Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

simoncn · 10-01-2016, 19:06

(10-01-2016 18:45)tboooe Wrote: This is exactly what I have on both NAS and PC.

Flac:wav24, mp3:wav24

Since I use jplaystreamer I have to transcode to at least wav.

With these settings, ffmpeg is not involved and the convOut setting on your PC is not doing anything. It doesn't matter that you don't have libsoxr on the NAS because this would not be used if you had it.

tboooe · (This post was last modified: 10-01-2016 19:17 by tboooe.)

(10-01-2016 19:06)simoncn Wrote:
(10-01-2016 18:45)tboooe Wrote: This is exactly what I have on both NAS and PC.

Flac:wav24, mp3:wav24

Since I use jplaystreamer I have to transcode to at least wav.

With these settings, ffmpeg is not involved and the convOut setting on your PC is not doing anything. It doesn't matter that you don't have libsoxr on the NAS because this would not be used if you had it.

Is convout only involved with resampling (up or down)? I used to resample to 88.2 on my PC but since my NAS cannot support the ffmpeg binary that has libsoxr I removed upsampling on my PC to make comparison as close as possible.

simoncn · 10-01-2016, 19:47

(10-01-2016 19:12)tboooe Wrote: Is convout only involved with resampling (up or down)? I used to resample to 88.2 on my PC but since my NAS cannot support the ffmpeg binary that has libsoxr I removed upsampling on my PC to make comparison as close as possible.

convOut is involved if you are using a converter (ffmpeg), regardless of whether or not you are resampling. The MinimStreamer user guide gives details of which transcoding combinations use a converter. Transcoding from FLAC to WAV24 without resampling doesn't use a converter unless you append a semicolon, i.e., specify 'flac:wav24;' instead of 'flac:wav24'.

I would not expect resampling from 44.1 to 88.2 (with or without libsoxr) to improve the sound but this might depend on which renderer you are using.

So the bottom line is that you are doing a fair test (no resampling or ffmpeg in either case) and for some unexplained reason there is better sound quality when streaming the same bits from the NAS via SMB instead of via HTTP.

Mihaylov · 10-01-2016, 19:58

(10-01-2016 18:59)tboooe Wrote:
(10-01-2016 18:53)Mihaylov Wrote: PC#1 have the soft network bridge?

Hi I am not sure what you mean by soft network bridge. PC#1 it's hard wired to a Dlink wireless bridge.

How PC#2 is connected to PC#1?

tboooe · 10-01-2016, 20:10

(10-01-2016 19:58)Mihaylov Wrote:
(10-01-2016 18:59)tboooe Wrote:
(10-01-2016 18:53)Mihaylov Wrote: PC#1 have the soft network bridge?

Hi I am not sure what you mean by soft network bridge. PC#1 it's hard wired to a Dlink wireless bridge.
How PC#2 is connected to PC#1?

Cat6 cable.

Mihaylov · 10-01-2016, 20:20

(10-01-2016 16:32)simoncn Wrote:
(10-01-2016 14:48)Mihaylov Wrote: I think tboooe means that ethernet interface between file storage (hdd) in NAS and MinimSerever in streamer have advantage over ethernet interface between MinimServer in NAS and streamer in SQ. In my opinion there is a sense in this.

Do you have any ideas why SQ might be better when streaming from the NAS using SMB/CIFS than when streaming from the NAS using HTTP?

I meant that in the case when MinimServer is installed on the renderer, there is no ethernet interface between the NAS and the renderer as usual, which has an impact on SQ as you know (the effect of switches, patch cords, galvanic isolation, etc.). The influence of ethernet interface between NAS (network disc) and media server may not have or be smaller. I.e. the quality of packages in the latter case may not be as important as in the first case.
Something like this.

Mihaylov · 10-01-2016, 20:23

(10-01-2016 20:10)tboooe Wrote:
(10-01-2016 19:58)Mihaylov Wrote:
(10-01-2016 18:59)tboooe Wrote:
(10-01-2016 18:53)Mihaylov Wrote: PC#1 have the soft network bridge?

Hi I am not sure what you mean by soft network bridge. PC#1 it's hard wired to a Dlink wireless bridge.
How PC#2 is connected to PC#1?

Cat6 cable.

The PC#2 accesses the local network via the PC#1?
PC#1 have two ethernet adapters?

Mihaylov · (This post was last modified: 10-01-2016 21:00 by Mihaylov.)

(10-01-2016 09:45)simoncn Wrote:
(10-01-2016 01:47)tboooe Wrote: Right but according to my tests, this speed by running Minimserver on the nas comes at the expense of sound quality.

I have been thinking about this. In your previous posts about this, I thought the comparison was between (1) playing music from the NAS via MinimServer and (2) playing music locally from the PC. From what you have said in this thread, it seems that in case (2) you are not playing music locally from the PC but you are running MinimServer on the PC and playing music remotely from the NAS. Given this, I am not sure why there is a difference in sound quality because both cases involve streaming music from the NAS to play it on the PC.

Mihaylov Wrote:OK. Then use at least gigabit interfaces in the local network.

I don't think this would make much difference. I have the impression that the overhead with remote scanning is somewhere in the SMB protocol (or the way it is used by Java to scan directories and read file attributes) rather than in network data transfer speed. If anyone has has done a comparison of remote scanning using different network speeds, I would be interested to know the results.

NAS have 2258 items in music library.
1. 100 Mbps. Rescan time is about 70 sec. (Time of first library scanning after adding library is 160 sec.)
2. 1000 Mbps. Rescan time is about 45 sec.

tboooe · 10-01-2016, 20:35

(10-01-2016 20:23)Mihaylov Wrote: The PC#2 accesses the local network via the PC#1?
PC#1 have two ethernet adapters?

No, using jplay, PC#2 is only communicating with PC#1, not my local network.

PC#1 only has 1 Ethernet port. I use a usb to Ethernet adapter to connect PC#1 to the local network via the wireless bridge. The Ethernet ports on PC#1 & 2 are used to just communicate with each other on its own separate network.

simoncn · 10-01-2016, 21:09

(10-01-2016 20:20)Mihaylov Wrote: I meant that in the case when MinimServer is installed on the renderer, there is no ethernet interface between the NAS and the renderer as usual, which has an impact on SQ as you know (the effect of switches, patch cords, galvanic isolation, etc.). The influence of ethernet interface between NAS (network disc) and media server may not have or be smaller. I.e. the quality of packages in the latter case may not be as important as in the first case.
Something like this.

In both cases there is an Ethernet interface that is being used to deliver the music from the NAS to the PC for playing. When MinimServer is running on the NAS, the Ethernet interface is carrying HTTP packets to stream the music. When MinimServer is running on the PC, the Ethernet interface is carrying SMB/CIFS packets to stream the music