Best possible ripped CD format to play on ND5 XS

Rip to flac . . . transcode to wav . . . I don't think that there is anything you can do to squeeze out anything better from a cd.

If you want to experiment, rip to flac and rip to wav and have someone select them for replay, blinded to you. 

(A lot of us have been at this a LONG time.  If there was a clear difference, this so-called "debate" wouldn't still be going on.  So I think that the large body of evidence shows that you should rip to whichever format YOU think is best.  As they pretty much all sound the same.)

Rip to FLAC, but feed the ND5 XS on WAVE datastreams is the right answer.

Transcoding on the fly is OK (as you are using Asset), as is converting the .flac files to .wav.  Which you do is up to you.

In my opinion the ND5 XS is capable of just as good a sound as the CD5 XS, it just has a different balance of qualities, I don't believe either is clearly better than the other.

Silly question time, what is the benefit of transcoding. I think I get that some think WAV sounds better, but if you start with FLAC are you not just adding another converting process?

WAVE files hold the data in a form that is closest to that which the DAC requires for it's input, hence the data require less processing by the digital circuitry, hence it sounds better because there's less noise in the power supply circuits.

PG - transcoding to WAV from FLAC is more akin to 'deconverting' the file. FLAC may be lossless but it is generally compressed, so the streamer has to uncompress it in order to play it. By having the NAS software transcode to WAV, the streamer doesn't have to uncompress the file - and the theory is that it sounds better as a consequence.

Also, it's worth pointing out that both FLAC and WAV are lossless formats, meaning there is zero loss in the conversion process - you could convert from one to the other a million and one times, and the data would be exactly the same, and the music would sound exactly the same.

+1 to the above comments that WAV sounds best, although FLAC isn't so far behind. Store as FLAC for smaller file size and better metadata handling.

Solid, many thanks for an easy to understand explanation. Will give it a try.

I tried ripping to both wav and flac, and found wav to be considerably better sound wise but a real pain with the metadata. I now only use wav as its the sound quality thats most important to me.

+1.       I'm WAV all the way, it sounds better avoids the added need to transcode &  accompanying issues to "get better sounding WAV". ......... that is something I can never understand.

WAV metadata  just as easy to edit as anyother format & storage is cheap - what's the problem?

Mike, the only reason I bothered to convert everything to FLAC is that it can then be used on other devices. For example, I have a Sony ZX2 Walkman. This cannot read the metadata on a Unitiserve CD rip in WAV, but it can if you convert it to FLAC. Also, if the US dies, I have the option to replace it with a much cheaper regular NAS/UPnP server. Again, this would be unable to read WAV metadata from the US. If it wasn't for this, I'd probably leave everything in WAV unless I was running low on storage space.

I understand Chris,  peeps have reasons for FLAC & all sorts - dare I mention iTunes - whatever suits is OK by me, no hard & fast anything, what works is OK.  But it's WAV for me for the serious stuff, the giggly pop compilations & other low fi stuff we all collect over time I have in FLAC or even MP3.

The US stores WAVE metadata in a rather odd way, but normally with data on a NAS you wouldn't use the same metadata system the US does.

In 2003 (or maybe 2005 I can't remember) the WAVE file definition was altered to clarify the use of non-sound data blocks, and using metadata embedded in WAV files IS now officially supported.  Editing metadata in WAVE is now just as easy as in FLAC (e.g. using DBPoweramp).

Hi Mike

Are you saying that ripping directly to WAV is slightly better, rather than converting FLAC to WAV on the fly? Also, how are you getting your control point (phone, or tablet) to see the metadata/album covers of your WAV files?

Thanks

Davina

Huge metatdata and several interesting data type chunks were *officially* supported from the start or pretty near the start... in addition WAV specifically officially supports the use  of additional private chunk Id. There was a system of registering private chunk Id's, but I think it was not maintained. In the early 2000's (I believe) WAV was clarified to *officially* support hidef sample data in the header block.. this was called the Extensible WAV specification. As far as I am aware only the list info meta data is still officially supported, but ID3 chunks have been adopted in the consumer use of WAV. My professional use of the file going back to the late 90s only ever used the official list info meta data format. This is also the format that is used in BWF.

But I know we have disagreed on this before, so we might still need to agree to disagree 

Davina I have detected no difference in the sample stream itself between WAV PCM data type and the transcoded FLAC to WAV PCM data type. When I once looked at it on the wire, (and reported back on this forum a few years ago) it looked physically identical.

Simon

Originally Posted by Davinadavis:

Hi Davina,  Yes I find WAV better in a number of areas,  but I must say & make clear that I do not believe there is much if any SQ difference with transcoding as the Naim renderer is receiving & playing WAV; some NAS  & UPnP might not do as good a job on transcoding SQ as others, but I have not experienced this personally.  However some UPnP & NAS do have issues transcoding gapless & with some aspects of displaying metadata scripts; I just find WAV as easy to use as FLAC but without these issues.  

I use Windows 10 (previously Win Vista & Win 8.1) to do any - but very limited - metadata editing & the HD file downloading & if needed converting FLAC to WAV. 

My control point is iPad Mini & NAS is Synology DS214

All of everything is always latest revision software & I am one of the Naim beta test users

Thanks Mike...Ah yes, now I remember your set up. As mentioned in a previous post of mine, I have dumped my Qnap 112 NAS, and just use it for back ups. My music is now stored on my iMac, which is much more powerful in all shapes and forms, than the Qnap. I am using the Mac version of Asset, controlled by my iPad Air. I do have a couple of HD albums in WAV, but they are displayed as 'unknown artist', 'unknown album', with no album artwork. What programme are you using to add/edit the WAV metadata/artwork?

Thanks 

Davina

Thank you Simon.

Davina

Solid Air...Thank you, nicely explained.

Ah, NASs and Ethernets! Yea, let's not go there!  Having said that...If you se my recent reply to Mike-B, re my Qnap! 

DBPoweramp can be used to edit metadata in WAVE files.

It does this just as easily and just as successfully as in FLAC.

WAVs ripped and played back in this way sound better to me. How it sounds to you may be different. It is easy to find out because the formats are easily inter convertible.  I do a reality check from time to time.Native  WAV playback still sounds best to me.

I use dBpoweramp to tag WAV files. No problems at all. Minimserver sees the tags correctly as does Asset. The Naim app picks them up and displays them correctly. When we ran an HDX, WAVs which were not ripped with the HDX such as HiRes downloads were picked up and displayed just fine by HDX, DTC and nServe after tagging with dBpoweramp.

I'm not familiar with Mac or Asset so can't comment on the 'unknown' content but suspect some metadata editing will sort it

I use dBpoweramp for everything, ripping & tag editing

You only need to transcode if the device you are sending to doesn't support the format of the payload. I have a nd5-XS too and play flac direct from NAS. It sounds fab.

Yes, you only need to transcode if the device you are sending to doesn't support the format of the payload.

However in some circumstances it can also be used to improve sound quality; and with an ND5 XS most people find that transcoding FLAC to WAVE is one of those circumstances (provided the transcoding preserves the bit depth and sample rate).