You're right, the NAS is a bit slow at first, but then so am I when I first wake up! 

Me too Wat. ND5 etc, is on a separate Radial circuit, other stuff is on the house ring main.

Accessing the music from the iMac was a bit faster than the NAS based servers. I guess waiting one more second for the albums to pop up on the Naim app, isn't the end of the world.

Thanks for that info Mike. In the end I chose Asset, which I personally found to be much easier to configure than Minim, who's interface was 'minimal' to say the least. Also, Asset can transcode on the fly, just like Minim.

Thanks Bert.

For sure though, this whole digital music experience is muchly enhanced when the interface is quick. Thats helped by the server being fast. 

CPU throughput is fairly minimal for audio streaming even with FLAC-WAV transcoding. It is highly unlikely that the CPU has anything to do with this unless the last one was shown to be thrashing. If the CPU was not thrashing then a faster CPU should have no noticeable improvement.

The quality of the PS on the NAS is also of questionable impact unless it is contributing RF noise to the Ethernet cable - it won't have any impact on the data itself. If there is a switch in between the streamer and NAS then even the RF will be a non issue since the switch will largely decouple the two ends from each other's RF noise (the main factor being the RF noise generated by the switch itself). A decent LAN cable of solid construction and properly screened with a grounded shield is generally all that is needed - the "audio-grade" LAN cables are bringing nothing to the party in terms of data integrity - it's all about reducing RF and lowering microphonic vibrations transmitted along the cable to the streamer.  

If there was an audible difference, then it is more likely there was actually an undiagnosed problem before - the pondering of which is largely moot after the fact.

I agree a faster CPU and faster I/O (just as important) leads typically to a more responsive user experience.

As far as SQ there is no direct dependency on the performance of the CPU, although changing NAS devices etc could modify TCP or USB transport clock rate parameters and indirectly affect SQ.

As far Ethernet, if the media server transfers the data quicker through being more performant, all that happens is the Naim streamer signals when it's buffer is full, and then signals again when it has more space. The actual data is transferred in staccato bursts... The more performant the server, the ratio tof the data transfer to pauses simply changes, as the streamer data play out rate is constant.

With USB and asynchronous audio, the data stream is typically continuous and the receiver then signals the sender to speed up or slow down dependent on the status of the receive buffer.

Simon

I made no mention of sound quality. I said the experience is a heck of a lot better because your music loads much faster. i.e. art work, track access etc etc is the blink of an eye with a fast server. Same goes for video on PLEX.

I have used consumer NASes and on the whole they are slow, slow to copy music too, slow to access your music on the back end. I assume Simon has a lot of patience is he does indeed use a Pi for his main hifi.

Err, your post is titled "Improved SQ with a better processor".

Davina,  if you are still in doubt about SQ on your ND5,  a simple test is to put some of your favourites on a USB stick.  USB replay as a benchmark & is about as good as it gets.  

If your NAS replay SQ is not as good as USB then that's indicative of the LAN not cutting the mustard.  This could be any one of a number of things, defective, damaged or below spec. cables and/or termination, ethernet connections through router/hub etc,  all causing various forms of crosstalk, skew delay, return loss & bandwidth issues, & not forgetting our old favourite RFI.  

But getting back to your NAS vs Mac question,  no matter what processor, CPU & RAM horse power you have, it will not overcome a poor/defective LAN

- & not forgetting the streamer buffer is the speed controller & it does not differentiate data from noise.

All this can be a library of another subject,  but the USB test is a quick & easy reassurance check.

Gary

Running MinimServer on a Pi2 is a fast responsive experience with a database of 20545 tracks or about 1400 albums.

Asset is slower - and on a Pi1 running Asset 4.5 it can take 10 to 15 seconds to display some screens like total track selection - but if you go via recent playlists or album the performance is reasonably fast. Also I understand the latest Asset beta has some speed optimizations here,

Simon

Gary I agree, and spending a bit more for a faster processor and more ram pays dividends every time one logs onto or into the nas.

Thank you FZ

The Ethernet cable is Audioquest, which goes to the ND5 via a Netgear Switch.

Davina

I agree Gary.

Originally Posted by garyiriginally Posted by garyi:

Damn right there gary, copying music in house on the Mac takes just minutes, where as copying files in house on the NAS takes hours, and hours!

Thanks Mike, I will try the USB test.

I appreciate that all cables, no matter how expensive they are, or what make, can be faulty, or develop a fault at a later stage.

Also keep in mind a cable that has its twisted pairs distorted by something as simple as a tight bend or a minor crush can be defective in 100Base-T compliance terms

Mike...Re this thread...https://forums.naimaudio.com/topic/sq-drop-through-ndx-when-streaming-when-compared-to-cd

Is it a fact, that SQ will be better using Ethernet, over WiFi?

Davina

SQ is subjective, so I have no straight answer to that question,  however bottom line in my experience is without doubt – yes.

Its more obvious with 24 bit files, & maybe not so audible with e.g. iRadio.

I've heard the difference & so have many others on the forum – & it was not subtle in my experience when I wired up a friends SuperUniti, he was amazed & was previously a doubter.. However as always, some others will disagree.

Wi-Fi is obviously attractive because its more convenient than cables. But Ethernet carries faster speeds, lower latency & no wireless interference problems – & that is not subjective. So as far as bandwidth headroom, reliability & consistency is concerned Ethernet is the only way.