Jump to content
IGNORED

Computer Based Music Server vs Digital Player


Recommended Posts

Potentially:

 

Take the Auraliti PK90 as an example. Here we have a purpose built device, with hardware selected for best audio performance. A stripped down OS, without added features, and a relatively minimal processor. No graphics card, no video processing ability, etc. Designed to do one thing-serve audio files perfectly. There is also an optional linear power supply available to avoid the degradation caused by a switching supply. No spinning hard drive, just enough ss memory to run the unit-music storage is external.

Then we have the USB output, this is handled by a dedicated USB bus on the separate SOtM USB card, and is powered by its own isolated supply to provide very low noise on the USB output (see Chris' review of the new Meiner DAC to learn about the sonic advantages of the SOtM USB card). Everything at the audio system is purpose built for serving audio files to the DAC, and power consumption and processor activity is reduced to a minimum to reduce RFI production.

It is not difficult to understand the potential sonic implications of such an approach.

 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment

As I read it, there no argument that 'dedicated servers, by their nature, will be "better"' (emphasis added). What's in the box is essentially that same thing as your Mac+Dac (minus the CD drive in most cases), just stripped down for high-end music playback. It seems that some peoples listening experience is that some of these boxes sound better than what these people experienced with their previous computer-based setups.

 

If they do sound better presumably it is due to superior/optimized engineering, the details of which I don't know but am curious about. But perhaps that is what you question was.

 

Rascal

 

A: Mac Mini => Peachtree Nova => LFD Integrated Zero Mk.III => Harbeth Compact 7ES-3 | Musical Fidelity X-CAN V-8 => AKG K 701

B: Airport Express = > Benchmark DAC1 => Rega Brio-R => B&W DM 601 S2

C: Airport Express => AudioEngine A2

Link to comment

...... I choose not to put my own together, it's what I would design/make/configure hopefully anyway.

 

quote from barrows " Take the Auraliti PK90 as an example. Here we have a purpose built device, with hardware selected for best audio performance. A stripped down OS, without added features, and a relatively minimal processor. No graphics card, no video processing ability, etc. Designed to do one thing-serve audio files perfectly. There is also an optional linear power supply available to avoid the degradation caused by a switching supply. No spinning hard drive, just enough ss memory to run the unit-music storage is external.

Then we have the USB output, this is handled by a dedicated USB bus on the separate SOtM USB card, and is powered by its own isolated supply to provide very low noise on the USB output (see Chris' review of the new Meiner DAC to learn about the sonic advantages of the SOtM USB card). Everything at the audio system is purpose built for serving audio files to the DAC, and power consumption and processor activity is reduced to a minimum to reduce RFI production.

It is not difficult to understand the potential sonic implications of such an approach."

 

Link to comment

From I have read the following is innaccurate:

 

"As I read it, there no argument that 'dedicated servers, by their nature, will be "better"' (emphasis added). What's in the box is essentially that same thing as your Mac+Dac (minus the CD drive in most cases), just stripped down for high-end music playback. It seems that some peoples listening experience is that some of these boxes sound better than what these people experienced with their previous computer-based setups."

 

Every report I have read of listening tests done with units like Sonore and Auraliti are thta they have outperformed very well sorted out computer based set ups, not just "some peoples", but all peoples. take a look at the various threads around this site. What is in the box is not the same, that is one of the differences: no graphics cards, no hard drives in some cases, a dedicated, purpose built for audio, USB output card, etc...

 

 

 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment

I certainly have none to offer in this area other than numerous experiences where a purpose built design, in my opinion, out performs an adaptive design or a jack of all trades. So my preferences have been (for similarly priced items) dedicated CD players versus universal players, integrated amps or separates versus receivers, etc. Please remember two things, I like my Mac Mini set up at this time and I am assuming but have no pervasive evidence or experience to this point that but a purpose built dedicated digital player should outperform an adapted general purpose computer based system.

 

"A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open."
Frank Zappa
Link to comment

@Barrows,

 

What I meant to say, in perhaps inprecise terms was that just because it's a DMP doesn't mean it is guaranteed to sound better than a computer-based system. And I have read of at least one person who preferred a Mac-based system to a BDP-1. Maybe if you pick & choose the player, I suppose (but doubt) that you find unanimous agreement.

 

And by saying that what's in the box is the same as a Mac+Dac, I meant very generally, you've got a computer, music player hardwary/software & a Dac. (Though I was forgetting that some of these players do not include a Dac.) Yes, in particulars, there are plenty of differences.

 

So in principle there's no reason that a DMP will sound better. Depends on the implementation.

 

But I hear what you're saying - there is good reason to expect that a well-designed DMP can outperform a computer-based system.

 

@bzr, thanks for pointing out some of the particulars of a DMP that can be expected to make a sonic difference over a computer-based system.

 

Thanks,

Rascal

 

A: Mac Mini => Peachtree Nova => LFD Integrated Zero Mk.III => Harbeth Compact 7ES-3 | Musical Fidelity X-CAN V-8 => AKG K 701

B: Airport Express = > Benchmark DAC1 => Rega Brio-R => B&W DM 601 S2

C: Airport Express => AudioEngine A2

Link to comment

"If you operate a computer based music server (I am on a Mac Mini with iTunes and Pure Music) have you or would you consider a Digital Player (Bryston BDP-1, Naim, Cambridge Audio etc.)? What are the benefits or percieved benefits of Digital Players? Are there particular shortcomings to these players? If you own a Digital player what were your reasons for going in this direction? What do you prefer about it? Is there anything particular lacking in meeting your needs?"

 

1) Yes

 

2) Flexibilty.

 

3) The jury is out on whether networked computer playback or direct coupled (your method at this time) is better as far as sound quality; there are folks in both camps. You also have to have a little bit of network experience in order to get some of them to work perfectly.

 

4) The ability to play any format whether it be iTunes, FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, MP3, etc. on the fly up to 24/192 seamlessly with no fuss. The ability to have access to a number of libraries on different computers, ie work laptops, family computers, dedicated music server, etc.

 

5) With the addition of AirPlay (and their own propriatary steaming software which streams at a higher resolution) into the particular one I am now using it will pretty much play anything I want to send to it with no hiccups simply using my iPad or iPhone or any computer on the network. As in playing iTunes via Apples Remote App from my computer to it or choosing instead to play FLAC straight from my computer through

UPnP or choosing to play something from someone else's iPhone that happens to stop by, or stream MOG from my iPad into it, or play HDTracks samples straight to my hifi as I browse their library. Or any music site for that matter.

 

6) I will have to get back to you on that one. Right now, I can't think of anything.

 

David

Link to comment

It sounds like we are talking semantics :). To me, if the internal hardware is different, it is different. Otherwise it is like saying a Ferrari has the same stuff under the hood as a Kia, because they both have internal combustion engines.

 

"What I meant to say, in perhaps inprecise terms was that just because it's a DMP doesn't mean it is guaranteed to sound better than a computer-based system. And I have read of at least one person who preferred a Mac-based system to a BDP-1. Maybe if you pick & choose the player, I suppose (but doubt) that you find unanimous agreement."

 

I am curious, could you post more details of this comparison: for instance, were both setups using SPDIF into the same DAC? I am not a fan of SPDIF, and would only really recommend a file player which uses USB output (or I2S for the few DACs which work with it) to a good async USB DAC for a file player. SPDIF is "broken" to me...

 

Agreed: nothing is ever "guaranteed", but I would say that the file player approach certainly has the potential to outperform any stock computer set up-if one is building their own computer, that is another story. I for one, am tired of the endless tweaking of stock computers which is required to get the to sound their best, and the fact that their sound changes with everything that one does (just re-booting will change the sound-annoying).

 

 

 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment

If anyone can suggest a purpose built wireless solution that betters the MAC mini, I'd appreciate the input.

 

Barrows point that a purpose built computer like the auraliti as a better choice for playback vs. something like a Mac Mini seems to be a basic premise of almost all of the writing by Chris on this website. I don't think he would have bothered to design the Caps server if he didn't think it was a better choice or recommend SSDs and sound cards for the same reason. At the same time, computers, including the Mac Mini sit on the CASH list, so one might conclude that the compromises may be subtle, among the many other conclusions one might draw.

 

As an impressionable neophyte, I have come to accept certain basic premises based on Chris's writing (e.g. superiority of asych USB DACs) that he then contradicts in future posts (e.g. the BelCanto DAC review). I'm not suggesting he flip flops at all, just that it is really hard to figure out how much performance one might hear from the multitude of choices out there.

 

In some ways, it begins to bump into the many arguments about whether one can identify which cables/async/degree of resolution of a DAC/playing at native vs upsampling/insert what we can't measure here/.

 

I tend to accept that something like the CAPs server or Auraliti must be better than a MAC Mini. Yet my listening room requires a wireless option and I am under the impression that one must have a direct connection to the network to use products like the Auraliti. Is that a correct assumption?

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Nick

Link to comment

@NickG, I know there is at least one Naim player (can't remember the model) that can play wirelessly. Check their website.

 

Rascal

 

A: Mac Mini => Peachtree Nova => LFD Integrated Zero Mk.III => Harbeth Compact 7ES-3 | Musical Fidelity X-CAN V-8 => AKG K 701

B: Airport Express = > Benchmark DAC1 => Rega Brio-R => B&W DM 601 S2

C: Airport Express => AudioEngine A2

Link to comment

@Barrows,

 

Yes, "a Ferrari has the same stuff under the hood as a Kia" - the stuff the makes the car go! ;) That was the level of generality I was speaking. I think we know what the other is saying.

 

Couldn't find the post who preferred his Mac setup over the Bryston BDA-1, so I can't answer that.

 

And I agree with your last comment. And having to tweak and deal with the many variables of a general-purpose computer, then trouble-shoot where you've got multiple vendors involved => pain. That's one of the attractions for the all-in-one-box solution.

 

Rascal

 

A: Mac Mini => Peachtree Nova => LFD Integrated Zero Mk.III => Harbeth Compact 7ES-3 | Musical Fidelity X-CAN V-8 => AKG K 701

B: Airport Express = > Benchmark DAC1 => Rega Brio-R => B&W DM 601 S2

C: Airport Express => AudioEngine A2

Link to comment

Yes, we are agreeing! Ferrari has made both front, and mid engine cars...

 

I think my main point is that: "the devil is in the details"

 

and to the comment a few down, while async usb is a technically superior solution, this does not mean that all async USB DACs will outperform all other DACs. Not only "the devil is in the details", but there is also: "more than one way to skin a cat".

 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment

If anyone can suggest a purpose built wireless solution that betters the MAC mini, I'd appreciate the input.

 

Well, that depends upon what you mean by better.

 

Streaming up to 24/96

iPad/iPhone/Android remote control

Analog/Coax/Optical output

Synchronized play with additional players

Playback of AIFF, AAC, ALAC, FLAC, WAV, MP3, OGG, APE and other formats

Playback from server or local USB storage

$228

 

Does that beat a Mac Mini? How about if you use a Mac Mini to store the music and stream it to multiple devices?

 

That's a Logitech Touch by the way. It's competitive sound wise with Mac running Amarra, depending upon the DAC you use with it, and what amp/speakers you are using.

 

The real point is however, how a system sounds is very very dependent upon every thing else in the system. So in some cases, a DAC with S/PDIF or non-Async USB is going to sound better than a DAC with Asynch USB. Or vice versa. Or any of a thousand other possible combinations.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

My MacMini/iTunes/Pure Music system has been pretty consistent but your point is well taken. Having someone else figure it out, put it together and making sure it works may be a good thing looking forward.

 

On a slightly different thought I wonder if there has ever been a time in audio when diy'ers have really driven manufacturers to develop products like this before.

 

"A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open."
Frank Zappa
Link to comment

No, I don't mean diy'ers establishing companies (certainly that is true) I mean diy'ers basically influencing and inspiring established companies to develop certain products in response to their actions. That is kind of how I am viewing the development of the digital players

 

"A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open."
Frank Zappa
Link to comment

I guess the thought would be diy'ers in the past have seen a way to refine existing products and technology and the computer audiophile diy'ers of today have inspired the creation of a virtually new audio product category.

 

"A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open."
Frank Zappa
Link to comment

My (most likely biased) opinion favors (DIY-built) computers due to almost unlimited flexibility for performing all kinds of signal processing, like digital room correction, upsampling, etc.

 

At some point purpose built devices are going to catch up, but computers will most likely keep on leading on flexibility front. While most likely purpose built devices will excel on convenience front.

 

Of course there's always also a gray area between the two. I think my personal systems are currently on this area. But on the "downside", the full solution is not COTS. Not at least currently.

 

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

I hear what you are saying and do not disagree. I was just trying to point out that this has always been a hobby which attracted many kinds of participants. Some were technically gifted, some were professionals in sound reproduction and many were people who appreciated the art and science of sound reproduction. Like hobbyist in other endeavors we would join together in local audio societies and have "show and tells" and argue. So, in my opinion stretching back over 50 years it all still looks familiar to me. But, the internet makes for one huge audio society and the ability to influence direction is definitely there as it has always been. I only wish I did not see all of the subjectivity that seems to exist today. It gives charlatans to much cover. Sorry about that, I guess my age and bias is showing there. Back then we wanted a pre-amp that was "a piece of wire with gain".

 

- Bill

 

Bill

Link to comment

Where is the truly simple digital player (made perhaps by a "sort of" audiophile company like NAD, Rotel etc.) that is basically just an interface junction (a transport if you will).

 

It should be made up of various digital outputs, usb/esata inputs for hdds, a video out that's defeatable, to port the interface display to a monitor, wired/wireless access--defeatable, a remote, linear power supply and of course the os/memory/audio engine/software combo. Notice I left off a dac, I think it's more versatile/less limited without one.

 

It should be able to play files directly from memory and have the option of allowing this to happen with all ancillary functions shutoff--such as usb hdd access, video output.

 

Doesn't it seem like a no-brainer that this should exist? After all there are millions of middling quality players that play video and audio for less than $100. Am I missing something? Would somebody respond to this before I go nuts...? Too late.

 

And speaking of nothing in particular; why do the more basic players that do exist have such dodgy at best and lousy for the most part, interfaces. If Ipods and all the various mp3 players can manage decent ones for minimal funds what the...?

 

-Chris

 

Link to comment

If Ipods and all the various mp3 players can manage decent ones for minimal funds what the...?

 

The expectation level of functionality offered by a tiny hardware player is quite different from expectation level of a computer player software.

 

First generation iPods and mp3 players (and even the newest ones) didn't have much of cover art flows, fluid playlist creation mixing PCM and DSD hires formats, etc. Flexible and nice playlist creation on an iPod Touch? DSD support? Hah! Still doesn't exist.

 

And I can say that user interface design and implementation for those mobile devices, including usability studies, is far from being cheap. Most big corporations have spent some serious $$$ on it. Of course person X may succeed on doing a nice one alone, but most likely same person doesn't manage to do also nice playback engine and hardware too, or vice versa.

 

Given unlimited time and resources, anything is possible in software. Another question is still if that R&D cost is ever going to come back through sales volumes.

 

As always, if something is so easy and piece of cake, anybody is of course welcome to start a business and just do it! ;)

 

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

(1) They are hard - very hard - to do right. Really smart people who can design the most elegant circuits you can imagine, often design or get by with the most awful user interfaces.

 

(2) They are expensive. Probably because they are hard to do. But for whatever reason, expensive they are. Apple spent more money and time on the iPod / iPhone / iPad / MacOS interfaces than all the hardware the company has ever produced. Galling that may be to people who think the hardware is the thing, but Apple is successful not so much because of innovative hardware, as for the software that drives what in many respects, is really mediocre hardware.

 

(3) Many people don't believe they are important, or convince themselves that a clunck, difficult to use, ridiculous interface just does not matter. Of course, they are fooling themselves. Unless it is the only solution around, like Blackberry phones were before the iPhone arrived, they simply won't sell.

 

(4) The people that build the hardware, and to some degree, the firmware and other software, just are not interested much in how a user interface looks. Add that to 1, 2, and 3, above, and there is your answer.

 

In fact, it is amusing sometimes to watch people rail about "paying a premium" for the "stupid interface." Same thing about music players interfaces.

 

For example, people literally rave about the Bryston player, and indeed, it does sound good. And it has perhaps the most unusable and primitive user interface.

 

Bryston even brags that their interface is like a CD player. Huh- if you had a CD player jukebox with 2000 CD's loaded in it, I don't think it would be pleasant at all. Even those old 200 CD jukeboxes were nightmares to use.

 

-Paul

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

I would remind you that in its infancy most technology tends to be on the high end, more expensive end when introduced. When the first CD players were introduced in the early 80s they were $1500, an arm and a leg for those players. I bought the first DVD player I could get my hands on back in what 1997 or so and the cheapest were $750. Blue Rays were the same way. Digital Players are in their infancy. Give it a year or two and the NAD of the world will introduce their more modest priced versions. In fact doesn't Cambridge Audio have a digital player right now?

 

"A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open."
Frank Zappa
Link to comment

Best user interface?

 

It's on on a mass market UK box called the 'Brennan'. Made by a new company. It has CD type buttons, plus a large jog dial that you push to select catergory (Classical or whatever) plus a few other functions. Spin it to move through the category. Works a real treat. You really can select any CD in seconds. Has a built in catalogue of 3 million CDs and they send you a CD with an updated catalogue every so often, also you can catalogue a CD manually. Built in amplifier, plus line outputs. USB socket for backup. No internet connection. No ethernet. Costs 400-600 dollars depending on disk size. Has sold over 20,000 in less than a year. To real customers rather than us 'audiophiles'.

 

Which is best, Computer based or server?

 

Really, it is whichever you prefer. I stress again, it is a mistake to sacrifice sound quality for convenience but most of these boxes, if 'audiophile', Naim, Linn, etc. are superior, if only marginally.

 

I want a 'switch box' that does it all.

 

Yes. They are called 'AV Receivers'. Many of the latest have all this if you add a disk drive.

 

 

Link to comment

Best user interface? It's on on a mass market UK box called the 'Brennan'.

 

Put that interface on a computer software and you start getting complaints about ugly interface that doesn't do album art, lyrics, easy playlist creation and such...

 

That's about the kind of interface I started with, because I created it for a little bit bigger touch-screen device (no hardware buttons).

 

The difference is of course, that people don't realize that both are computer software and forgive much for the interface when it's put into that kind of box instead of the familiar computer.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...