Computer Based Music Server vs Digital Player

[Mark Powell]

Of course it is not as good as a computer interface, or even what you can achieve on an iPod or similar.

 

But it is a whole more intuitive for Dear Old Ladies, as an example, than what my Naim has, or a Linn, or (I believe) the Bryston.

 

With respect, I had a look at the HQplayer on the Signalist site. Looks like 1960's mainframe printout.

 

[realhifi]

"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?"

 

If the product you are referring to needs to be wired to the network then a simple work around is to use an AirPort Express as joined to the network and then simply use it's Ethernet connection to hook up to the player in question.

 

 

[budt]

I was talking to a highend store owner last week( they also have recording studios and produce mostly jazz type stuff). They sell the likes of Wilson,Avalon,Emmlabs,Berkley,Spectral etc etc etc.He said in their studios they have been doing computer audio for 20 years and so have been using servers since that time.It was his opinion that a custom built computer music server trumps anything offered by any audio company and he added that it was a fraction of the cost.

 

[Jsmith]

"It was his opinion that a custom built computer music server trumps anything offered by any audio company and he added that it was a fraction of the cost"

 

Who is going to build the custom built music server? If I have to pay some IT guy to do it that has to be considered. Who is going to maintain the server? The same IT guy?

 

Turn key music servers are designed to work out of the box and come with a warranty. Custom built is just that and many poeople cannot or do not want to do it.

 

I have built many computers in my day, but also know many others who would not.

 

-Jeremy

 

[Mark Powell]

I have built amplifiers, model plane radio control equipment, even a simple home computer in 1976. Some my own design, one or two from kits, some by buying a pc board and locally sourcing the parts.

 

But the problem with a 'custom' audio computer is that it will likly be built from large chunks. You can spend a lot of time and money buying motherboards, memories, linear power supplies, everything.

 

And after some time, and a whole heap of unreturnable swapped out parts you find it sounds no different from what you can buy in the local PC store at a much lower price.

 

That is what puts me off.

 

[losingmyreligion]

 

 

Seems to me that we are missing much needed precise terminology - as to what constitutes, for example, a 'server' or a 'digital music player'?

 

The words (in use) to describe various devices seem to vary amongst us.

 

For example, JR of Sonore will provide a "custom-built" "computer-based" "music server" meant to be used as a "turn-key" solution, AND he will "support" it. I believe he will even start with COTS computer-based products?

 

... and this is before we even consider how the user interfaces implemented might impact the categorizations by some.

 

 

 

Going back to the OP, I will assume that "computer based" means use of general purpose COTS computer (even if highly customized and dedicated to audio), and digital music player means all else?

 

If so, I am in the camp of digital music player - specifically the Auraliti PK90 USB, which (I believe) will best all comers (except possibly the almost identical equivalent such as Sonore) in the area which I believe to be the single most important aspect of best sonic performance of digital music servers - lowest possible noise that could impact the DAC or remainder of the system. iTunes lovers (nee insisters) need not apply, at least not without a hair shirt.

 

 

clay

 

 

 

[mwheelerk]

"Going back to the OP, I will assume that "computer based" means use of general purpose COTS computer (even if highly customized and dedicated to audio), and digital music player means all else?

 

That is essentially what my thoughts were a general purpose computer modified by the end user with new sound boards, memory upgrades, psu changes, playback software, etc, or that same source modified by a third party for a fee versus a purpose built machine from a recognized, established manufacturer of a product intented for play back of musical files including high definition from a device or product.

 

[Mark Powell]

I think an overlapping part might often be 'stripped down OS', often Linux, occasionally Windows, strangely, sometimes in its XP form. Most likely they get it at a cut price.

 

Personally I see a 'server' as a box that looks like a piece of audio equipment so sits nicely on the rack. It does a limited set of computer things such as accessing a NAS or any disk, USB or whatever, has a built in unconfigurable player, and a smaller set of I/O ports than a computer proper. Usually at a 'HiFi' price rather than a 'computer' price, simply because 'HiFi' at least trebles the price of everything. I have a Naim, but, prompted by things here, I checked out the Auraliti and cannot now see what the Naim does that it cannot, at a third the price. Cambridge Audio do something similar, the NP30, at a similar price. The 'UK only' (I believe) and very low-cost Brennan seems to be the only one with a half decent interface, but it is very restricted in other ways. Haven't a clue what it sounds like, but I would not expect very much. Have seen good reports of the Squeezebox Touch, but I have never seen one. You need to add an external DAC for it to be any good though.

 

But a 'computer', with all it's email, games, and other things switched off (not permanently disabled or removed) should in principle be just as good. You can even make yourself feel bette by fitting a linear power supply if you believe it will make a difference. Many of the 'audio quality servers' have these.

 

For a long time I asked myself 'What do these things do that I can't do already?' and even with the Naim I do not have an answer.

 

[losingmyreligion]

so,

 

a) a general purpose computer modified by the end user with new sound boards, memory upgrades, psu changes, playback software, etc, or

 

b) that same source (i.e. general purpose computer) modified by a third party for a fee,

 

versus,

 

c) a purpose built machine from a recognized, established manufacturer of a product intended for play back of musical files,

 

 

excluding (presumably),

 

d) DIY servers, a la CAPS v2.0, and custom, one-off solutions - unless built & supported by an established manufacturer (as in c)?

 

 

Make sense?

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NickG]

Clay, I think you nailed it with your post -- a lack of precise terminology has hindered this thread. Another reason seems to be that so many of us are in different places, from the people building equipment to the beginner, like me.

 

Like the OP, I was just trying to figure out whether or not to use a MAC Mini attached to a DAC or something like the Auraliti. I am very unlikely to try to upgrade a computer, and wasn't really thinking music server, but better scaled down and maybe better sonics from someone else's purpose built machine. Maybe I am confused, but the I was thinking the Auraliti and Chris's CAPS server served the same purpose. I am willing to buy one or the other if it is truly better than using the MAC Mini dedicated to just music.

 

Alas, I do store my music on iTunes and back it up on a Time Capsule. I like the wireless idea, and someone mentioned in the thread that can be overcome. I may be able to get an ethernet cable into my listening room someday, but don't really know if it would make much difference. I was imagining that my laptop would serve as my interface/remote through Pure Music and itunes.

 

[losingmyreligion]

 

"But a 'computer', with all it's email, games, and other things switched off (not permanently disabled or removed) should in principle be just as good."

 

How does that old saw go - in theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not (always)?

 

By 'should in principle be just as good', do you mean, if a device delivers the bits perfectly and timely, there should be no sonic difference between it and other devices?

 

That's a popular theory, yet long since abolished by the impact of software players, digital cables, and other such artifacts on the ultimate sonics from one's system.

 

 

In practice, as Barrows likes to say, everything matters.

 

How does it matter?

 

IMO, it's due (mostly?) to the noise footprint, or noise profile, of the source component (feeding signal to the DAC).

 

Until such time as DACs (and the rest of one's system) are immune to the deleterious effects of noise from computer-based digital players, we have to limit the noise at the source.

 

That's the basis of a case for minimalism.

 

clay

 

 

[losingmyreligion]

"Maybe I am confused, but the I was thinking the Auraliti and Chris's CAPS server served the same purpose. I am willing to buy one or the other if it is truly better than using the MAC Mini dedicated to just music."

 

Nick,

 

yes, the Auraliti and the CAPS v2.0 server (when assembled) will serve the same purpose. Ditto for Sonore's boxes.

 

my 'exclusion' of the CAPS V2.0 is that, by that name, it is only a spec for DIY assembly (although it can be purchased pre-assembled by Simple Green).

 

Sorry to confuse you.

 

I also think that the SoTM USB board (speced in the Auraliti PK90, the CAPS V2.0 and some Sonore boxes) is a very important element in order to provide the absolute lowest possible noise footprint in a source computer.

 

clay

 

 

[NickG]

The case for minimalism makes sense. I suppose the same argument is made about passive preamps, volume controls, etc, too. I like the idea of the minimalist 'purpose built computer' so I don't have to exchange the soundcard, add a SSD, etc.

 

However, the only computers listed on the CASH list are Mac Mini the MacBook Pro and the CAPS servers. The Auraliti didn't make it and the Sonore has not been reviewed. I understand that not being on the CASH list isn't the last work on the subject, but it did influence me to think Mac Mini as dedicated piece of audio equipment as a safe route.

 

[Mark Powell]

Couln't agree more. The 'servers' are stripped down. You pay extra for the cost of the parts you don't get, however.

 

Linear power suppllies are supposed to be better, and it makes some sense. I've got one - it is called pulling the power supply and running on batteries on my laptop. But I don't hear any difference. But I do it as a matter of course when ripping.

 

I agree very much with 'Everything Matters'. As a general engineering practice it is always good. And the better server manufacturers do it. The most extreme is the Bryston, so I understand. Never seen one personally. Naim have always obseesive about power supplies. Mine has got a toroidal transformer that is big enough for a fair sized power amp. Driving a linear power supply. I wonder if that transformer's size may do more harm than good, though I believe toroidals have inherently low radiation.

 

[Paul R]

Great post Clay!

 

I would take it slightly further - the music "server" is really two parts. The software "server" is the part that takes the music data, be they files on a disk, files on server, or just a stream of bits on the network from anywhere, and turns into what hardware "server" will use.

 

The hardware "server" is everything else; the hardware devices that store the music, accept it from the network, and the DAC that creates analog voltages.

 

Those two categories get all stretched out of shape of course, but in general, I think they are a good starting point.

 

And they illustrate the point I was thinking of that very few music servers - software or hardware - use custom gear these days. Almost everything is COTS, and that includes devices like the C.A.P.S. server. None of the gear was custom designed for it - it is just carefully chosen COTS gear put together well.

 

Heck, even most DACS these days just use COTS parts and tie them together. The Logitech Transporter is intriguing to me, because it contains a custom DSP chip. Older at this point, I admit, but still, intriguing.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

[losingmyreligion]

 

"The most extreme is the Bryston, so I understand."

 

The Bryston is based on the design's of Demian Martin, who manufacturers the Auraliti devices - the PK100 and the PK90 USB.

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-bdp-1-digital-audio-player

 

As I understand it, the Bryston has things that the Auraliti PK90 USB does not, namely, a display and a soundcard (which is needed due to AES/EBU and S/PDIF outputs, rather than USB).

 

When pairing the PK90 with async USB DACs, this is an expense, you don't need.

 

I don't know that these 'extras' impact the sound, but following the principle of minimalism, they certainly don't lower the noise footprint, and can only (potentially) add to it.

 

The Bryston also does NOT have the SoTM USB noise isolation board I mentioned upstream, as does the Auraliti PK90 USB (and others).

 

 

For this reason, I consider the PK90 as the poster child for source component of the future, yet available now.

 

It's also the steal of the century, IMO, even at it's just raised price of $750.

 

I just received my second one in the mail on Friday, for the pauper's sum of $599.

 

And I'm awaiting the public release of the Auraliti L1000 to feed my LIO-8 (which has AES/EBU and Firewire inputs, but not USB).

 

clay

 

BTW, Mark, your Naim does have features that the PK90 does not. This will be the curse of the 'audiophile' companies in the quest for lowest possible noise footprint - adding features to differentiate themselves and/or to appease audiophiles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bill_s]

and, before Auraliti and Bryston...there was the Voyage embedded linux distro from a guy who goes by the name of Punky. He created the specialised Voyage MPD that many of us use now. And let's not forget the contribution of nyc-paramedic aka Nick who has been Voyage MPD's biggest evangelist and first told us all about Voyage MPD. He frequents many forums including this one and has been very generous in helping people out with their builds.

 

Bill

 

[Tipper]

+1 for all the guys who have tried to push the custom built music server running on Linux.

 

I knew bugger all about Linux when I first got interested in file server building and while you have to occasionally stop them from wandering into the world of computer geekery and Linux jargon they have done great things for file based audio imo.

 

+1 for Chris here at CA and others like Cplay for example, while I’m at it.

I’m sure these file server builds and tweaking sites have encouraged many to take that step from audiophile to computer geek

 

The gap between the two camps, computer geeks and audiophiles has given me many hours of frustration and amusement.

What seems to be overlooked often regarding these music centres is they are in fact just computers in audiophile brand boxes. These companies don’t code their own OS, or often it seems make their own motherboard or a great many of the components that get fitted.

 

 

[Mark Powell]

I think many 'audio' manufacturers have a problem with all this, at least the ones with aspirations to 'high end' and matching high prices.

 

Computer manufacturers and OS suppliers have many years experience and (1) the boxes are now a 'commodity' and priced to match, (2) the user interfaces, be they Windows or Apple, have been slowly and thoroughly sorted, again by people with years of experience.

 

The low volume/high priced audio manufacturers often consist of more elderly electronics guys with no experience of this stuff. They have to take on self-styled whiz kids straight from university who can't even wipe their own bottoms without help but genuinely think they know it all. No one with years of experience in a high paid job with Apple software department or Microsoft is going to leave and join them. Naim, for example, has only got a couple of hundred employees, maybe a lot less, and that includes the cleaner.

 

So they are making a mess of it. Particularly the 'high end' people. It does not have to perfect at three or four hundred dollars, and in this field there is so far not a lot to distinguish the cheap from the expensive.

 

 

[Paul R]

And don't forget the Vortexbox distribution, which is the core of the highly polished Sonore products Jesus makes. Voyager or Voyager MPD is the core (I think!) of the Auraliti and Bryston stuff. SqueezeOS is just nicely stripped down Linux running MPD.

 

GPDCs, like Macs and Windows PCs can do everything the little Linux guys do, and do it just as well, but you have to lock in a configuration and don't change it! OS Upgades, product upgrades, and the inevitable urge to tinker are all wooden shoes in the machinery. (pun intended)

 

Given all that, I will say that I firmly believe that almost anyone can get really good sound out of a modern Mac with the least amount of trouble all around. I consider it the best product for "newbies" to use, and it currently has the most advanced and best sounding players on it.

 

YMMV, but I get the fewest complaints for recommending Macs.

 

-Paul

 

 

[Miska]

The low volume/high priced audio manufacturers often consist of more elderly electronics guys with no experience of this stuff. They have to take on self-styled whiz kids straight from university who can't even wipe their own bottoms without help but genuinely think they know it all. No one with years of experience in a high paid job with Apple software department or Microsoft is going to leave and join them.

 

I could not resist on jumping in at this point.

 

It is not at all this simple, there's a lot flow between the two "camps" even to the extent of there not being such camps that much.

 

Not that I could claim to be "in" the high-end "camp" much so that I could say much. But certainly I know a lot of people who work for various different corporations yet also have a lot of passion for audio, photography and all kinds of other areas and also contribute on those areas. It is not all black and white with clear camps.

 

And no, this audio stuff doesn't pay my bills.

 

 

[bill_s]

this one goes for US $2500. I had one of those mainboards lying around and the wife wanted tunes in the bedroom. About 45 mins of gathering parts and loading up Voyage MPD resulted in my little BR player. But I did leave the board vendor's nameplate on the heatsink. First pic is the $2500 player and the last 2 are my quickie player. To be fair, the $2500 player comes from a small boutique manufacturer and they appear to have packaged their own Linux distro. I started to install theirs (download is avail.) but it really has more than I need, sorta like Vortexbox.

 

[Mark Powell]

Of course it is not that simple. But one has to cut to the essence or it could go on for ever. Sometimes it does anyway

 

Yes, there is cross-fertilization. I was for years a mainframe system software guy for IBM. In the early days of the 'IBM PC' I often got asked, formally and informally about them by small businesses. Not exactly my field, but I could quite often point them in the right direction. Even spent a week sorting a friends company's system out. Not IBM gear. The previous 'Independent Consultant' tried to charge him 17,000 UK pounds for it and it still didn't work. I did it for a few beers.

 

Regards

 

[losingmyreligion]

 

 

"...it (i.e. Macs) currently has the most advanced and best sounding players on it."

 

well, necessity IS the mother of invention.

 

Here's why. The Mac hardware is a veritable cesspool of noise, in which damn near anything you can do (software or hardware-wise) will "improve" the sound. Therefore, a plethora of software players (and hardware/software tweaks) arose to solve a problem which would/could NOT exist if the Mac did NOT have such a noise problem in the first instance.

 

Remember a few years ago when everyone thought that software players couldn't make a difference? Well, we were right to say - software should NOT make a damn bit of difference. We seem to have forgotten that.

 

So, personally, I can't see the point of kudos for having more advanced software, but maybe that's because I spent the better part of three years (maybe more) futzing around with more than a handful of Mac-based CA systems, using beta versions of all the OS X players (offered for fee), employing all the latest tweaks, etc., etc.

 

 

One minute with Demian's stock PK90 confirmed to me that the Mac platform is simply not fit for purpose as a music server of highest quality.

 

 

 

Given all that, it should come as no surprise that I disagree strongly with the "do it just as well" portion of this statement:

 

"GPDCs, like Macs and Windows PCs can do everything the little Linux guys do, and do it just as well,.."

 

 

If you're including sonic performance, it's not even close (in my system, to my ears).

 

 

YMMV, and usually does,

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

Well, I cannot disagree overmuch; if I could get a remote interface on the PK90 I was happy with, I would have bought a couple of them as well. Well, it wouldn't be any fun if I could not disagree with you a little - the PK90 is a GPDC running a mainstream OS.

 

I am (not so) slowly coming around to your way of thinking on the power supply and noise issues though.

 

It looks like I am going to settle in with SB Touch systems for a while here. Low end compared to the PK90 or PK100. But they do sound good. Better in fact, than my Macs without Amarra. And the remote interfaces are excellent.

 

It's a little embarrassing, because I was ready to give up, max a credit card or two, spend money like water, and wound up with perhaps the cheapest possible devices instead.

 

Amarra on a Mac still sounds better I think, but the constant crashes, gaps, and calls from my wife when it would stop working for no discernible reason was and is too much interference between me and the music.

 

I still have the Macs up and running, but they are upstairs in my lab/office. If SonicStudio gets it together with the next release, who knows?

 

-Paul