They concluded that there were measurable differences in terms of processor activity and rail noise, but that these were not significant enough to translate to audible effects on the output. Naim weighed into the debate recently after making some detailed measurements of their streamers. The only reference to a statement from Naim i can find online is second hand and dates back to around 2011: file.To use QNAP NAS DLNA server, follow these steps. If that is the case, perhaps it would be good to have a sticky somewhere with actual references and measurements rather than anecdotal evidence? Serviio developer / Site Admin Posts: 17208.1 on a qnap nas ts-219P and the console on a windows 8 pc. How would this translate to the extra noise, interrupt activity and increased power supply load introduced by reading a larger WAV file compared to a smaller FLAC? Does that influence things?Īnd would by this logic also not a higher resolution source file such as 24/96 or 32/192 sound worse than a 16/44 file on the aforementioned streamers, because of the extra processing power needed?ĭo we have any hard data on this topic that could substantiate the claims? Measurements or spectograms perhaps? The WAV/FLAC discussion is a recurring topic, and it has been mentioned that even Naim itself advises to pre-transcode FLAC to WAV on first generation streamers. Some products like Roon do this automatically anyway. So to get around this for those who are using equipment that does suffer this, then transcode is sometimes used in UPnP media servers, such as the FLAC is converted to wav for the streamer on playback. On playback they both provide the same audio information, however more processing is required to read FLAC (BTW the processing effort to read is the same irrespective of the compression level), and because of this extra processing compared to WAV more digital noise can be created by the reading/parsing processor and detract from the audio experience on some (but certainly not all) devices. Most consumer rippers RAAT write WAV metadata simply store standard audio replay track info in WAV anyway. WAV can store more mastering/production meta data types, where as FLAC is limited to simply consumer audio track replay information. Strictly speaking the method WAV uses to store album art is non standard, but has been defacto adopted. They can both store meta data, but as I mentioned previously some consumer software is not able to read WAV meta data… Naim is an example of this. They are both lossless non proprietary PCM file formats. Hi, I would recommend FLAC for storage over WAV, because less space is taken and not all consumer software reads WAV meta data.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |