Article: Current CA Music Servers and Diagram

[JR_Audio]

Chris, which software are you using on your iPod Touch and MacBook Air to control the playback sources?<br />

<br />

I have compared the Apple Remote against the Rowmote (both on my iPhone) against the regular IR Remote and must say that I get the best sound of my MacBook / Amarra / iTunes setup with the regular IR Remote.<br />

<br />

The worst I get from using Apple Remote ore with VNC controlling (even more worse). With Rowmote it is acceptable, so with Rowmote I could live but the comfort against IR Remote is not huge.<br />

<br />

I have measured the data out of the system with all three remotes working, but I get in all situations perfect 1:1 Bit True and also the same jitter performance.<br />

<br />

For me the sound difference between using Apple Remote or IR Remote is larger than comparing FLAC against Wave or AIFF against ALAC.<br />

<br />

So again, witch software are you using of your MacBook Air and on your iPod Touch?<br />

<br />

And a second question: Does anyone know a Windows App similar the Mac App Rowmote?<br />

<br />

Best Regards<br />

<br />

Juergen<br />

[Superdad]

Dear Juergen:<br />

Your post is of interest to me in that I currently control (a headless G4 Mac mini running Tiger sitting near my USB DAC and running iTunes) from my desk across the room using JollyFastVNC. I have remarked in this forum that screen-share software always seems to be ridiculously processor intensive on the host (in my case, the underpowered mini feeding tunes to my DAC). If I keep the session open (with iTunes in foreground) on my controlling client for 10 minutes, the mini's fan starts running higher. (I started off using Timbuktu--a proprietary s/w for screen control--and it was crazy-intensive on the processor, so I switch to Tiger's built-in VNC support.)<br />

I don't have my reference speakers hooked up yet so I can not comment on sonic penalties.<br />

<br />

Your post seems to imply that even just the control method used has an slight impact on the SQ. What else do you (or anyone here) think that can be due to besides the host having to run additional processing threads (and RAM use)? Certainly your experience with VNC ranking the worst would seem to bear this out.<br />

<br />

Please tell us the basic specs of the host machine you are controlling.<br />

Thanks,<br />

ALEX

[Matt]

I thinking of setting up a Linux System with a Real Time Kernel?<br />

I'm using Windows 7, and the latencies have a bad influce on the sound.<br />

Therefore I'm curious about your side projects. <br />

<br />

Edit: Anyone tested 64Studio? Sounds interesting<br />

http://www.64studio.com/<br />

<br />

Regards, Matt

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Matt - It looks interesting since it is a real time kernel. I've talked to a couple people about real time kernels for music servers and they said it's not worth it. Don't take that as my opinion, it's just what I've heard. If there are benefits to having a RTK then let's do it right now :~) The 64Studio distribution is about 800MB. I'm using some embedded Linux distributions that are 50MB and run with 256MB of RAM. If there is a way to strip down 64Studio it could be a great project to dig into. Please do it and tell us :~)

[nyc_paramedic]

Chris,<br />

<br />

You could just recompile the Voyage kernel with real time patches. No need to futz with Ubuntu studio.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Thanks NYC_P. I'll be testing this for sure.

[JR_Audio]

That’s right, VNCs are really crazy on processor load, and sounded very diffuse, so I just tried this on two systems and gave it up as an opinion.<br />

<br />

I have three different Macs, to test some audio behavior on Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard. All sounded very different (2 MacBooks, 1 MacMini, each with 2 or 4 GB RAM, 120 or 160 GB HDD, nothing special).<br />

<br />

The Macs seems to be very sensitive in Sound Quality (even everything is Bit True), and also iTunes, Amarra MINI and Amarra sounded very different and also Amarra 1.1 sounded different than 1.02, strange.<br />

<br />

So with this high sensitivity on sound changes, it was easy to notice that IR Remote, Rowmote and Apple Remote and VNC all have influence on the sound quality.<br />

<br />

On Windows Platform with J.River MC14 via WASAPI and reading files from HDD first into RAM and then to the output, I have a more consistent sound over different computers. <br />

<br />

The IR Remote works fine with J.River, but I would like to play also a little bit around on Windows with software like Rowmote or Apple Remote, but on Windows Platform.<br />

<br />

So I anyone has a similar App as Rowmote or Apple Remote for Windows, I would be happy to try this out.<br />

<br />

Juergen<br />

[T-Mas]

I appreciate the details for your music servers.<br />

<br />

I see you are experimenting with Linux. What soundcard do you have, or are thinking about, for your Linux systems? <br />

<br />

What playback and ripping software are you using for Linux? Considering your ripping strategy, what playback format is best for Linux: FLAC, AIFF or WAV? <br />

<br />

I currently have Songbird on Ubuntu 9.10 and like it so far. It provides a lot of help with discovering new music.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[JR_Audio]

With Ubuntu 9.04 the OSS out was limited to 16 Bit, but with Songbird and CD Data (16 Bit) it was at least for 16 Bit Data bit true. 24 Bit was dithered down to 16 Bit.<br />

<br />

The new Ubuntu 9.10 has opened OSS to 24 Bit, but is not longer Bit True, even with 16 Bit CD Data and does also Resampling when changing sample rates of the source.<br />

<br />

Juergen<br />

[IamKirk]

You should give Arch Linux a go. It can run on a lot of systems and starts out as a terminal, basically. You build up whatever you want. I am in the process. It's pretty interesting but kind of frusterating. Permissions and shit are sort of annoying for a windows guy like me. Not used to having to do much of that. Home Windows User that is.

[Matt]

I cant really change my system at the moment because I'm in the middle of an important project, but after that I think I'll look into it. I kind of solved my latency-problems by the way. Disabling every startup, service or device possible (including currently not needed system devices) and forcing realtime priority for foobar did the trick. <br />

<br />

Regards, Matt

[Vincent Borrelli]

Hi Chris,<br />

<br />

Does the length of the Lynx AES16 -> DAC cable matter? I'm currently using a 1m custom Gotham HD26 -> AES XLR cable, from my G5/Lynx to an Alpha DAC, so the noisy G5 and NAS is close to the audio components. How long is your cable, and at what length do you expect jitter to become a problem? If I can run a 5-8m cable, I can move the G5 and NAS out of the listening room. Thanks!<br />

<br />

Best,<br />

Vincent

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Vincent - Length certain will matter, but if there is a magic length beyond which to go I am not sure. I know certain cables are designed to go longer distances than others. My cable is three meters. Depending on how much a new long cable costs, I would probably give it a shot and listen for any negative effects to the sound. If there are none or little but livable effects then you're golden.

[Rick]

Hi Chris,<br />

<br />

I recently discovered your excellent website and I am very enthusiastic about it! <br />

<br />

As a beginner in the area of computer based audio I'm in the process of finding out how to configure my system (location of iTunes library, location of music files, connection from music storage to music server and connection from music server to audio system).<br />

<br />

From your articles and system diagram I learned you keep the music files and the iTunes library in one central location (the NAS I presume) and use the same library with all computers. Which is exactly what I'd like to do.<br />

<br />

My question is, how do you connect your NAS to your music server: over the wireless network or wired? If wired, how (eg. ethernet, USB)? <br />

<br />

When I use the wireless network (Time Capsule, 5 GHz) my iTunes (75k songs, 500 GB) and in fact the whole computer (iMac 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1 GB memory) becomes very slow. Speed improves slightly when I move the library (not the music files) to the hard drive of the computer, but then I loose the opportunity to share. When I do not use the NAS, but connect a hard drive directly to the computer, speed is excellent, but again no sharing. Would you recommend to wire the NAS to the computer (which is not easy for me because they're not close to each other) or is there another solution?<br />

<br />

I can imagine others might struggle with this issue as well, but I haven't found many posts on this subject yet.<br />

<br />

Thx in advance for your reply!<br />

<br />

Rick<br />

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Rick - Welcome to Computer Audiophile. My NAS has two Ethernet ports so I have a couple options. Right now I connect port one to my Ethernet switch. This allows all computers on my network to access the music. I connect port two directly to my Mac Pro via Cat6 cable. Since my Mac Pro has two Ethernet ports it also connects to the main network. I haven't noticed any speed difference going directly to the NAS v. going through the network switch, but it's nice to eliminate additional points of failure. When I play music from he NAS on my Mac Pro I can reboot the switch or accidentally kick the power cord loose on the switch and not have to worry about losing connection to the NAS.<br />

<br />

I do connect via wireless from my MacBook Pro once in a while and it does work fine. But, nothing beats a wired connection.

[Rick]

Thanks Chris for your quick reply. Nothing beats a wired connection, very clear answer. <br />

<br />

This resolves another issue too: slow response and (annoying) time outs of my Airport Express, used for streaming music with AirTunes. I think I will use my old MacBook Pro as a dedicated music server, attach an external hard drive via usb, connect to my amp with a Devilsound DAC and use the wireless network only to make backups on the Time Capsule (and for iPhone based remote control). For me, sharing of libraries is more of a nice-to-have anyway. Like this I won't have to buy an expensive dac with optical in (I don't own a dac yet) and still improve sound quality compared to the currently used analog out of my Airport Express.<br />

<br />

Rick<br />

[supra]

Chris<br />

I greatly admire your resolve and your obvious quest for CA perfection. I've been involved in audio for 30+ years and still very much bitten by the bug - I have 5 systems spread around a few properties, most of them fully blown active systems , some tube , some solid state, some combination with conventional, electrostatic and one horn speaker system. All very evolved (imo) and a bit of money invested, typically most of my systems use CD and vinyl sources, preamp, DEQX, 6 channel power monoblocks etc- I think I have about 10 dacs so I understand obsessive behaviour.<br />

But i dont get the nerdiness of CA- do you really need your systems to be so complicated and top heavy with equipment?<br />

Does it really sound much better than a good dac outputing iTunes into a good amplifier and speakers? <br />

I'm tempted to just stick my head in the CA water and see what's there, but will it be any better than my existing attempt at CA which is a Mac with E-MU USB Dac into a nice pair of hybrid tube/SS amps driving Gallo Nucleas drivers (4 working in stereo) plus sub? <br />

Set up in my office as nearfield monitors so sound is like a big headphone, which is how I like to listen to new music to get to know it.<br />

In it's own way it's as enjoyable as my big expensive systems . May I respectfully ask ; will going as deep into the technology as you have make any meaningful difference, or am I better off just having fun with this and doing all my critical listening on my "big" systems.<br />

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Supra - Thanks for the post and a little background into your audiophile journey. <br />

<br />

<i>"But i dont get the nerdiness of CA- do you really need your systems to be so complicated and top heavy with equipment?"</i><br />

<br />

One doesn't need anything but an iPod actually. But, when seeking the best sound quality available one does need to dig deeper and get more involved with equipment and configuration. I'm willing to bet many people would look at your audio systems and say, "[D]o you really need your systems to be so complicated and top heavy with equipment?" Please don't take offense with this next statement -> I think your belief that these music sever systems are complicated and top heavy with equipment come from a lack of deep understanding about how computers work and what each internal component does. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and lack of understanding is one major reason I started this site. People need a place to learn about computer based playback. I really don't think my servers are complicated at all. My Mac Pro can be ordered from the Apple Store in the same or similar configuration. Putting in a Lynx card is very easy, but can be hired out if necessary. Connecting AES to an External DAC is a piece of cake.<br />

<br />

<i>"I'm tempted to just stick my head in the CA water and see what's there, but will it be any better than my existing attempt at CA which is a Mac with E-MU USB Dac into a nice pair of hybrid tube/SS amps driving Gallo Nucleas drivers (4 working in stereo) plus sub?"</i><br />

<br />

It depends on your setup. If you have bit perfect output, low jitter, no moving parts, etc... and in my opinion a much better DAC then it should be much better than your current system. Everything matters from the power source to the speakers. <br />

<br />

<br />

<i>"May I respectfully ask ; will going as deep into the technology as you have make any meaningful difference, or am I better off just having fun with this and doing all my critical listening on my "big" systems."</i><br />

<br />

Of course you can respectfully ask anything around here :~) I've actually gone much deeper than is shown here and the results are much better. If I were you I would connect your Mac with an excellent DAC to your big systems. That's the start of great sound.<br />

<br />

<br />

[supra]

Chris<br />

Thanks for your comments- pretty much as I expected and of course I see your point of view. You are dead right about a lack of computer understanding holding me back, however i'm positive i'm not an orphan here- most audiophiles dont have the computer basics to figure this stuff out and i suspect it is just a bit too heavy for most to grasp without a lot of education, and that is very hard to find. There's basic primers around but nothing that can "qualify" someone to thoroughly understand all this CA stuff. At least that's my perception. <br />

Still, Gordon Rankin is good at digital, computers and tubes so I guess it is just a matter of application.<br />

I'll take your advice and put one of my good Dacs on the mac and slot it in with the stats.<br />

Thanks again.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Supra - Thanks for the response. You certainly are no orphan when it comes to this stuff. In the consumer market high end computer audio is very new to most people. Thus, people really shouldn't expect to understand the ins and outs overnight. People who claim to know everything actually no nothing in my opinion.<br />

<br />

Make sure you use a good interface between your Mac and good DAC. If you want the best digital output don't use the built-in optical mini TosLink on the Mac.

[sonics1]

Above you posted:<br />

>> I can let people know exactly what I'm using and what I prefer. I've listened to countless configurations on many operating systems and hardware platforms. <<<br />

<br />

The config information is extremely useful. What would be great is to know, at least as far as the complete tested rigs, the order of preference sonically, the order of preference for convenience of operation, and the order of preference for reliability (e.g propensity to destroy tweeters with blasts of noise), and finally the system that you personally end up using the most. That would really save a lot of time and more important guide equipment selection.

[The Computer Audiophile]

<b>Sonically</b><br />

G5<br />

XP PC<br />

Mac Pro & MacBook Pro<br />

<br />

<b>Convenience</b> <br />

Mac Pro<br />

MacBook Pro<br />

G5<br />

XP PC<br />

<br />

<b>Reliability</b><br />

Mac Pro<br />

MacBook Pro<br />

G5<br />

XP PC<br />

<br />

I listen to the G5 most frequently.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[sonics1]

Thanks Chris for the prompt post re preferences. I hope you see fit to update them when you have finished your listening tests with the Linux boxes. Those kind of subjective preferences are invaluable and stating them unequivocally makes the site much much more useful (to me at any rate !!)<br />

<br />

I am very hopeful that Linux will prove to be a real winner - neither XP nor OSX are (AFAIK) deterministic OS's, whereas some Linix distros sich as 64studio and Ubuntu Studio (again AFAIK) have realtime kernels which can prioritize processes properly or at least a lot better than the mainstream commercial OS's. All it needs is a few of the interface makers to write great drivers, a Linux port of a good player and then we're off !!!!<br />

<br />

All success with your site which I continue to find a very useful reference.<br />

<br />

Rgds

[JonathanCatuccio]

Try RiverMote or XPtunes for J. River control with iPhone. I use RiverMote but XPtunes give you a search feature too. Layout and response time go to RiverMote.<br />

<br />

Rivermote was coming out with a native plug (with search and other added features) but seems that lack of relational database in J. River is an issue. <br />

<br />

On the issue of remotes, I use UltraVNC on all PCs but the last thing I would want would be to have to access/control my media player; even over LAN, this simply is not really....fun.<br />

<br />

That's why I think J. River is light years ahead of iTunes.<br />

<br />

With their added Treemote feature, combined with Library Server, you can use any PC as a remote or stream client using the very same GUI on all PCs. <br />

<br />

I stream FLAC, uncompressed, to my in-laws and office over WAN using the same wonderful GUI. To me they all sound great, but the usability is drastically different across Foobar, MediaMonkey, Amarra, iTunes, & J. River. I'm an Apple fan too, but it never ceases to amaze me how bloated iTunes is and ultimately not feature-rich.<br />

[Andrew S.]

Hi Chris<br />

I just popped on Ubuntu x86 Studio 9.10 on my pc stripping off Win7. Nice to have a 1.2Gb instal rather than a 14GB install.<br />

<br />

The basic Ubuntu Studio is fairly stripped down. I like that. I haven't configured MPD yet (that will have to wait till the weekend when I can get my Linux thinking cap on again) but already using Totem as a music player I can say what a terrific improvement I am hearing over Win 7. All with USB audio.<br />

<br />

FWIW I am using Qbittorrent for torrenting. It is very, very fast.<br />

<br />

I really do like Linux esp the Debian variants. 9.10 seems a big improvement on 9.0.