Music from hard drive better than CD?

C'mon guys, Apple is better/worse than Win in *some* circumstances. For HT/audio use, I think the Mac fits great--I bought a mini. Relevant decisional included:

1. Form Factor. Apple wins on this count hands down. I'm not ashamed to have it in my living room. Most Win boxes are ugly and, while there are some competitive SFF PCs, you are pretty much stuck with rolling your own guts for those. That gets costly and requires some technical savvy I'd rather apply somewhere else.

2. Ambient Noise. The mini is quieter, hands down, than any Win box I've run. Yeah, you can invest in heat pipe technology for a Win box or try to upgrade components, but why? The Apple is perfect for this kind of duty. Yes, you could also go with a quieter laptop, but I have to believe (unmitigated opinion based on use of desktops and laptops for 20 years) the reliability of the mini is better than any Win or Apple laptop in the long run.

3. Screen size. Tongue in cheek. I've got a 61" pioneer elite plasma on the wall behind the stereo. Why do I need a display, whether it be laptop or otherwise. (Ever see the visualizer in HD?). I think a lot of folks attaching a PC to a stereo are in the same boat. The Apple has a DVI out, which makes the connection pretty simple. None of the four Win XP boxes in my house have DVI out and, while you can get a new video card, its an upgrade. DVI on the Apple is standard. Yeah, you can lose the monitor while ordering a Dell, but the "refund" you get really isn't commensurate.

Bluetooth on the Mac was a bonus--I can sit on my couch, surf the web on a large screen with a keyboard and mouse that don't cause a walking hazard. Very cool. Now, if someone will only make a really good Bluetooth trackball, I'll be all set.

What didn't count was the lack of coax digital out. I'm heavily biased in favor of USB audio output devices, and that works great with either the Mac or the Win. In the case of the Win boxes, I feel like I'm paying for something I'm not using, since they always seem to want to sell you some fancy schmantzy audio card that is blown out of the water by my Waveterminal U24.

Downstairs, on the other hand, my workhorse is a Win box. Compatibility with work computers is a bigger issue for my home office. So, I've upgraded some bits to keep it quieter, and it works just fine serving up audio to the stereo down there even while I'm photoshopping something or surfing the web.

I will note that the Win box seems to require a lot more fiddling whenever I install something. Apple is much more plug-n-play. I spend 10x more time troubleshooting network and device driver issues with the Win box than I do the Apple.

Perhaps you missed the paragraph from my last post, so I will paraphrase:

“You mentioned Dell, which you implied has higher quality standards than the chop-shop manufacturers. From Dell.com you can get an entry-level Inspiron 1200 laptop for $549. This gives you a Celeron M 1.3 GHz processor, 256 MB RAM, a 14.1 inch screen, 30 gig hard drive, and a CD burner—perfectly suitable for streaming digital music. Granted, the Celeron processor is not the greatest, but I would compare this with the processor in the cheapest iBook available—a 1.2 GHz G4. The hard drive and RAM are the same at 30 GB and 256 MB, respectively, but the screen is a measly 12 inches. The price for this iBook is $999. So for almost double the price, you a get a much smaller screen, same amount of ram, same size hard disk, and a slightly faster processor—and most importantly, the ability to run OS X. Is it worth it? Well that’s up to the user.”

Now, I will not disregard the rebates as the person did in the article you posted, because they are a critical factor for the final price, and as the person incorrectly states, they do not always fall through. The laptops I compared in my last post are very comparable, the only difference being the size of the screen and the processor (in terms of hardware). This research I did myself instead of quoting another Internet source, as those may not always be the most reliable.

As for the desktop systems, I will make my own comparison once again so that the most recent prices are compared. For the Mac system, I will evaluate an eMac system at $799. This gives you a 1.42 GHz G4 processor, 256 MB DDR333 ram, 80 GB hard drive, a combo drive, and a 17 inch CRT display, all in one unit—with the standard 90 day warranty. In the other corner we have a Dell Dimension 3000 desktop. This system features a P4 2.8 GHz processor with 533 MHz front side bus, 512 MB DDR400 RAM, an 80 GB hard drive, a DVD-ROM drive and CD burner, 15 inch LCD display, a satellite/subwoofer speaker system, and an extended 2 year warranty—all for $696. The Dell system beats the Apple system in every way: more ram, better display, faster processor, faster ram, and two separate optical drives instead of a combo drive. Plus you have the ability to upgrade the system since it isn’t all in one unit like the eMac. If you’d like me to send you screen shots of the web page from Dell.com, I can do that; I have them saved on my PC. So this is the source that I can provide at your request.

Bluetooth would be a very good idea for a system like this. The range is about 10 meters, so you’d have to watch out for that. It should do just fine for most listening rooms. It’s true that the digital cable won’t cost as much as an analog run, but I would much rather use the longer monitor cable and Bluetooth input devices as you mentioned.

Also, in your last paragraph you say that you use your G4/400 to perform multiple tasks without a hiccup while listening to music. I never debated the fact that a Mac of that caliber would be unable to do so. I was simply stating my opinion that in a dedicated setup, a Mac that costs more (as I will continue to debate doing my own research) is less practical than a cheaper PC for the devoted task of playing music in a high quality audio system.

Just to give you some idea of what is possible of just a modest computer in
terms of streaming music. As I write and send this I am simultaneously
listening to Mindy Smith streaming from my external hard drive to my
system, while a CD drive is ripping a Bright Eyes CD to the very same hard
drive that is streaming Mindy Smith. The buffer is set to "high" so
it is taking advantage of my abundant RAM on this machine. Not a single
hiccup in the stream of music. The full CD is burned as rather large .WAV
files in about 2-3 minutes. If I changed the iTunes preferences to rip Apple
Lossless files (smaller, but still lossless) the time it would take to rip the file
would be more than doubled on my machine, but it would save a lot of space
on the hard drive allowing me to save twice as many CD's on the drive.

Marco

Thanks for the update on the current PC's and Windows OS. It has been a
while since I last played around on one, so that's all news to me indeed. Glad
to hear the OS has improved.

This
particular site puts a G4 Mac Laptop against a Dell Inspiron Powerbook.
The Mac is $288 cheaper, has a 1.33ghz g4 processor vs a 1.6ghz pentium M
processor, yet was "cheaper, faster and more powerful" in
comparison. I have read the same kinds of results in Consumer reports over
the years as well. The same URL pits a bargain priced eMac against a
similarly priced ($799) Dell desktop and once again the Mac wins. What your
telling me is this has changed since these reports. Can you point me over to
a resource that supports your claim?

Regarding the long digital connection; yep, I suppose that's true. Digital
cables, however, are not nearly as expensive as analog runs. You may
alternatively use a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and all you'd need then
would be a longer cord to your monitor. You can also use Airtunes if you
don't mind the optical Toslink connection which is arguably the weak link
there. Though technically it is, I wouldn't really call the MacMini a "
Desktop" except for it's umbilical cord to the AC. Granted, it ain't a
laptop either.

Finally, and once again, I routinely stream music from an old Mac G4/400 via
iTunes/Ethernet/AirportExpress/Toslink while the same computer is
processing very RAM/Processor intensive files and do not experience any
hiccups. So obviously I'd disagree with your conclusions.

Marco

I’m not quite sure how easy it would be to use a computer as a digital transport while using it to do other things. The main topic being discussed in this thread is that one would use an external DAC along with a computer as the transport (be it a Mac or a PC). If I were to go down this path and use a computer as the transport, I would want the computer to be an integrated part of the system. This means I would have the Mac Mini, or PC laptop, sitting on the stop shelf of an audio rack using a short, high quality digital cable to go from the computer to the DAC. I suppose you could have the computer located across the room on a desk, but then you would need a very long digital cable; this can get costly. I may have misinterpreted your meaning of a “dedicated” machine for streaming, but if I were to use my current laptop I certainly wouldn’t format the drive and reinstall everything just to have a clean install of the OS for streaming music. However, I would not use the laptop for other things during times when it is streaming music to the DAC just because it would require a longer digital cable; shorter cables always yield better sound quality, so I would not consider that option. Without this longer cable, it would be inconvenient to use the laptop as it’s sitting on top of the audio rack. So in my setup, laptops wouldn’t necessarily have to be “dedicated,” but a desktop system like a Mac Mini would be.

Rsbeck did make a good point on being connected to the Internet to get song names from the CDDB. I had not thought of this previously.

As for the chop-shop PCs—you don’t have to go to the cheapest manufacturer to get a good deal on a PC. You mentioned Dell, which you implied has higher quality standards than the chop-shop manufacturers. From Dell.com you can get an entry-level Inspiron 1200 laptop for $549. This gives you a Celeron M 1.3 GHz processor, 256 MB RAM, a 14.1 inch screen, 30 gig hard drive, and a CD burner—perfectly suitable for streaming digital music. Granted, the Celeron processor is not the greatest, but I would compare this with the processor in the cheapest iBook available—a 1.2 GHz G4. The hard drive and RAM are the same at 30 GB and 256 MB, respectively, but the screen is a measly 12 inches. The price for this iBook is $999. So for almost double the price, you a get a much smaller screen, same amount of ram, same size hard disk, and a slightly faster processor—and most importantly, the ability to run OS X. Is it worth it? Well that’s up to the user. As for custom built PCs, they’re they only type I’ve owned, except I built them myself. Luckily I’ve never had any problems with the hardware. For that reason I don’t think that custom built PCs are necessarily low quality; you just have to be careful where you shop, if you are looking for a “too good to be true” deal.

The PC will not suffer from all the faults mentioned in your previous post, as I already addressed those in my previous post. The only things you mentioned that hold any substance are the claims that OS X is more secure. I wouldn’t necessarily consider Windows XP to be “inferior” to OS X either.

Windows XP does allow you to quit individual applications if they do freeze, very similar to the force quit function in OS X. This function of the OS has been very effective since Windows 2000, although this version of the OS was run mostly by businesses. It’s quite possible that you were using Windows 98 or ME the last time you checked for this function. Both of those operating systems are laughable.

So my bottom line is that either platform will work flawlessly for the task mentioned in the initial post of this thread, and that is to send a digital stream to an external DAC for use in a hi quality stereo system. Jazzdax asked if a G5 would outperform a conventional transport/DAC setup. My purpose in posting my message was not to debate which platform is better for all tasks in general, but to state the fact that a PC will stream music as good as a Mac, and will cost less money. So there are two final scenarios: 1) the computer is not a dedicated part of the audio system, and 2) the system is a dedicated part of the audio system. In a dedicated setup, my opinion is that it would be impractical to spend more money on a Mac for the ability to run OS X when the computer will not even be used for other tasks. In a non-dedicated setup, a Mac could make more sense, if a user is willing to spend more money for the benefit of OS X (this includes lowered vulnerability to viruses, and a better user experience).

Jwglista - I think you may have misunderstood some of my points, or perhaps my communications skills are lacking here. Regardless I will try to clarify:

As Rsbeck indicates, the link to the Internet makes ripping CD's oh so much easier than manually inserting all the information. But I was not even suggesting that, though it is a very good point. I don't use any of my three computers as dedicated music streaming devices, and I'd hazzard to guess not many folks do. I do use a large, external hard drive as a dedicated storage device for my music. Would not think of storing them on the internal drive since I do listen in more than one location. I therefore don't agree with you on that point. Certainly with even a modest Mac you can stream music seamlessly and perform many other functions simultaneously. I see no particular reason to dedicate a computer to just streaming music. Perhaps it will compromise a PC, but I haven't had any problems on a Mac. I routinely do very RAM/Processor intensive image editing in Photoshop on the same computer that is streaming music without a single hiccup.

I was not referring to the Windows XP operating system when I said "chop-shop". I was referring to chop shop PC builders that assemble PC's at lower costs according to the users needs and budget. I'm not speaking of Dell, but of Cuss-Tum Computer in downtown Anywhere, U.S.A.

I don't think I was contradicting myself. If you outfit, for instance, a Dell computer with the same speed processor, same amount of RAM and same basic features as a Mac you will not be saving much money buying the PC. The fact is that Mac just doesn't make any real cheapy, bargain basement computers like those abundantly available in the PC platform. If you're only doing word processing and streaming music you can get a cheap PC and it will do the job fine, yes. But it will have it's faults as I indicated in my previous post. Even the low end MacMini, or the iBooks are faster and more capable than a 'cheap PC', and, as you suggested yourself, have a superior operating system which is very intuitive and will not ruin your afternoon if a program crashes or freezes up - you can just 'force quit' the specific program and the entire operating system and all other open programs remain stable and unaffected. Has Windows figured that one out yet? Last time I checked, which may have been over a year now, if your program crashes or freezes in Windows you are SOL as far as anything else that is running.

EXCELLENT point on the RAM suggestion with the MacMini: Definitely spring for at least double the stock 256mb as OSX is a glutten for RAM and will indeed slow down with only the minimum. Fortunately RAM is cheap.

I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum. Spent a few years on PC's and hated them. I've been on a Mac platform since 94 and much prefer their system overall. Customer support is excellent. FWIW if you look at Consumer Reports, Apple is consistently ranking at the top in customer satisfaction and overall performance. They just keep getting it right, and aren't much on compromise.

Now did I understand you correctly; did you imply that for $400 you can buy a PC laptop that will give you better overall performance than an iBook? Could you point me at that particular laptop? In what ways will it give you better performance? How reliable is it? I'm truly curious...I'm not challenging you, believe it or not. If that is true I'm just not aware of it. Most of the folks I know using computers are working professionals in one field or another and none tend to compromise much on their computers. All the PC laptops I've seen may be a bit cheaper than Mac overall, but certainly don't seem to be profoundly so if you compare apples to...er, that's a bad choice of words...oranges to oranges (same speed processor, same RAM, same features, same size).

The bottom line, in my view, is that streaming music is an effortless task for most modern computers. I would tend to choose the actual computer for the other factors you may use it for, and either way I'd still choose a Mac, if only for the stability and operating system. If I were a gamer I'd choose a PC only for the fact that more software and hardware exists to play games on PC's than on Macs.

Marco

If you are computer and tech savvy, prefer PC, and if you want to get really deep into using your computer for not only music, but an entire home entertainment hub, here is a forum that might interest you --

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=26

If you're going to be adding an external hard drive anyway, why not opt for the $499 Mac Mini? I don't think you need a keyboard, but if you connect the Mac Mini to a video monitor, a wireless mouse would be real handy. I would also opt for more RAM.

>>if you are going to use this computer as a dedicated music transport, it
should not even be on the Internet.<<

No. You want internet connectivity -- you'll be ripping CD's to your hard drive
and you'll be downloading all of the titles and other information from an
internet site. This will all happen with a couple of clicks if you are connected
to the internet. If you are not connected to the internet, you'll have to enter
all of that information manually, that would be tedious as hell, and would
slow the ripping process to a crawl. By the tenth or eleventh CD, you'd be
ready to hurt someone.

Jax2: I can appreciate your argument, however several points in your argument are inaccurate. Having used PCs for years and always wanting a Mac, I recently purchased one about 6 months ago; this has given me sufficient time to gather an evaluation on the Apple platform.

Yes, there is absolutely no doubt that OS X provides a better user experience than Windows XP. It looks nicer yet seems to be equally intuitive. I can’t say that OS X is more intuitive than Windows XP, because this all depends on which type of interface a user is used to. There are other points of your argument I’d like to address:

“I suppose if you want to deal with an inferior operating system, vastly increased vulnerabiltiy to viruses (if you use the same computer to surf the Net), general instability, chop-shop reliability (should you choose that direction to save money), and worst of all the likes of Microsoft software, well then yes; you'd save a bit of coin with a PC.”

In my opinion, if you are going to use this computer as a dedicated music transport, it should not even be on the Internet. Regardless, OS X is more secure overall than Windows XP, mainly because of the OS design and the fact that Windows is a bigger target for hackers. However, your statement that Windows XP is unstable is not true. I’ve used Windows XP just about every day since it came out back in 2001 and consider its reliability to be far from “chop-shop.” If you were referring to an earlier version of Windows, I would have to agree; but Windows XP has proven to be extremely stable in my experience and the experiences of other computer users that I know.

“They certainly are capable of streaming music just as good as a Mac, and indeed do cost less money in general, though I find that, as in most things in life, you get just what you pay for. Fast PC's tend to cost just as much as fast Macs. Cheap computers indeed have limited capabilities, and streaming music does not take any sophisticated for ultra-fast processor, nor an abundance of RAM.”

These first two sentences appear to be contradicting in that you first say that PCs cost less in general, but that a fast PC will tend to cost just as much as a fast Mac. This also is untrue. Anyone who follows the prices of PCs and Macintosh computers will be able to tell you that Mac hardware costs more. Period. There have been dozens and dozens of arguments on Tech sites between Mac Zealots and PC owners, and one topic I see repeatedly is “I would buy a Mac, but I can get a PC that’s just as fast for much less.” Now, you won’t be getting the great experience that OS X can provide, but you will get an equally fast PC at a much lower cost.

“The Mac-Mini is a great suggestion by Rsbeck. At $599 with a free keyboard, all you really need is a small monitor and external drive. For a grand you'll have a dead reliable computer interface that's as easy as pie to use and will be more than useful at other applications, and not take up much room to boot.”

This is definitely a good idea. The Mac Mini is very affordable, and it will do fine for simply playing music. The unit should also run pretty quietly, and should integrate nicely into a system with its sleek look. Keep in mind that you will want to upgrade the RAM from 256, unless you don’t mind OS X running very sluggish.

“A used or factory refurbed Mac iBook will set you back about the same but you won't need to spring for the monitor. I work with an old 12 inch G3 iBook which typically go on eBay for around $400. It does everything I need it to, is very portable and streams music effortlessly through iTunes.”

A PC laptop purchased for around that same price will give you much better performance.

So yes, you are right in saying that you get what you pay for—but only to a certain extent. I believe that this is limited to the experience of using the operating system itself and the sleek look of Apple hardware. So if you aren’t going to be surfing the web, editing photos, or creating web pages on this machine, the user interface may not be as much of a factor when considering price.

I was anything but an Apple fan--I've got four Win XP computers in the house and a NAS running Win Storage Server software--but still ended up hanging a Mac Mini on the stereo to do music duty. I looked at SFF PCs, but the cost to get to something in the same form factor as the mini was expensive. The Mac Mini is also pretty quiet, which is a factor to consider for us retentive audiophiles.

Those 12 inch G3 iBooks are a great solution if you need a screen.

I'm thinking the Mac Mini would be good if you were using it near a video screen -- you just use the video screen as your monitor.

You *will* want to scroll through your tunes on a screen.

At the price of a used G3 ibook or Mac Mini no reason to go PC.

(snip)hey cost more money, and PCs can read digital music exactly the same

I suppose if you want to deal with an inferior operating system, vastly increased vulnerabiltiy to viruses (if you use the same computer to surf the Net), general instability, chop-shop reliability (should you choose that direction to save money), and worst of all the likes of Microsoft software, well then yes; you'd save a bit of coin with a PC. They certainly are capable of streaming music just as good as a Mac, and indeed do cost less money in general, though I find that, as in most things in life, you get just what you pay for. Fast PC's tend to cost just as much as fast Macs. Cheap computers indeed have limited capabilities, and streaming music does not take any sophisticated for ultra-fast processor, nor an abundance of RAM. The Mac-Mini is a great suggestion by Rsbeck. At $599 with a free keyboard, all you really need is a small monitor and external drive. For a grand you'll have a dead reliable computer interface that's as easy as pie to use and will be more than useful at other applications, and not take up much room to boot. A used or factory refurbed Mac iBook will set you back about the same but you won't need to spring for the monitor. I work with an old 12 inch G3 iBook which typically go on eBay for around $400. It does everything I need it to, is very portable and streams music effortlessly through iTunes.

Just my highly biased opinion. I find nothing appealing about PC's whatsoever. If I played games on my computer, or I needed it for my dental practice, or other specialized small biz application I may feel differently I suppose.

Marco

To those who have recommended an Apple computer for this setup: an Apple computer is not necessary for music playback. They cost more money, and PCs can read digital music exactly the same; not to mention that iTunes has been available for Windows for some time now. So if you're looking to build this type of system on a budget, stick with a PC...and use the money saved towards a better DAC.

P.S. I own an Apple--I'm not downing Macintosh computers in any way, I'm just making a suggestion for those who are on a budget.

Thanks for these suggestions. A picture is beginning to form.

You can rip 400 CD's uncompressed into 200 GB. If you chose a lossless
codec like Apple Lossless, I'm told you can get twice that, or 400 CD's into
100 GB. Get an external hard drive and keep all of your CD's on it.

There is another way to go, too.

The Mac Mini:

http://www.apple.com/macmini/

Integrate that into your audio system; use your video display as your monitor,
take the audio signal out in digital through one of the USB ports and use a
high quality USB DAC like the Apogee Mini-Dac, and connect an external hard
drive from the FireWire port.

That would make a hell of a dedicated music storage and transport system.

Get a mouse and you could scroll through your songs and albums on your
video screen using i-tunes.

My recommendation is to get an Apple and use it solely as a music server. I don't see the connection between your disc storage space requirements and the CPU. Playing back stereo tracks is a trivial tasks for even a 100Mhz computer.

Onhwy61: I have an apple laptop but it is my work computer and I do not want to load all of my discs to it. Also, I figure I would need about a 280 GB hard drive to store all of my discs in a lossless format. So I don't think a regular CPU will work for me.

Pardales, any Apple computer and an external hard drive can do what you're looking for. The G5 models have built-in digital (optical) I/O, but require an external monitor. The laptops and iMacs would require an external digital connector such as those offered by M-Audio or Apogee. All the Apples include iTunes software as part of the purchase package. Such a system will also perfectly integrate with an iPod to add portability to the listening. Apple.

Yes, I own stock in Apple.

There seems to be a fundamental distinction here between digital music servers (hard drive based systems that store CD music in various forms in a single audio style component) and Media Hubs (which organize music that is on a computer hard drive and potentially network digital music throughout one's home).

Excuse my basic terminology but I am trying to sort all this out. I think I am interested in a music server that can hold all of my CD's (400 or so) in a lossless state where I can access songlists and album art on a video display. Anyone know of a product that does this?

Thanks Rsbeck - I checked out your comments on your system page. I appreciate the input!

Marco

I am using the Apogee USB Mini-Dac. Highly recommend it.

Hey, is anyone currently using either of the Wavelength USB DACs? Either the Cosecant or The Brick? I'd be interested to hear some comments and comparisons if so. How about the Apogee Mini with USB?

Marco

Jwglista - slower drives run cooler and quieter and will probably last longer also. There is no point in putting a drive that spins faster than 5400rpm in a DigAudPC.

Fragmentation is not an issue since you only write the files once when you rip them. Players only read the files. Just run one defrag after you are done ripping everything.

Planckscale:
”Best thread yet! I am planning to build my own Hard drive system. Does any body have a suggestion on which HD brand, speed (7200 or 10,000 rpm), and what size disk space to buy. Would a relative small size hard disk be better that a large one (i.e. using two 80 gig drives, as opposed to a single 160 gb)? “

A 7200 rpm drive would suffice for music playback. In my opinion a 7200 rpm drive will be good for most applications with the exception of those who demand a high level of performance from their computer (gaming, graphics, server, etc). As for the brand, that depends. A major concern would be the amount of noise the drive makes while reading the disk. I owned a Western Digital drive once and it was the loudest drive on earth. I’ve found Maxtor drives to be fairly quiet, but it would be good to do some research in this area. Also, if you buy the drive from Best Buy or a place that allows returns, you could take it home, install it, and listen to how loud it is; just take it back if it’s no good. A large drive will effectively work the same as a smaller one, as long as the disk doesn’t become too fragmented. The NTFS and FAT partition types (those used in Windows operating systems) suffer from high levels of fragmentation. Other partition types such as those used in UNIX (Mac OS X) or Linux suffer less from file fragmentation. Either way, you’ll end up with a bit-for-bit read of the music, but the level of file fragmentation can affect how active the drive must be while reading the disk. Basically what happens when files become fragmented is parts of the file are spread out among the entire disk, causing the disk to have to access several different parts to read the entire file. This again can affect the noise level of the drive and the read time of files, but for reading music files there would be no serious effect. As long as you perform regular defragments on the drive, this should not be an issue. So basically I would go for the larger drive; there’s a certain drive size where you can get the most for your money. I haven’t looked at prices lately, but I’m guessing it may be around the 160 GB size these days. Retail stores sometimes offer great deals (with mail in rebates). Otherwise you can look online to get a great deal (www.pricewatch.com).

I find it amusing that I can see a "split" forming within the digital community as once happened between the digital and analog people.

Compact discs will not be the digital storage media forever. Eventually music will be stored on ROM chips, once the cost of production drops enough to allow such an alternative to be feasible. This will not only reduce the size of albums to the size of a fingernail, but will also help in the recording industry's fight against piracy (unless they come out with ROM "burners"). I can see the majority of people more willing to switch to a more “convenient” storage form than one that sounds better (SACD) and maintains the same size as the conventional CD.

Either way, the computer transport/DAC model seems very interesting, and I am considering taking this route myself instead of upgrading my cd player. I have a laptop available that can be used, but I am concerned about noise from the fans. Some effective cooling method would be needed so that the fans don't kick into high gear while listening. Any ideas there?

Also, what about SACD? Are there any "SACD-ROM" drives for PCs that could read SACDs? And would the Apogee DAC be able to interpret this digital signal? Would a USB connection be able to offer the bandwidth necessary to transfer the SACD stream in real time? Perhaps a USB 2.0 connection, but USB 1 seems unlikely.

Dazzdax - a properly configured computer makes an excellent transport. But I would always use an external DAC. There is just no way to properly shield/isolate/power condition the DAC on a PC soundcard.

Jmesarch-

You may want to look at the Roku Soundbridge products, the Slimp3, and the CD30. They are network audio devices, and I think they are all "server-push" so they will allow you to run multiple remotes off a single computer. Don't know whether they will permit multiple remotes to play the same exact music, however, since the network is running a point-to-point protocol. You might look into using the computer to create a stream like the netradio stations and using the remotes to access that if playing the same thing from multiple places is important. I think most of these things have digital outputs as well as analog. I suspect the analog outs are pretty suspect for audiophiles, but if you are just looking for ambient background music, probably works...

Dig around in the digital forums here. There is a bunch of info on folk's server based systems.

I realize that the topic is pointing towards a Single PC serving to a Single Dac on a Main System...
But Can a Single PC Serve Music over a Network, to Other DACs and Amplifiers, Simultaneously to Create Multi-Room listening...
Or to state it differently... The Same Music is being Played on Different Systems Throughout the House, over the Network, Being Sourced from a Single PC/Harddrive.

Also Does Anyone Have any OtherLinks to CHAT on this subject trough Audio Asylum or ???

Fom the Tact hackers group:

--- In TacTHackers@yahoogroups.com, "kana4813" wrote:

Not cheap, but for those who don't want to use their PC, here's another approach:
http://www.qsonix.com/Public/Default.aspx

Dylans4bass, thanks for the info. I dug through the Apple website and found confirmation about the conversion to Apple Lossless with Airport Express. It was buried midway within a 31 page tech document. What confuses me is where the conversion actually takes place. Is it in the computer running iTunes/AirTunes or is it in the Airport Express. I would assume it's in the computer, but when I run the Activity Monitor I do not see any additional CPU or disk activity when playing music through Airport Express vs. the internal computer speaker.

BTW, what does your webname signify?

While any Quicktime compatible file may be played over AirPort Express, all audio is streamed as Apple Lossless because of WiFi bandwidth limitiations.

I stream AIFF files over Airport Express, so it's not just limited to Apple Lossless.

"Can Foobar be taught to stream audio into the AirportExpress as the iTunes does."

I've read that iTunes streams to AX using Apple Lossless and only Apple Lossless...so, no.

Part of me thinks that some kind of hard-disc based music server is definitely the way of the future. So, it is not a matter of "if" so much as a matter of "when". Here is a paragraph I cut from the Apple website in reference to their new 17 inch powerbook:

"Audiophiles Rejoice"
"The new 17-inch PowerBook also includes built-in optical digital audio input and output for connecting to devices such as decks, receivers, digital instruments and 5.1 surround sound systems. Because optical digital audio transmits data as impulses of light rather than electrical signals, it enables true, noise-free, pristine sound — eliminating troublesome ground loops and ensuring higher audio and signal quality."

I'm just curious what you all think of this? How would this be implemented given what we are talking about on this thread?

Wow! To all of the above: Wow! I just want to say that I am also duly impressed with everything Rabelais has to say. It is somewhat like reading Aquinas in that you know there is genius there even if you don't 100% comprehend it. Just for the record, even though there is a literary connection of sorts between Catullus and Rabelais (the originals, not us personally), I am not prejudiced because of this. For now, I will stick with a tranport and a DAC. I would rather have my CDs spinning than my head.
Thanks for the great read!!

I have been using the combination of iTunes/AirportExp/benchmark DAC1 as the front-end.

Can Foobar be taught to stream audio into the AirportExpress as the iTunes does.

One thing missing from all above posts thus far is a discussion on error free music free rippig. Not every CD-ROM or DVD-ROM is created equal. It's not as simple as which format to choose but which ripping SW/CD-ROM.

One of the better SW is EAC (Exact Audio Copy). It's capable of creating an exact copy of you CD. Bit for bit. It does this by slow down the drive and read it at least twice. (with the correct configuration of course).

I ripped my library of 400+ CDs using Windows Media Player 9 and came to discover some of them contain excessive errors. (sound skiping and etc) I am in the progress of redoing all of them. Very painful.

Eric

There is a nice doc by Jon Risch at : http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/jitter.htm.

I think one can partition what I shall call 'convenience' and 'sound reproduction' roughly to the transport (or source medium) and DAC respectively. Here's what I mean: I really liked Onhwy61's post where he was able to move from song to song, quickly and easily. For me, that would be a wonderful part of at least some of my listening experiences. There is an analogy to DVDs here: in terms of sales, the DVD has been the greatest home electronic success in history. And it is no wonder--DVDs offer a clear value proposition over VHS that virtually any video consumer can appreciate. Similarly, computer-based home entertainment systems (and variants thereof) offer great promise, to the degree that they offer not just more "convenience," but that this can operationally change the way we listen to music.

DACs with on-board clocks can re-clock the data stream, making them virtually immune to the transport, be it CD, hard drive, RAM, whatever. So there is no reason why convenience needs to be at the expense of high quality sound reproduction. But DACs are still not completely immune, as Jon hints towards in this article above. Cable reflections, ground bounce, chip load, etc. these will affect DACs even with on-board clocks, and highly resolving systems will invariably uncover a source medium dependency. Source mediums specifically made to minimize jitter, such as high-end transports, will make it easier on the DAC. There is nothing that I know of in the computer industry that gives computer-based storage systems any translational benefit over to *DAC technology* that the traditional digital audio community is not already aware. So when it comes to sound reproduction, the traditional digital audio community is likely to still command the lead. If this is achieved reasonably inexpensively via pro-audio, or esoterically in boutique audio, is really an issue that is applicable re one's own system, resources, and goals.

For those who can build their own, here are some great links:

1. At the botom of this page you will find nice Multimedia cases: http://www.xoxide.com/silverstone1.html

2. Then you can install a quiet/fanless power supply from here: http://www.xoxide.com/fanlesspsu.html

>>it is absolutely no surprise the today's PC hard drive configs don't compete
with EMM Labs gear.<<

Surprise? Who said this was a surprise?

>>good transports or bad, you can be pretty sure that your DAC is getting a
bit-perfect feed.<<

Okay.

>>jitter...replacing a transport with a hard drive will not remove this
problem.<<

You're not just replacing the transport with a hard drive; If you use
something like the Apogee Mini-Dac, you're also introducing a high quality
clock and DAC.

>>something other than jitter--at least as he was measuing it--was causing
an effect on his "perfect sound forever."<<

There are many things that go into making a great sounding DAC.

>>But for *really* good reproduction, it'll be years before anything beats a
CDP or TT.<<

That's vague. Depends on what you call a *really* good CDP. It has already
been established that a computer plus $1,000 DAC will not compete with
$10,000 Emm Labs gear, but neither will any other digital gear.

A computer plus $1,000 DAC absolutely sounds better to my ears than many
CD players.

Hmmmm. Something is not right here.

$50 portable CD players incorporate electronic antiskip mechanisms by reading ahead 5-10 seconds and storing the data in a buffer--and they are far from audiophile grade transports or players. The challenge of high fidelity playback is not limited to problems with spinning a disk, and it is absolutely no surprise the today's PC hard drive configs don't compete with EMM Labs gear.

CD audio encoding is surprisingly complex (e.g., see http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdaudio2/95x7.htm). And one result of this is very high bit-for-bit fidelity. It is true that the CD Audio redbook spec has less error correction that CD-ROM--i.e., it "allows" a certain level of interpolation of data--but in general it seems that this is not the problem (see a classic at http://stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/index.html); good transports or bad, you can be pretty sure that your DAC is getting a bit-perfect feed.

The next area to look at is jitter. This is any variance between the actual data clock and an ideal clock. Transports, hard drive controllers, DMAs--they are all going to have jitter, so replacing a transport with a hard drive will not remove this problem. It may allow it to be mitigated--or may be not: PCs are hostile environments and jitter is measured in *billionths* of a second.

There is no doubt that mitigating jitter can improve audio reproduction, but in Harley's article at the above URL he looks at CD tweaks and found audible differences yet no difference in jitter; i.e., something other than jitter--at least as he was measuing it--was causing an effect on his "perfect sound forever."

I think the problem is in the CD format when it leaves the factory or the website, and you are doomed before you ever bring it into your house. Here's why: The CD spec does not store the time information along with the amplitude. It just stores the amplitude, and the clock is recovered from the signal. If they had spec-ed it in packets like TCP/IP embedding clock and amplitude, then you could recover ALL the data, amplitude and time, bit-perfect, from a CD, a website, even a carrier pigeon--the transport mechanism wouldn't matter. But the clock is implied in the signal, and that means that it has to be re-created at playback. Ever wonder why transports make a difference on playback? It's because the servo is jerking the DC waveform and introducing trash in other parts of the CDP; same with digital cables: because the clock is not "data" per se, the way your DAC gets the data through your cables from the transport can affect the time reconstruction.

I think computers have a lot to offer audio, and, like digital amps, may drop the price floor on very good reproduction. But for *really* good reproduction, it'll be years before anything beats a CDP or TT.

I knew there was a reason to wait on the server 'til after CES announcements... This puppy is due out in Feb. May not be as quiet as the Niveus, but at this price ($1K) it can live in the garage...

http://www.buffalotech.com/products/product-detail.php?productid=97&categoryid=19

Interesting stuff!

I'm still trying to figure out what to do here--I'm about 70% through ripping the 1000+ CDs in the Rock/Blues genre... I seriously encourage folks to think about standalone storage, since ultimately you will want to access your music from other places in your house besides the one PC they are resident on. Right now, I'm running three audiotrons and one CD30, as well as a USB audio device off my PC.

My latest thinking is something like this for storage:

http://store.niveusmedia.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.10/it.A/id.455/.f

I was originally going to go with a bunch of LaCie external USB 2.0 drives and a Linksys $90 NAS box, but I discovered, much to my chagrin, that the NAS box they have requires you to format the disks in a proprietary format. Doesn't work for me. I'm ripping the CDs to the LaCie drives, but I worry about their long term viability--these puppies run hot. Just don't think they are really designed for 24/7 operation.

The selling points of the Niveus server seem to be quiet (no fans), component-like aesthetics, and $ (Dell quoted me about $14K for 1.5TB of RAID5 storage. Unlike everyone else, I'm ripping the whole CD--I don't wanna go back and do this again.

I'm also intrigued by the Niveus PCs like the Denali HDTV; I've been leery of putting a computer in my rig until seeing their fanless ultraquiet numbers... But then, I also found this:

http://www.logicsupply.com/product_info.php/cPath/29/products_id/51

Trying to decide now whether I want to embark on the fullblown HTPC/Windows Media Center Edition or something to just serve up WAV files...

I've been intrigued by Mr. Rankins Cosecant, since originally hearing about the concept, but can't seem to find reviews, or comments on how a PC Hardrive, CD Drive, to Cosecant sounds in comparison with high-end CDP's. At $3,500 + PC are we talking about a comparison to $3,500 CDP's or $5K+ rigs?

Very soon, I plan to replace my aging PII Dell with a new PC. However, like "Planckscale" most all my 500+ CD's (keeper tracks) have been ripped to a 120G H.D. (a 200G drive is used for back-ups). It would be a blast to use this soon to be obsolete PC as a "music machine", but wonder how the PC/Cosecant combo would compare to my Wadia 861...

Best thread yet! I am planning to build my own Hard drive system. Does any body have a suggestion on which HD brand, speed (7200 or 10,000 rpm), and what size disk space to buy. Would a relative small size hard disk be better that a large one (i.e. using two 80 gig drives, as opposed to a single 160 gb)?

On a side note, all my current music collection (500 CDs) fitts on a 110 GB hard drive as full wave files. Why? because I only record the best songs, and as we all know most CDs have no more than 4 good songs on them.

Thanks

Rsbeck...Until I heard what people say on this site I just assumed that the data from reading the disc went into a buffer register, and was gated out one (16 bit) word at a time. Coming from my experience with military digital equipment it's obvious that this is how it should be done. This implementation would be a trivial cost. The hard disc transfer would accomplish the same jitter reduction (and some other features) but at significant cost.

I don't know if it will outperform all CD transport/DAC combos, but a hard disk computer system is capable of very high quality. The Apple G5 is an excellent starting platform. In combination with iTunes and an iPod (optional) you'll have unparalleled access to your music collection.

As an example, the other night I was listening to Lucinda Williams' "2 Cool To Be 4-Gotten" and the first verse is about Robert Johnson. I mention this to my girlfriend and she asks, "Do you have any Robert Johnson?" Two or three mouse clicks later we're listening to RJ singing "Stop Breakin' Down" which we then followed with the Rolling Stones version of the same. This led to a comparison of their versions of "Love In Vain", followed by the Clash doing "Train In Vain" and finally Dwight Yoakam's cover of the Clash tune. Instant access to your music collection will transform how you listen.

Here is something I found --

From 6 Moons' review of a Hard Drive based system ---

One of the great advantages of playing music from a hard drive is that the playback is all byte-by-byte. You are not hearing music through a device that is trying to read a spinning disc in real time. The major source of jitter and distortion is simply eliminated in this hard drive-based process. As I heard it, the net effect is a terrific sense of natural musical flow.

http://6moons.com/audioreviews/vrs/vrs_3.html

.

Doesn't Revox and/or Goldmund make something like that already. Linn also comes close.