The argument of better in = better out seems logical and tempting. But when thinking about stereo reproduction what means "better" in terms of digital storage and transmission? In terms of digital data we know well what it means - faster, more reliable, sometimes just smaller. But are we addressing when we refer to a better NAS?
Hi microstrip,
what does ‘better’ mean in terms of digital storage and transmission?.
The quality of the input and output (transmission) cables
The quality of the power supplies used (noise, ripple, impedance) to create data streams
The degree and effectiveness of internal and external vibration control
The accuracy of any timing clocks when creating an output in any format
The amount of noise and emi created when retrieving and transmitting a file in any format
And in terms of the actual data stream:
The bit-level voltage profile and degree of perfection across the network
The amount of jitter and phase noise inherent in the generated data stream in any format
The amount of EM noise included at all stages of the network
The losses, distortions and noise added by the data stream transmission cables
The sonic signature of actual network devices like routers, bridges, switches etc.
Lets say you place a new switch anywhere in your network. If the switch has a better PS, noise and timing spec than preceeeding stages, and if all subsequent stages have a better spec you get the maximum from the switch. If the switch has worse specs than the preceding components, SQ will go down, logically.
The point is, its not only the fact that the bits are ’perfect’ that matters. Also the inherent ‘structure’ or ‘fabric’ of the network stream in whatever form has a major influence on how the eventual music is processed and presented by the DAC. At each stage or step of the network, the better the input, the better its output, BUT that only works to our advantage when each successive stage or step has the same or preferably better specification (noise, timing, vibration mitigation, transmission cabling) than all previous stages. For example if you create a data stream based on a 10ppb clock and send that stream to a device with a 100ppm clock, the data stream gets worse, not better. The reverse, if you transmit a 100ppm stream then process it in a 10ppb device, you uplift the quality of the stream, so from a sonic point of view, a network that comprises a series of improvements will logically improve the quality of the stream, in whatever form it is in. And the better the stream at any stage, the better the output. Not only that! In a properly organised network, improved outputs from say the modem are improved at every subsequent step….in other words that single improvement compounds as it travels along the network.
Take this whole concept to the extreme and what you get if the rest of your system DAC, Amps and speakers are up to it, is sound quality that truly sounds like 4 dimensional musicians playing their instruments in a natural or studio-created venue. For good recordings, you get what genuinely feels like a performance rather than playing a recording. You’ll know this when you spontaneously applaud at the end of piece or feel tears pricking your eyes at the sheer beauty of the music.
The point of all this is; the data on the network doesn’t care a damn about all this nonsense and music will play ‘perfectly well’ as long as the network functions as designed. The BIG difference comes when you judge the network in terms of the quality of the sounds it produces. When SQ is the criterion, ‘bit perfect’ is only one of several other criteria that have a major impact.