Difference in sound quality between different media servers…?

Yes, I used the same format for all media servers when I did the comparison. First I tried with flac-files and then also with wav-files.

I did not hear any difference between the different media servers serving the same fil.

I read some positive feedback on the Hugo DAC but I haven’t heard it. I prefer to use a NAS instead of having a computer in my stereo system.

In this area I’m an amateur and do not understand all available solutions. It seems like there are a lot of options available.

Of course I would like to get the best solution regarding SQ. It would be a shame to spend a lot of money on “black boxes” and then fail to get the best out of it due to a bad choice of media server. I have a lot of other things that I need to do with my system but to select a different media server is relatively cheap compared to other upgrades.

If there are no difference in SQ (or very small) I would happily continue to use my Netgear NAS and Twonky Media Server...

Unless I am misunderstanding something you already have a computer in your system - where is your Twonky running?

Twonky is installed and running on my NAS-disk.

I use a laptop for ripping CD:s and to copy them on to the NAS-disk.

During normal listening the laptop is turned off and only the NAS is used for storage and for serving music.

I guess that you can call a NAS a “computer”. Is that what you meant…?

I use a Hugo, I feed it with the digi out from my uq2 and it sounds great. I tried a range of upnp servers from my pc and then from my nas and did not hear any difference in so u nd quality between them. Some were better suited to my needs but they sounded the same. I did hear an improvement in my assetnas to my pc but this could be because the nas is connected via a switch over a shorter run of cable. I'm using asset upnp on the assetnss

Exactly - if your NAS is running software then it has a processor and that makes it a computer...one with a very big disk drive.

Hi Dr Mark!

Yes, I see your point. I stand corrected…

I meant that I prefer to not have to start up a laptop (or something similar) to be able to listen to music. Now I can just “press play” and the music starts right away. That’s the way I prefer it…

Hi dayjay!

Good to hear that you could not hear any difference in SQ between the different media servers that you tested.

If there is a difference in SQ between different media servers I guess that they are relatively small.

Have anybody been able to hear a difference? Maybe someone with a very revealing system perhaps…?

If you are able to test each server software using the same media library on the same device (and with transcoding turned off), you shouldn't hear a difference (though there may be other factors at hand, including cover art scaling, indexing, etc.).

Be interesting to know but I would be surprised.  The software should make the files available to your streamer without impacting on sound quality I would have thought? I suppose if one is using more processor power than another then that might be audible but you'd need ears like a bat. I could be wrong, and probably am, but I couldn't hear any difference and I suspect you'd get a bigger change via the hardware, switch or cabling you use as a nas. I could clearly hear an improvement form pc to nas and once I put a switch between the qute and nas

Minimserver running on a QNAP 410 is a considerable distance in front of an HDX-SSD doing the serving duties on the same files at the same location. So much so that ours has left the building. The HDX, on my system at least, was getting in the way to an extent that could be heard. Today I tried installing Asset on my 470 and although the install and setup seemed to go fine, I cannot make it see my music share, or any other which I create. So I'm curious myself about possible differences but Asset has turned out to be a pig whereas Minimserver was easy to set up. I don't propose to put in any more efforts setting up Asset and it seems as if any such effort would probably prove fruitless in any case. So that's nice to know.

I prefer Asset running on my Raspberry Pi as opposed to Asset running on an HP PC. Subtle difference, but there.

Simon

Dear Simon,

Does this not merely underline the simple fact that not even the latest developments in replay are imperfect, or else all would be the same and definably perfect?

After all if two LP turntables sound different, then one - by definition - must be wrong ...

I would be certain in saying both are wrong, though one may be less wrong than the other. and the choice would - as ever - remain subjective. As no perfect recording has yet been made, then we are judging on thin ice in the first and last place ...

ATB from George

George, recorded music replay, I would argue, and is your point as well I think, is about chosing which and the extent of compromise you are willing to accept. There is unlikely to be ever the 'perfect' replay system. The digital streaming methods have side effects just like we have had with CD, LP, tape, radio before. In the case I refer to in the post above I suspect the side effects are caused by electrical noise from the different network transport protocol parameters and therefore data throughput dynamics from the different servers interacting with the network streamer. These parameters are negotiated and agreed dynamivcally between server and streamer.

Simon

That's interesting Wat, are we saying then that the artificial,  produced, sound captured in the studio and then delivered to us via whatever imperfect media is "better" than the sound of the instruments and musicians playing live in front of us?

Dayjay, are you saying that the SQ improved when you added the switch between the qute and nas…? Interesting…

Harry, thanks for your replay! Good to hear that you have reached a better solution in your system. Interesting to hear that your SQ improved when you moved from the HDX as a server to your Qnap NAS. I would have thought that the HDX as a server would be as good as it gets. I mean that I would have expected Naim to have sorted out everything so that you will receive the best SQ possible when using a Naim server in a Naim system…

In theory, all the NAS does is serve the digital files, so there really shouldn't be any difference in SQ. I guess there might be differences caused by, for example, electrical interference (or something - I'm no expert).

I opted for Synology and was using Minim, which is good, but switched to DSM 5 when they allowed transcoding. For a while I had both, and Twonky, and I couldn't tell the difference in SQ. There were larger differences in hassle (Twonky is less stable and Minim is quite needy) and UI (Twonky is good, Minim seems better set up for classical music, and DSM is good apart from adding the suffix .flac to all the track names, which is annoying).

If there was an Asset implementation for Synology I'd certainly try it. I'd also be interested in the Raspberry Pi option, but I'd need a dummies' guide. If anyone expert has a blog with VERY simple instructions, I'm up for giving it a go.

We kept the HDX for years based on that assumption, or at least an assumption that anything good would sound similar. But it really was a sonic bottleneck in my system. I guess something as mechanically and electrically noisy as an HDX, good though it is for what it is, is going to be a compromise.  Turns out the NDS sounds even better than I thought it did. That’s a win.  Could have been a sick HDX, but it didn't sound wrong until it wasn't there.

Interesting discussions guys! Thanks for your input!

If the server SW do not impact the SQ (or very very little) could the HW play a bigger part? It seems like that when reading your experiences.

Simon, interesting to hear that you get a difference in SQ when Asset running on HP PC or Raspberry Pi. I guess that Raspberry Pi takes some “know how” to install and set up?

What would you say will give the best SQ when comparing “easy to setup” solutions? I’m far from a computer expert and would like to have a simple and reliable solution. If there are some good instructions I can off course do some installation…

I would have guessed that UnitiServe would be the best “easy” solution but from Harrys experience with his HDX that may not be the case.

Perhaps I should just be satisfied with my NetGear NAS and Twonky Media Server as I use today? My thought was only that perhaps I can get better SQ from a very small investment. It would be a pity to have a great potential from the “black boxes” but not use it due to a small detail that would be easy and cheap to fix…

Could different NAS-disks give different SQ if you for example use Asset on all of them? Could a QNAP, Synology or NetGear NAS give different SQ if everything else is as similar as possible…?

/Marcus

Don't under-estimate the importance of the UI on your overall experience. The N-Stream / Naim app uses whatever the NAS presents to it, so how you select music changes according to the NAS software. For example, Minim is better for classical than rock, DSM won't do gapless while transcoding, etc. For me, these things make more difference than tiny SQ differences (which I couldn't detect anyway). 

My personal experience of Twonky on WD was that it's unstable, and the Synology option has been a great deal better. 

Hi Solid Air!

Yes, I agree that the UI is important. I´m pretty satisfied with Twonky in that regard. It could be because I’m used to it. For me Twonky has always been stable and rarely freezes or acts weird.

The reason that I choose a NetGear NAS and Twonky was due to my dealer. They were using this setup and told me that they could help me more easily if I had a similar system to theirs.

My dealer also told me that most dealers in Sweden use this setup. I think that this was the recommended solution from the “swedish Naim distributor” (or what it’s called). I hope you understand what I’m trying to say…

It did, however,  that could be partially or wholly because that change also included moving away from my pc 40 feet away acting as server to my assetnas acting as server into the switch and the switch sitting within 10 foot of the streamer. I haven't completed any tests to compare the pc to the streamer wiyh and without the switch

Dayjay, interesting indeed!

It would be very interesting if you have time and energy to test with and without the switch

Due to the experiences people have shared in this thread I would guess that the move from PC to NAS will have an effect.

I have a hard time to realize how a switch in itself could improve SQ, but I can be wrong…

Someone more knowledgeable have to answer this tricky question. When it comes to computers and the science of electricity all logic stops for me and my limited knowledge in that area.

/Marcus