The best NAS for a DS?

We use the Tune Method to evaluate performance

Moderator: Staff

User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

The best NAS for a DS?

Post by Music Lover »

Starting a new thread following the discussion as in the cable hell thread regarding performance.
Like to hear your experience!

What NAS is the best?
- tune dem
- functions
- noise
- other

Comparing the three NAS on Linn web; ReadyNAS, LaCie, QNap - my understanding is this.

DHCP server; Netgear, Qnap (=no need of a router --> simpler architecture and easy comparing swithes)
Twonky preinstalled; Qnap
No FAN; Qnap
Bittorrent/FTP; Qnap (LaCie support FTP)
Preinstalled HDD; LaCie

My experience.
LaCie
- VERY quite fan and dont disturb even at low volume listening
- sound ok but plan to compare with other NAS
- the Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500GB HDD makes some "clicking" noise now and then, louder than normal HDD. Likely due to the tight fit to the Alu tube chassis similar to Naim boxes. Not disturbing but good to mention...
- NOTE just called the vendor and they deliver LaCie with 2 different HDD's, the Seagate and Western Digital. The consumer gets one or another. Little disturbing as I think the HDD impact the musicality/sound as the other components in the architecture!
Like to get your experience on this matter - anyone that tested different HDD's?
And if you compared different NAS, I hope you also list the HDD's involved :D

Discuss :!:
It's all about musical understanding!
JohnS
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-10-02 21:59

Post by JohnS »

As well as NAS's, how about adding a low power PC with a big disk running windows and Twonky to the list?

You can share the music folder easily over the network for the same effect as a NAS, and updating versions of Twonky is easier. You can even rip CD's directly on it. You could put in RAID, or just have an external disk for backup.

I considered QNAP, but I thought the PC option was just more flexible.
Rem
New member
New member
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-04-06 21:53

Post by Rem »

I'm not sure if it will be possible to find someone with all three to compare side by side - I currently use the Netgear (Infrant) Ready Nas - one of the principle reasons for my choice is the Raid X technology - the same reason why Netgear brought Infrant to get this! All I can say is you wouldn't want it in the same room as your system etc. in fact I have it located in the utility room hooked up to a Netgear Pro gigabit switch. It certainly makes my Akurate DS sing! It might also be worth adding to the list this:

http://www.ripfactory.com/ripserver.html

looks like an interesting addition.......
paolo
Active member
Active member
Posts: 125
Joined: 2007-01-31 12:49
Location: Rome, Italy

Post by paolo »

Hello guys,
I've made some more experiments on this matter. Here are my findings:

- Intuitively (but still not easy to rationally explain), switches and NASes (HDDs?) have the most musically significative influence to the sound. Network cables' impact on tune is less important (but still quite easily audible). Different ports on the same switch sound often not the same, so choosing the best two for NAS and DS it's surely wortwhile.

- It seems that what really matters with network devices is more how they're built than the number of functions they implement.
Infact the USRobotics switch/router/Wifi device I'm actually using has proved to be better than several pure switches I've tried so far (Netgear, 3com). The only switch I've tried that's better than said USRobotics is a Netgear FS105 (good, but probably can still be bettered by a margin).

- I've tried two NASes so far: Netgear Readynas NV+ and Qnap TS-109. First result was that Netgear was better. Then I did go a bit further, and compared two HDDs with the same NAS (see next point). I've not anymore the Readynas at my place to compare again but my strong suspicion now is that the bigger difference is between HDDs than between NASes.

- Comparison between 2 HDDs: Western Digital 750 GB GP series (WD7500AACS) and Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (ST3750640AS) installed onto 2 identical Qnaps TS-109. Seagate is better, by a margin! Considerably more defined and articulate expecially in the bass, easier to follow instruments. This is quite the same kind of difference I remember between a Readynas NV+ (Readynas NV+ has by default Seagate Barracuda ES drives) and my Qnap with WD7500AACS HDD. In the end I can't be sure, but maybe the difference I had experienced on first between ReadyNas and Qnap TS-109 was (at least mainly) due to the different HDDs and not to the NAs itself.

As for the use, both REadyNAs and Qnap work very well. The former can accommodate until 4 HDDs but is quite noisy cause of its vent, while the latter accommodate only 1 HDD and has no vents, so it is as noisy as the HDD itself (WD GP HDD is very silent, Seagate HDDs generally less so).

Paolo
JohnS
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-10-02 21:59

Post by JohnS »

Paolo
That is really interesting, what a test, HDD making a difference! As I see it from an IT angle, there can be no difference at the 'data' level, the extraction off HDD and the transport via ethernet will arrive 'perfectly'.
However there must be noise being generated in the NAS, PC and/or switch to which the DS is sensitive. If so I think the question is how this can be isolated or removed, breaking the electrical transmission of this noise to get as clean a digital ethernet signal as possible to the DS.
So between the NAS/PC and the DS, maybe going via Fibre (expensive?), some other transfer (wireless bridge or powerline - this might cause other problems), ferrite beads(!). I'm not sure how practical these are, or if there are some others, what do you think?
paolo
Active member
Active member
Posts: 125
Joined: 2007-01-31 12:49
Location: Rome, Italy

Post by paolo »

Hello John
JohnS wrote: As I see it from an IT angle, there can be no difference at the 'data' level, the extraction off HDD and the transport via ethernet will arrive 'perfectly'.
However there must be noise being generated in the NAS, PC and/or switch to which the DS is sensitive.
I agree 100%!

Anyway, at the moment I can't think of any easy way to isolate the DS from the NAS. Wifi sounds worse than cabled link (I've tried with a PC) and Fibre could be good but we'd need a switch and a NAS with optical interfaces.....not cheap and handy, I agree.

I think all we can reasonably do at the moment is to find a shortlist of best NASes, HDDs, switches, (cables). It's enough to have a really great sound from our DS machines. In the near future I guess many more things will be known on this matter, in the meantime we have hundreds of albums to listen to with our "sub-optimal" DS system, no? :D

ciao
Paolo
JohnS
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-10-02 21:59

Post by JohnS »

Hi Paolo,
I definitely like my DS, great piece of kit. It's fabulous to browse my collection, stack up a playlist (or random) and relax, it's great!
I must admit I'm also actually enjoying the challenge of how to get the best out of it - playing with the network, building a PC from scratch and just from an engineering problem solving approach trying to narrow down what's going on and what influences it. It's fun! I have another angle in that I'm moving house soon and building an extension that I'll wire up for the HiFi, so I'm planning out network and mains wiring to get the best...
John
paolo
Active member
Active member
Posts: 125
Joined: 2007-01-31 12:49
Location: Rome, Italy

Post by paolo »

JohnS wrote:Hi Paolo,
It's fabulous to browse my collection, stack up a playlist (or random) and relax, it's great!
Agreed!
I must admit I'm also actually enjoying the challenge of how to get the best out of it - playing with the network, building a PC from scratch and just from an engineering problem solving approach trying to narrow down what's going on and what influences it. It's fun!
Agreed! It's somehow annoying because it would have been a great thing to forgot all problems outside the DS and take care ONLY of having a good_no_errors ripping to get the best sound. But it's also challenging and fun in the end!
I have another angle in that I'm moving house soon and building an extension that I'll wire up for the HiFi, so I'm planning out network and mains wiring to get the best...
Agreed again! I'm moving house too!:lol:

Paolo
blom
Member
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-04-20 15:24
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by blom »

Hi guys,

another thing to test would be to compare running from a NAS with running directly from the computer. I did som tests this weekend after I installed a Qnap TS-109 on Friday. Initial feeling is that there are clear differences :o

At the moment I think I definitely prefer one setup over the other, but I'm unsure if there's a big difference in tune :?
Both tests were done going through the same Linksys router/firewall.

Since I'm moving house too in a month or so, I won't put too much effort into network issues at my current location, though.
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover »

JohnS wrote:Paolo
That is really interesting, what a test, HDD making a difference! As I see it from an IT angle, there can be no difference at the 'data' level, the extraction off HDD and the transport via ethernet will arrive 'perfectly'.
Not quite...
As with a CDplayer transport, the NAS HDD can be less good delivering data in an optimum stable way.
Still SAME data.

So...A great HDD deliver the data with a perfect flow.
I think this is why switches and NAS/HDD affect the tune more than cable!!
Likely a HDD constructed to higher specs going to be better.
It's all about musical understanding!
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover »

blom wrote: Initial feeling is that there are clear differences :o
what was best NAS or PC?
It's all about musical understanding!
blom
Member
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-04-20 15:24
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by blom »

Music Lover wrote: what was best NAS or PC?
My immediate reaction was that I preferred running directly from the computer, an IMac G5 (not a lot of room for expansion...).
When I first connected the NAS and started playing music, there seemed to be something missing. Very polite and polished, but somewhat lifeless.

I will try to play around with phase to see if there is a difference.
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover »

blom , what HDD do you have in your Qnap?
It's all about musical understanding!
User avatar
rowlandhills
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-01-27 19:25
Location: York, UK

Post by rowlandhills »

Music Lover wrote:
JohnS wrote:Paolo
That is really interesting, what a test, HDD making a difference! As I see it from an IT angle, there can be no difference at the 'data' level, the extraction off HDD and the transport via ethernet will arrive 'perfectly'.
Not quite...
As with a CDplayer transport, the NAS HDD can be less good delivering data in an optimum stable way.
Still SAME data.

So...A great HDD deliver the data with a perfect flow.
I think this is why switches and NAS/HDD affect the tune more than cable!!
Likely a HDD constructed to higher specs going to be better.
I'm going to have to disagree with this! :)

It makes a difference in a CD transport because there is only one opportunity to read the data, and any errors are then handled by error correction algorithms, which do not neccessarily restore a perfect signal.

With computer data, this is simply not the case, as it can be reread until the data is correct. Also, the signal which is transmitted from a PC/NAS is not time dependent, and being processed "just-in-time" but rather will be buffered in the DS until played. This allows reconstruction of the full digital signal and avoids potential jitter issues.

Sorry, but I'm afraid that I really can't credit the argument that HDDs make a difference beyond electrical/RF noise and interference. I like the idea of using an optical link between the DS and everything else to avoid this though :)
KRDSM, Tundra to 242s
Silvers, K400, Hutter rack
blom
Member
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-04-20 15:24
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by blom »

Music Lover wrote:blom , what HDD do you have in your Qnap?
If I remember correctly it's a Samsung, 500GB. It was preinstalled in the Qnap. The Mac has a Maxtor (6B250S0).

This is probably what you get when trying to cheap out and not buy a ReadyNas :D
JohnS
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-10-02 21:59

Post by JohnS »

Music Lover wrote: Not quite...
As with a CDplayer transport, the NAS HDD can be less good delivering data in an optimum stable way.
Still SAME data.

So...A great HDD deliver the data with a perfect flow.
I think this is why switches and NAS/HDD affect the tune more than cable!!
Likely a HDD constructed to higher specs going to be better.
Sorry I disagree too :roll: , the DS is buffering data and doesn't rely on a constant flow of real-time data as with a CD player, you can see this in two ways. Firstly if you unplug the network cable it continues for several seconds, secondly if you look at network traffic it is in little bursts. There is a big bit of data at the beginning of a track and then small troughs and peaks as it requests a bit more and then a bit more from Twonky. The PC/NAS just reads a bit more data and transfers it - as an IT system it's 100% reliable in getting it to the DS.
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover »

rowlandhills and JohnS - before testing LAN equipment I had exactly same thoughts as you.
But I changed my mind as the differences in tune are much bigger than normally obtained from electrical/RF noise and interference.
Switches/NAS/HDD makes fundamental changes!

And how can cables (and their direction) affect the tune if the only relevant duty is to pass ones&zeros from the NAS to DS with 100% data accuracy...?
My conclusion is that HOW the data is delivered may not be totally irrelevant.

I try to have an open mind on this topic 8)
It's all about musical understanding!
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

JohnS wrote:the DS is buffering data and doesn't rely on a constant flow of real-time data
That's very interesting. I just presumed the DS products were streaming at almost real-time, similar to voice calls over IP, as that could explain some of the reported sound differences between network hardware. But with approx 7 seconds of music stored, the DS has all the time in the world to perform error checking, re-order any out of sequence packets or request missing or corrupted ones be resent. Therefore, the data should be 100% present and correct.

Knowing this now, I really don't understand how all these devices can effect the sound once its been converted to digital. What is it about music that can be effected by a different make or model of switch? The switch doesn't convert the data to analogue and back again and I'm sure they are not all physically located right next to the DS unit causing interference. Any ideas anyone?

Perhaps Fredrik's comments at the bottom of this page are related: http://www.lejonklou.com/forum/viewtopi ... c&start=20
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover »

Gents
Within a week or two I'm going to have 5 different HDD's to play with using 2 ReadyNAS, 2 Qnap and one LaCie.
All five HDD's are Seagate Baracudas as they seems to offer quite good performance, but all have different specs and size. (250GB - 1TB, 7200.11, ES and ES2 specs)

Test to be made:
1/ best NAS using the HDD included in the NAS package.
2/ best Seagate Baracuda HDD (size and spec important?) Here the music file should be stored on same disc location to offer a 100% valid test result but that may be difficult to obtain...
3/ optional due to a lot of work - best NAS/HDD combo

I present results over time as these tests going to take many weeks to conduct due to logistics.
It's all about musical understanding!
blom
Member
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-04-20 15:24
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by blom »

Music Lover wrote:Gents
Within a week or two I'm going to have 5 different HDD's to play with
Please do a comparo with running directly from the computer too. It would be interesting to hear what you find.

So are we to understand that you have taken the plunge and joined the DS-brigade? :o
JohnS
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-10-02 21:59

Post by JohnS »

This is a neat new NAS with Twonky built in. I guess it's 2*500gb.

Buffalo makes big noise over tiny terabyte NAS box.....Buffalo has built in TwonkyVision's DLNA server.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/04/09 ... _mini_nas/
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover »

Yes I have.

Here is a list of NAS/HDD's:
- ReadyNAS #1 ST3500830NS 500GB (ES)
- ReadyNAS #2 ST3250620AS 250GB (7200.10)
- LaCie ST3500630AS 500GB (7200.10)
- Qnap #1 ST3500320NS 500GB (ES2)
- Qnap #2 ST31000340NS 1TB (ES2)

Furthermore I have ordered some cables to compare as well. Get back with the manufacturer names later.
It's all about musical understanding!
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover »

Update.
Installing the Qnap was not straight forward.. The setup guide was very thin and it took some reading in the manual to get it working. If you don’t know the network bits and pieces, I don’t recommend doing this on your own.

First some bad news...
Found out that it isn't as easy comparing HDD’s as I thought it would be.
If you change the HDD, you can't just start playing it directly. Configuration is needed and in the worst case, the system suggests to format the HDD.
--> I decided to skip the comparison between HDD’s using same NAS for time being. Later on I’m going to compare the two ReadyNAS running different HDD's and the two Qnap running different HDD's.

Anyway - started at the source :mrgreen: comparing EAC vs. Ripstation by ripping same tune using both SW's.
EAC is clearly better. Especially when things get messy the EAC excel!
Apart from being a good bit more musical, the EAC rip sound also better :!:
Bad luck as RS is a pleasure to use; fast and the Linn pre-configuration works perfect so the Linn GUI display the correct artist/album/track info.

But even more irritating, Linn has removed the EAC configuration section from the documentation (replaced by a RS section) as well as the EAC profile that previously was added on the DS SW disc.
Luckily I have an old documentation…
Still missing the EAC profile so if any fellow Linn friend have it, please send a PM.

OK, going to delete all RS files and restart ripping :!:
Yes, the difference is that big.

Until I get the EAC Linn profile, need to use MediaMonkey to get the tags correct so the LinnGUI display correct info.
It's all about musical understanding!
hcl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 360
Joined: 2008-01-13 11:03
Location: Göteborg
Contact:

Post by hcl »

Music Lover wrote:OK, going to delete all RS files and restart ripping :!:
Yes, the difference is that big.
From what I know unpacked WAV files produced from files ripped using EAC and RS are identical (data). Wouldn´t you think it is more convenient to convert the RS-ripped files to WAV and back to FLAC using the EAC compression algorithm!? I suspect this will produce identical listening results for all discs beeing correctly ripped (data-vise). Difficult discs (i.e. discs with reading problems) should probably be re-ripped using EAC to ensure best result.
jrob
New member
New member
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-06-12 17:52
Location: London

Post by jrob »

Hi,

I have also done the Ripstation/ EAC comparison (Akurate DS) and I would agree EAC is clearly better. I must admit that I am slightly confused why Linn are recommending Ripstation over EAC as I would have thought Linn would favor sonic performance over usability. I have also compared the two resulting (uncompressed) flac files in foobar 2000 using the bit comparator plugin and there are differences although they are very small. One observation I have made however, is that the flac file produced by EAC is smaller than with Ripstation meaning EAC is producing a more tightly packed flac file. It did occur to me that a more compacted file will mean more data in the DS buffers and therefore a less frequent need to fetch data from the network. Is it possible that activity from the network circuitry inside the DS has some effect on the playback performance?
I have also compared UTP/ SFTP cable and found SFTP cable to be better.

Regards

jrob
Post Reply