Article: Audiophile Reference Music Server For A Song

[audiozorro]

I have several comments/questions and I have to object on several fronts:<br />

<br />

1. The price – 1040 makes me think of taxes.<br />

2. A computer based audio solution should be a replacement for a CD player. Your solution does not include a DAC for $1,040. Your reference DAC makes this a $6K solution.<br />

3. A noisy computer has no place in audio. Aside from the obvious listening room objections, noticeable noise or vibrations in components rarely improve the sonic qualities of music. Definitely cannot be considered reference quality.<br />

4. The cost of the Windows XP software is not included – foul.<br />

5. Aged software and firmware obsolescence? Are software and firmware upgrades reversible in case users try different versions to improve audio quality over the next, say 5 years? <br />

6. Are the inexpensive upgrades for memory (+$75 for 4GB) or hard disk storage (+$50 for 500GB) not worth the money?<br />

7. Possibility of blown tweeters? – deserves a strong warning to proceed at your own risk unless your in the speaker business.<br />

8. Antenna breakout cables? – I believe your HD26 to XLR AES/EBU Cable Update bears repeating - a better cable is highly desirable.<br />

9. A better computer power supply, better power cord and vibration control should improve audio playback.<br />

<br />

Chris, thanks for trying. Of course the heart (and cost) of what you are recommending is the Lynx Studio AES16 PCI card from your CASH List. But how does it compare to the AES16e card? I feel that a detailed commentary from you is fair game since both cards are from the same manufacturer and I thought identical in price.<br />

<br />

As suggested by ‘blessingx’, the Mac mini and Apogee Duet is probably a more cost effective solution if you don’t mind the 24/96 limits of the Duet.<br />

<br />

<br />

[audiozorro]

To me this is virtually identical to the Windows XP Reference Music Server you recommended back in August.<br />

<br />

Windows XP Reference Music Server<br />

- OS - Windows XP Professional ($270 @ Newegg.com)<br />

- Computer hardware - Intel based ($1,500 to $10,000+ depending on customization)<br />

- Music App - MediaMonkey Gold ($20)<br />

- Output Plugin - waveOut (out_wave.dll)<br />

- Digital I/O - Lynx AES16 (PCI version) (~$700)<br />

- Legacy drivers and firmware<br />

- DAC - Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC ($~5,000)<br />

<br />

There is nothing wrong with this, no doubt this is an excellent music server, and perhaps ‘all roads do lead to Rome’.<br />

<br />

No offense is taken by any of your comments and my apologies for not being more sensitive to your efforts. I assume you often have to walk a tightrope between audio users, manufacturers and business interests.<br />

<br />

Yes I probably should have left off my first comment which was intended as an inside the U.S. tongue-in-cheek reference to the often dreaded U.S. Federal Tax Forms 1040 or 1040 EZ.<br />

<br />

The cost savings in the music server are primarily due to using a low cost computer. My personal opinion is that the music server sounds good despite the use of the budget computer. Not that the music server sounds good because the Dell Inspiron 530 is superior to any of the more expensive Dell desktop computers that can take a full height PCI card and that may have higher quality parts inside. But, perhaps you may be correct that spending more money than for the $279 Dell will not bring sonic improvements or that the sonic differences will be negligible.<br />

<br />

Also, how much of the excellent sound is due to the $5K DAC? Would a $1K DAC, like the Benchmark DAC1 USB, using the AES/EBU XLR inputs with the Lynx card sound just as good?<br />

<br />

I am glad to get your assurances that the software and firmware are up and down-gradable. Nothing could be worse than trying out some upgrade that turns out to be a disappointment and is irreversible.<br />

<br />

Please correct me if I am wrong but my take on your November post from your August post is that the Windows XP Reference Music Server is sonically superior to your OS X Reference Music Server.<br />

[audiozorro]

Chris, thanks for all your research and help.<br />

<br />

Needless to say, I will be building the recommended ‘Audiophile Reference Music Server For A Song’.<br />

<br />

I too will not abandon Mac system. I have a MacBook Pro laptop for portability and convenience and I can’t afford a $4K Mac Pro anytime soon. <br />

<br />

I also like the fact that I can use my AIFF music files on both systems.<br />

<br />

[audiozorro]

Chris this is a nice surprise from MediaMonkey. Have you tried to run your Windows XP Server headless?<br />

<br />

Apple iPhones and iPod Touches can be used as remotes to control MediaMonkey as well, though unlike traditional remote controls these devices will send commands to MediaMonkey through a WiFi signal instead of Infrared transmission. With the iMonkey application available <br />

from the iPhone app store, you can control MediaMonkey on your PC from your iPhone or iPod touch! <br />

<br />

After you purchase the iMonkey application from the Apple AppStore, all that's needed is to make a quick download of the iMonkey server from: http://melloware.com/products/imonkey/<br />

<br />

You'll have to start MediaMonkey with this modified MediaMonkey.exe file so that the iPhone or Touch can access MediaMonkey (no installation needed, just extract and double click the downloaded MediaMonkey.exe file).<br />

<br />

[audiozorro]

Steve, I have several Dell computers and I see nothing wrong with them. My oldest computer is a Dell Dimension XPS D300 computer Pentium II 300 MHz computer that has worked well over 10 years. The newest Dell computers are obviously much faster and more capable, but I was really surprised at just how quiet they are. I have several other brand name and custom computers and I would probably never buy the cheapest Dell computer but I assume Chris was demonstrating that one could assemble an excellent music server using it.<br />

<br />

“I find the jitter from the Lynx AES16 card to be unacceptable”.<br />

<br />

I thougt the data provided on this site showed that the jitter for the Lynx AES16 card was very low. Do you also find the jitter from the Lynx AES16e card to be unacceptable?<br />

<br />

“I am using the word-clock input driven from a Pace-Car reclocker and then I can get I2S, AES or S/PDIF output with low jitter. It takes about a minute for the Lynx AES16 to sync to the word-clock from the Pace-Car, but then it runs fine indefinitely”.<br />

<br />

What is the additional cost to the suggested CA Windows XP Reference Music Server and in your opinion what sonic benefits will be gained? Will this do anything to diminish or increase the problems reported of blown tweeters with Windows XP?<br />

[audiozorro]

If the highest audio fidelity solution (in this case the CA Windows XP Music Server) gets outclassed overnight, great. But if we believe that this is the best digital playback system to date, it’s still a great place to start. If the CA Reference Music Server is better than any CD player, DVD player, SACD player, Universal player, transport and DAC combination or computer music server, who can complain. I happen to believe that certain mods or improvements will always be possible to the best of systems.<br />

<br />

BTW I have been able to get 24/192 playback from my MacBook Pro using firewire connections to the TC Electronics Konnekt 8 or Apogee Mini DAC for some time. These solutions were easily bested by other DACs solutions only capable of 24/96 through coaxial, toslink or USB. And I have to assume that these solutions would have been surpassed if I was able to get the firewire Minerva DAC.<br />

[audiozorro]

Coops, two of my other DACs clearly bested the TC Electronics Konnekt 8 and Apogee Mini DAC.<br />

<br />

Based on a recommendation from Savant Audio and listening tests from myself and others my reference DAC is a Denon DVD-5000. It is the unit that Savant Audio recommends for their high-end systems costing around $100K. It is sometimes available on Audiogon or eBay for around $300-$500. The Denon DVD-5000 should only be used as a DAC only, though using it as a CD player, it is often better than many other highly regarded CD or SACD players in the $2K and under category. It doesn’t do SACD but it does do HDCD and according to CA the HDCD indicator light is a good way for verifying bit perfect playback.<br />

<br />

My other reference DAC is the Benchmark DAC1 USB. The Benchmark DAC1 is truly an industry benchmark by which other DACs are judged. The reviews of the DAC1 have always been good such as here http://6moons.com/audioreviews/benchmark/dac1_2.html which I feel is an honest review. I had the opportunity to own both the DAC1 and DAC1 USB for about a week of testing. Using the toslink connection only for an apples-to-apples comparison, the DAC1 USB was noticeably better. I have not heard the Benchmark DAC1 Pre but I have read some comments that it is slightly improved sonics than previous versions, but there are some i/o connections tradeoffs to consider. There are also some mods to the DAC1 such as those by Empircal Audio have been said to bring improvements in audio fidelity. The only improvement I have made to date is to replace the power cord with a used Shunyata Cobra power cord that I picked up for around $400 and the musical improvement was significant.<br />

<br />

Though I have not heard the Apogee Duet, everyone that has heard both the Apogee Mini DAC ($1,000) and Apogee Duet ($500) seem to prefer the Duet even though it is limited to 24/96. The only exceptions came from individuals that upgraded the power supply of the Mini DAC to a Sigma 11 regulated power supply. I believe that some of the Duet advantage comes from being powered by the computer firewire connection.<br />

[audiozorro]

Uzeb, the Konnekt 8 doesn’t get much play in my system. I keep it around thinking one day I may want to digitize some of my LPs at 24/192. But, if I had to do it all over again I would probably settle for 24/96 recording with the Apogee Duet.<br />

<br />

I don’t think I tried the combinations you suggested, but I once tried the Konnekt 8 feeding the Apogee Mini DAC to ensure that it was outputting 24/192. The Apogee Mini DAC was the only DAC I had that displayed all the resolutions, 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, and 192 with LEDs. I believe I preferred the sound of just using the firewire connection from my MacBook Pro to the Apogee Mini DAC instead of adding the Konnekt 8 to the signal path.<br />

<br />

I agree with your assessment that the Konnekt 8 has a mediocre DAC. I also believe that both the Konnekt 8 and Apogee Mini DAC would benefit if used with an external clock, such as the Apogee Big Ben. I don’t know the sonic qualities of inputting the digital signal to the firewire input of the Konnekt 8 and outputting through the coaxial output to another DAC, but I’m glad your setup sounds amazing.<br />

<br />

[audiozorro]

Is our niche market too small to support specific and optimized solutions for our needs? It seems that some the recommended hardware and software solutions are more than what we need in our quest for better music fidelity. It seems that I would only use a fraction of the capabilities of the Lynx cards or what seems to be coming from Sonic Studio. The need to strip down Windows or make-up simplified custom cables is additional examples.<br />

<br />

I believe most of the present focus here seems two-channel stereo playback of digital files. These may be some of the best HW/SW solutions now but it seems that we are paying for only a fraction of what we will use and introducing a lot of complexity that probably have some performance penalties, maintenance or setup difficulties. <br />

<br />

Firewire might be dying as an interface but using my MacBook Pro and an excellent FW DAC sure seems like a simple clean solution. I am still trying to learn about the Lynx cards, I2S, Off Ramp and Pace Car and trying to weigh the pros/cons of these solutions without spending a lot of money or being disappointed with the results.<br />

<br />

Steve - please explain in lay terms your comments on the Lynx AES16:<br />

<br />

1) it allows multi-channel for those that want to do software crossover<br />

<br />

2) The word-clock sync works and it's progress is very visible in the control panel - you know when it's synced<br />

<br />