hifi.slovanet.sk

[bedo]

Listening tests reveal significant sound quality differences between various digital music storage technologies.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol5_no3/listening_to_storage.htm

Takže pozor na to, až budete chcieť hrať "po sieti", nie je NAS ako NAS...

[miero]

Mmmhaha, a mohli by spravit tiez porovnanie NAS vs. Cloud.

[merhaut]

Další téma pro ty, co slyší rozdíl mezi jedničkou jedničkovatější a nulou nulovatější:-)

[cough]

Vskutku pozoruhodný textík/testík to je.

Fellow computer audio enthusiast (and Naim PR person) Stephen Harris and I launched into some preliminary listening tests, to establish under reasonably controlled conditions if audible, repeatable differences could really be heard.


The link between the NAS units and the traditional hi-fi comprised two Naim units, a UnitiServe and an NDX. The UnitiServe was primarily used as a CD ripping tool and a network media server. The Naim NDX is a network music streamer with onboard DACs, bypassed here to use the dCS two-box DAC.


Píár manažér Naimu a komponenty Naim zusammen – krémovitost testu zaručena! Kupujte!

No teď už vážneji. Z textu není úplně jasné, jak byl celý řetězec zapojený, proto těžko hledat nějaké vysvětlení na dálku. Mně z toho vychází, že by bylo zajímavé porovnat výsledky toho, co v SPDIF leze z Naimu – jestli to je stejný digitální obsah ve všech případech – pokud ano – pak může být problém v hodinách (zdrojem dat a clocku byl Naim) – a samozřejmě čistě spekulativní a posměváčsky zlé vysvětlení (jak jinak ode mně) je to, že Naim produkuje zařízení, která jsou rytmicky naléhavá ve své náchylnosti na rušení všeho druhu, dokonce po výměně značky SSD disku v NAS vzdáleného 25m propojeného obyčejným Ethernet kabelem. Nebo je na rušení náchylný D/A převodník dCS, což vzhledem k reputaci produktů této firmy méně pravděpodobné, ale možné. Nebo díky zarušení produkuje Naim tak špatný clock a dCS není schopen si s tím podarit (což je taky blbě, ale je tam „re/up/sampler“ krabička dCS, tak je to možná jinak). Nemám vůbec problém s tím, že vskutku nějaké nuance mohli slyšet a slyšeli, jen ten hifinewspeak je opravdu kouzelný. Nedá mi to neodcitovat z poslechových fantazií:

Porovnávání dvou NAS zařízení:
QNAP1 was found to serve up music with a similar level of rhythmic drive and image soundstaging as a good CD transport playing directly into our system's DAC. If anything, there was perceptibly more 'drive', in the sense of bass euphony and articulation, but this came with increased level which made the sound a tad bass heavy.
Also, QNAP1 did not sound as clean as CD in the higher registers. Some edgy grain exaggerated the sampled horns that sets the scene in the opening of Primal Scream's Loaded, adding to the color but nudging it off neutrality. Splash cymbals lived up to their name.
QNAP2 rendered the same song more tunefully. It was more organic and made more sense, the lines of melody and rhythm cooperating better. As well as showing better individual instrument distinction, the whole piece sounded tidier, tonally less messy without the roughened HF, and perhaps better integrated in musical intent.
That hint of glaze on QNAP1 also showed an impaired subjective noise floor elsewhere. In hi-fi parlance, QNAP2 had the blacker silences and deeper spaces between notes. If anything, this track highlighted a fundamental shift in timbre between the storage sources. This wasn't the gentle tweak of a DAC's digital filter option; we felt it was more akin to changing loudspeakers. System sound was improved as if the DAC itself had been upgraded, say from a £500 to a £2000 model.
Madonna's Swim also proved illuminating. William Orbit's judicious dollops of bass synth showed how the QNAP1 had been exaggerating some of that low energy (albeit at the higher end of the range, so leaving 'infrasonic' impact somewhat weakened). QNAP2 was undoubtedly tighter here, and more disciplined.

Výměna různých harddisků v tomtéž zařízení:
Harris thought the Hitachi (harddisk) sounded very ethereal, almost out of phase, and rated it lowest; the Seagate was sharper with a more thumpy bass, slightly brighter with a slight tendency to sibilance. Both lacked much drive in presenting the Madonna track, and were certainly 'mushy' compared with the best sound quality we'd heard from the QNAP stable.
Drive three (a solid state type) gave a far from subtle shift in tone and soundstaging. I thought that here this Kingston SSD spread the stage wider, could really pull apart the multi-track layers, and certainly led in blackness too, sounding agreeably quieter than it had any right to. Yet there was also a dull flatness to its presentation, even a graying of timbre.
If the Kingston SSD stood apart from the disk drives for its mostly good yet quite alien character, drive four made itself known for entirely the wrong reasons. This Corsair drive (another SSD) conspicuously highlighted vocal sibilants, and had a hard, relentless quality that was impossible to miss. Strangely, it also robbed the music of pace; it was the least engaging on any emotional level thanks to an enveloping tunelessness that appeared to carve up a song like an MP3 rip.

Pro mně z toho plyne poučení, že je nutné věnovat se problematice rušení při hraní z PC ještě více než doposud. Lehčí forma hifiparanoji v této oblasti asi není úplně na závadu...

[miero]

[miero]

V kazdom pripade by slo analyzovat casy Ethernet paketov medzi NAS a DAC s roznymi diskami. No obavam sa ze mikrosekundova presnost pre potreby HiFi nebude stacit :D

[ravenman]

Myslím, že zbytočné sa v tom hlbšie vŕtať, zaváňa to PR alebo ako cough povedal, nevhodnou koncepciou návrhu prehnane náchylným na..., ale to iste bežného spotrebiteľa nesere, radšej zakúpi v článku uvedenú značku / koncepciu storage výrobku ako by vymenil výrobcu aparátu