music from nas
Posted by: mondomusic on 22 March 2015
I hope someone can shed some light on this. I used to run 200/202/hicap/cdx2 and all sounded the business. I got tired of all the boxes and flogged the lot and kept the 200 and bought a qute, and ripped all my CD's in alac onto nas. The sound is no where as good as before, I appreciate all components collectively contributed but where lies my shortfall now? Poor preamp on quite, or is the alac file not as good as full-fat red book CD? I need advice because this will help me decide whether I upgrade to nac272 or superuniti, or do I rip to another full-fat file type, or both? Running wired connection...thanks someone.
I think the obvious is the Qute is not in the same league as the CDX2 & the Qute preamp is not as a good as the 202. But I would be surprised these alone would cause the problem as "nowhere near as good"
.alac is as good as any Red Book, you will hear .flac is better or .wav is better still, but the difference, if any, is reminisce & at this stage is better left as is.
How did you rip the CD's - what rip tool/program/machine
What NAS do you have & what UPnP server, this probably won't be a cause of a problem, but nice to know.
You say you have the networked wired, thats good, but what wire goes to & from what. This might be an area to focus on to maximise what the Qute can do.
You will get a better sound if you set your NAS to transcode from alac to WAV. Some server software won't transcode alac to WAV, in which case you could convert all the files to FLAC, and then set the NAS to transcode to WAV. Try just one album and see what you think.
I hope someone can shed some light on this. I used to run 200/202/hicap/cdx2 and all sounded the business. I got tired of all the boxes and flogged the lot and kept the 200 and bought a qute, and ripped all my CD's in alac onto nas. The sound is no where as good as before, I appreciate all components collectively contributed but where lies my shortfall now? Poor preamp on quite, or is the alac file not as good as full-fat red book CD? I need advice because this will help me decide whether I upgrade to nac272 or superuniti, or do I rip to another full-fat file type, or both? Running wired connection...thanks someone.
I am not the most qualified as I have only heard the 202 200 combo once and without hi cap but what I do know is that when I compare a CD via my CD transport into the NDX as DAC vs the rip from the same CD from my NAS I cannot find discernable differences. That is to say I would think that the preamp (hi capped if i get you right) is presumably making the difference. the inevitable question: Had you not tried the Qute at home before making the decision to ditch the preamp?
Thanks gents.
ok - answer for MikeB as follows:-
zyxell nsa325 connected to decent switch and in turn to qute, then decent i/c phono out to din into the 200. decent chord speaker cables as before.
HH - note sure I'm in the same league as you regarding trans-coding on the nas, but before I try it, do you think its likely to make a difference?
Yes.
DrPo
answer to your question is a simple one - priority to downsize, means NO, I bought the qute online without testing it.
My question is, how do I get a good/equivalent sound from fewer boxes? 272/SU or better file conversion/NAS? I could go and buy another 202/hicap tomorrow but that would be defeating the point altogether.
The technical stuff can be very confusing, and I am basically clueless. But if you take it slowly, and use Google as needs be, you can get a great sense of achievement once you've got your head around it all! So don't be daunted, see it as a challenge....
The thing with the Qute, good as it is in itself, is that it's a fairly basic all in one, with the preamp and streamer quality to match. I use a SuperUniti, which replaced a separates system, and it really is a very good machine. There are those of course who think a Qute sounds better, and there is only one way to find out.....
I'd also have a look at the new 272, especially as you have the 200, which is a lovely power amp. I'm sure the 272/200 will be significantly better than the SuperUniti.
My question is, how do I get a good/equivalent sound from fewer boxes? 272/SU or better file conversion/NAS? I could go and buy another 202/hicap tomorrow but that would be defeating the point altogether.
With fewer boxes only the 272 comes to mind but not sure if there are any tests already.
DrPo
answer to your question is a simple one - priority to downsize, means NO, I bought the qute online without testing it.
My question is, how do I get a good/equivalent sound from fewer boxes? 272/SU or better file conversion/NAS? I could go and buy another 202/hicap tomorrow but that would be defeating the point altogether.
Don't do that, as the Qute would still be the limiting factor. You'd then need an NDX, and you'd end up with loads of boxes you don't need, and an empty wallet.
Not bothered about IC cables, only the ethernet
You said your ethernet is ..... zyxell nsa325 connected to decent switch and in turn to qute
Is switch ethernet connected to a wireless router/hub
What make/model is switch
Agree with HH, transcoding .alac to .wav will be a positive step
Thanks guys - you've both made sense. I needed the reassurance that SU is in fact good, yet i do feel the 272 will be k*****ss with the 200 (or any p/a from naim). I am however reluctant to go down wav route, does this not remove tags and convenience??
The point of transcoding is that the original files are converted just for playback, they are not changed.
.............. reluctant to go down wav route, does this not remove tags and convenience??
Thats a myth, .wav contain metadata & tag info
All my 500+ albums are .wav & I have all the metadata & tags I need & I can easily edit if needed with dBpoweramp & Windows Explorer. I can do pretty much everything that other formats do, problem is is not quite so so easy as (e.g.) .flac.
But its good to go with transcoding.