ND555 Impressions

Richieroo posted:

Is the consensus to rip to wav ......... 

No. Rip into the lossless format that you feel more comfortable to edit, maintain, backup, etc. If that is wav, then rip to wav.

I ripped a few to begin with as WAV and used the 'folder.jpg' artwork method - that initially seemed to work well. I had previously auditioned WAV against other format types from the same CD and preferred the sound from WAV. I appreciate other lossless formats should sound the same and have other tagging benefits but for some reason the WAV format was better, so I use that.

I've since used open-source software, such as Songkong to edit the metadata of the WAV files individually and can make the Album artworks change on every track of an Album if I like - sometimes that is fun.

I use - presently - Twonky Server, as my demo of Minim was not as conclusive as I wanted and Twonky both worked and sounded better for unknown reasons. Nothing against using Minim and may try it again sometime. Twonky does come with a Web Server too, which makes management and access via another rout possible, so that is nice.

Ripping CDs is tedious and cannot be made into fun after the first score or so... I've done a lot - just put the Melco ripper on order and given-up on them making one with a black finish to match the rest of my system.

Good to discuss all this stuff in open way - I've no Axe to grind ... well I have many Axes but none to grind metaphorically here!
I've otherwise an all-Naim system so not trying to create problems, just discuss my departure from full orthodoxy, if allowed.

DB.

We’ve been through the ‘different rips of the same CD sound different’ thing before, with Unitiserve vs Core. The outcome was perhaps inconclusive, but a couple of threads rumbled on for a while. If anyone’s interested: https://forums.naimaudio.com/t...09#69004037579190909

Darke Bear posted:

I ripped a few to begin with as WAV and used the 'folder.jpg' artwork method - that initially seemed to work well. I had previously auditioned WAV against other format types from the same CD and preferred the sound from WAV. I appreciate other lossless formats should sound the same and have other tagging benefits but for some reason the WAV format was better, so I use that.

I've since used open-source software, such as Songkong to edit the metadata of the WAV files individually and can make the Album artworks change on every track of an Album if I like - sometimes that is fun.

I use - presently - Twonky Server, as my demo of Minim was not as conclusive as I wanted and Twonky both worked and sounded better for unknown reasons. Nothing against using Minim and may try it again sometime. Twonky does come with a Web Server too, which makes management and access via another rout possible, so that is nice.

Ripping CDs is tedious and cannot be made into fun after the first score or so... I've done a lot - just put the Melco ripper on order and given-up on them making one with a black finish to match the rest of my system.

Good to discuss all this stuff in open way - I've no Axe to grind ... well I have many Axes but none to grind metaphorically here!
I've otherwise an all-Naim system so not trying to create problems, just discuss my departure from full orthodoxy, if allowed.

DB.

DB

I think its healthy to discuss departures from practically all Naim systems.  This is how we get better audio reproduction and keep our minds open to better things.  It also sends a message to Naim that there may be places they need to concentrate their R&D pounds for better market share.  Observe>Question>Improve>Share>Enjoy the music.  It also shows that we are not Naim Sheep, just following the dogma without reason.

Bailyhill

Darke Bear posted:

...

I've since used open-source software, such as Songkong to edit the metadata of the WAV files individually and can make the Album artworks change on every track of an Album if I like - sometimes that is fun.

 

...

If you want to add or remove indexes and batch process a set of files, exfalso (search for "exfalso tagging") is a very good choice.

I sometimes find it very useful to recursively process all files in a directory (and all its sub-directories) from the command line. For this, "lltag" and "metaflac" are great tools. I am not sure exfalso can handle .wav files, though.

No matter in which format you'll finally store your files for replay, I would advise to rip, download, tag, backup in .flac and then batch convert to the replay format in the end.   

Darke Bear posted:

I ripped a few to begin with as WAV and used the 'folder.jpg' artwork method - that initially seemed to work well. I had previously auditioned WAV against other format types from the same CD and preferred the sound from WAV. I appreciate other lossless formats should sound the same and have other tagging benefits but for some reason the WAV format was better, so I use that.

 

Hi DB,

WAV sounds better then FLAC, or even much better then ALAC, because it doesn’t require the processing that FLAC and ALAC both require.

Uncompressing and “decoding” FLAC generates noise, unfortunately.

IMO, a good option would be to get everything ripped to FLAC then transcoded to WAV when feeding your ND555.

You’ll then have the best of both worlds: the tagging facilities from FLAC and the noiseless replay of WAV

Cheers,
Tom

Roon throws a hitch into this to some extent.  Roon transcodes prior to sending the data to the Naim player.  One the Roon forum, someone wrote that Roon sends the data as "PCM."  Whether this is the same as .wav is unclear to me.  But clearly Roon does not send my .flac files to my ND555 as .flac

The problem of deciding in which file formats (the emphasis is on the plural!) to store music has been discussed ad infinitum in this forum and such discussions are typically not very fruitful. Just store the files for replay in whatever format you please but do yourself a favour and rip, download, edit, backup and retrieve .flac files!

nbpf posted:

The problem of deciding in which file formats (the emphasis is on the plural!) to store music has been discussed ad infinitum in this forum and such discussions are typically not very fruitful. Just store the files for replay in whatever format you please but do yourself a favour and rip, download, edit, backup and retrieve .flac files!

Others have different views.  Obviously.

Formats are easy to rip to, listen to, compare and inter convert. So just use the format that your ears like best. I prefer WAV. It's a personal thing. If you can't hear a difference, please yourself.

Don Atkinson posted:

Well, I don't have a scientific degree, but I do have a Masters in Civil Engineering and lots of knowledge about how aeroplanes work, so I trust these qualify me to express an opinion in this thread..............

.....if something "happens", and what "happens" is reliably repeated ie it always "happens", then that is the way of the universe.

If my existing knowledge of physics, chemistry, computer-science, or whatever says this event should NOT "happen" then it's my existing knowledge that is wrong and thus needs sorting out, NOT the fact that this something "happens".

And for £800 it seems a "no-brainer" to go down the Melco D100 route.

Biggest risk to my mind is that some other company comes up with an even better ripper in January for £825 just as DB is finishing his last "rip"

 

I accept that it can be better, however I wouldn’t have the motivation to re-rip all my cd’s and reintegrate them, so I just accept that this is the quality for cd’s and I anyhow buy most in high res now...

Bart posted:

nbpf posted:

The problem of deciding in which file formats (the emphasis is on the plural!) to store music has been discussed ad infinitum in this forum and such discussions are typically not very fruitful. Just store the files for replay in whatever format you please but do yourself a favour and rip, download, edit, backup and retrieve .flac files!

Others have different views.  Obviously.

Of course we all have different views but on this matter we are unlikely to be able to bring strong arguments in favour of our views. Anything really goes and the only thing that matters is to avoid awkward tools (or tools one feels uncomfortable with) and formats that are poorely supported. At the end one can store the files that are to be retrieved for replay in whatever format one has found to be more convenient (for whatever reasons) for replay in one's own system. There is no need for the formats used for replay to coincide with the format used to manage and maintain a music collection.

Out of curiosity: are CD555 + ND555 owners meanwhile listening to their CD555 through the ND555 or still straight from the analogue output of the CD555? 

Because I moved to no-moving-parts-audio (ignore that the hdd spins please) about 6 years ago, the percentage of my music library that comes from cd's I ripped is pretty small -- 20%??

There is no digital input or output for the cd555, so it’s just playing a cd through it’s dac and analog stages.

Gazza posted:

There is no digital input or output for the cd555, so it’s just playing a cd through it’s dac and analog stages.

Ooops ... I apologize for my silly question! Thanks, nbpf 

Bert Schurink posted:

I accept that it can be better, however I wouldn’t have the motivation to re-rip all my cd’s and reintegrate them, so I just accept that this is the quality for cd’s and I anyhow buy most in high res now...

As before mentioned by me - I don't find much if really any music in Hi-Def format I like, so getting a good Rip of a good version on CD is a critical part of my source of music.

If - (and it is unfortunately not so) I could obtain Hi-Def versions of my music just cleanly and simply rendered onto Hi-Def format without tinkering about in the Mastering stage to 'improve' (means ruin) the original material then I'd be very very happy!

But every Re-master (almost all) are compressed, re-equalized, level-harmonized, noise-reduced...etc to death - and that is what I hear - the end result is reasonably to completely dead with all life extracted.

When that changes (I think it won't) then I'll put more attention toward Hi-Def of older recordings. New recordings in some genres onto Hi-Def is somewhat better - but it still sounds like a lot of the Mastering is done in very noisy environments these days - perhaps on computers with cheap sound cards.

...but great music material is available on CD at a good price if you search it out - and on modern replay equipment it is stunning and puts modern originated music to shame in terms of Dynamic range, low noise floor and lower coloration.

I'm getting excellent results with Rips of old CDs.

DB.

I grabbed a Core when I upgraded to a Nova and re-ripped my collection - previously ripped and streamed from a Mac. I’ve compared both rips through the Nova and there is a clear improvement with the Core. I have a degree in Civil Engineering and oddly enough a trained Yoga teacher too, so I go with the Yoga approach that if you experience the difference through your own discernment, then it is real.

And even more curiously I'm a TaiChi Instructor with 25 years experience teaching a class and I agree!

DB.

Gazza posted:

There is no digital input or output for the cd555, so it’s just playing a cd through it’s dac and analog stages.

Thank goodness. Otherwise I'd be tempted to tinker 

...presently listening to an early copy of 'Ashes are Burning' from Renaissance and the piano work on that is amazing.

I listened to some of the early Marillion albums last night, ripped from the original CDs - agree the results can be awesome. None of this remastered sound destruction.

Mike Sullivan posted:

I grabbed a Core when I upgraded to a Nova and re-ripped my collection - previously ripped and streamed from a Mac. I’ve compared both rips through the Nova and there is a clear improvement with the Core. I have a degree in Civil Enginee and oddly enough a trained Yoga teacher too, so I go with the Yoga approach that if you experience the difference through your own discernment, then it is real.

That's a very sensible decision but ... what if you would had gone with the civil engineering approach? Aum ...

Sorry to go against the grain of DB and some of the the other previous views but I feel I have to throw my two pence in the ring. I have tried the melco in my system and the innuos statement and found no benefit using it via Ethernet. As I have said before, but I feel no one listened, running ethernet to a high end switch negates the benefit of the expensive nas. Indeed, I feel I have exceeded it by far. I didn't like the 2960 much either and still have one spare for anyone to try. Like many on the forum I hold DB in very high regard but, on this occasion, my conclusion was different  regarding rips. I tried the melco and found no difference between those rips and my DB poweramp rips, I still have them to compare, there is no difference in my set up. I am using my active statement pre amp and 4x statement power amps, set up so it should be apparent, with s800 and full superlumina cables. I am not saying DB is wrong but just other variables may change the out come.

RICHYH posted:

Sorry to go against the grain of DB and some of the the other previous views but I feel I have to throw my two pence in the ring. I have tried the melco in my system and the innuos statement and found no benefit using it via Ethernet. As I have said before, but I feel no one listened, running ethernet to a high end switch negates the benefit of the expensive nas. Indeed, I feel I have exceeded it by far. I didn't like the 2960 much either and still have one spare for anyone to try. Like many on the forum I hold DB in very high regard but, on this occasion, my conclusion was different  regarding rips. I tried the melco and found no difference between those rips and my DB poweramp rips, I still have them to compare, there is no difference in my set up. I am using my active statement pre amp and 4x statement power amps, set up so it should be apparent, with s800 and full superlumina cables. I am not saying DB is wrong but just other variables may change the out come.

The crucial question is, again, if the rips are identical (modulo metadata) or not. In the first case, it would be very worrying if they would sound differently. In the second case the question would be why they are different. No matter, nice to read that you have found no differences between Melco rips and DB poweramp rips. Everything else would be very worrying.