advertisement


At last... (Audiolab) - part VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
I personally wouldn't use an SSD for music libraries. Yes they're quicker, but the main benefit is that it has no moving parts and "arguably" would generate less noise in your pc . And at current prices it would be illogical to store all your flacs. I'd spec the smallest size I could get away with as it would be a dedicated music server and nothing else.
 
I currently have 120gb of legally acquired music, all FLAC rips of my cds, and a number of 24/96 and 24/192 recordings which I purchased and downloaded (which are even larger than the FLAC rips). I do envisage this doubling in the next 5 years or so.

Additionally I also keep a 256kb mp3 version of everything on the same storage, specifically for the purpose of putting on my portable player.

Its all stored on my Home Server (2x2tb drives mirrored), its backed up externally and is on the netbook so fairly low risk of dataloss.

Sam

Nobody likes a show off :p
 
Music libraries belong on networks! Not inside players! A player should be able to 'see' all the music on your network, whichever pc/laptop/NAS it is on.
 
Music libraries belong on networks! Not inside players! A player should be able to 'see' all the music on your network, whichever pc/laptop/NAS it is on.

Although I agree with what your saying, not everyone can run cables or have a server in their home
 
Who has that amount of "legally" acquired music backed up? :p
I currently have about 120GB in flac's - all "backups" of CDs from my collection and a couple of legaly purchased downloads. Plus 28GB of mp3 (converted from those flac's - for my portable devices use).

I now have 64GB SSD in my mediacenter PC - but this is just for the OS and mediacenter/players applications, not for media storage. For this I have a NAS with 2x2TB HDDs.

Pawel
 
Although I agree with what your saying, not everyone can run cables or have a server in their home

.. So have a wireless network, and if you don't want a server, don't have one - just put your music on your pc or laptop, or any number of them. Even if you had a drive inside your player, it would most probably still need to be on a network in order to get music onto it.
 
Who has that amount of "legally" acquired music backed up? :p

And you can pick up a 1TB HDD for £50 :D
Used as a single store for audio - FLAC and mp3 duplicates, photos and movies

All available via DLNA so any compatible device can access the files.
Installed in computer with virtual Vortexbox installation, hidden away in the hall

Then need 2nd disk as full backup, so that I won't lose my files in case of HDD failure

I prefer the £50-100 cost per disk, which leaves me more money to spend on hifi, CDs and beer and wine

I do have a 60Gb SSD in my hifi PC (so it sits silently next to the hifi)
 
If manufacturer's specs are to be believed, we're talking 1,000,000 hours MTBF. Which is good enough for me.

I wouldn't count on it. The situation has improved, but I seriously wouldn't trust the MTBF.
 
I'd like to hear your thoughts on why you would not just buy the Cambridge Audio NP30 streamer or the Squeezebox offerings?

I cannot understand how anyone would spend more then the Squeezebox - what do the other offerings offer that the SB does not?

I'm talking about a streamer connected to an external DAC - so forget the internal DAC quality.

MDAC attenuates Jitter to such a large extent - I would have a hard time recommending spending anymore on a streamer then the cost of the SB... So I'd be interested to hear your opinions.

Where does the Squeezebox fail? (it has a great screen, User Interface etc)?

John
 
Where does the Squeezebox fail? (it has a great screen, User Interface etc)?
In my opinion it doesn't although it's rather poor at playing videos... :)

Seriously, though, I'm moving away from my Squeezeboxen to (probably) a Mac Mini solution - not for sound quality as such - but to move to something which is easily updatable and offers far more flexibilty...
 
I'd like to hear your thoughts on why you would not just buy the Cambridge Audio NP30 streamer or the Squeezebox offerings?

I cannot understand how anyone would spend more then the Squeezebox - what do the other offerings offer that the SB does not?

I'm talking about a streamer connected to an external DAC - so forget the internal DAC quality.

MDAC attenuates Jitter to such a large extent - I would have a hard time recommending spending anymore on a streamer then the cost of the SB... So I'd be interested to hear your opinions.

Where does the Squeezebox fail? (it has a great screen, User Interface etc)?

John

Don't underestimate the amount of code to support all the ancilary features beyond simple streaming of local files (with all your favorite codecs). There's probably as much code in squeezebox for doing internet radio and other stuff + lots of closed source stuff for streaming services & proprietary codecs.

I hope we can make squeezebox work well with an mdac...
 
JohnW - why not put a streamer inside your MDAC? Just clock data straight out of the streamers ample buffer into the DAC itself. No spdif so no jitter to attenuate. Most sensible protocol is arguably UPnP - many modest products like £100 Sony Blu-Rays now have UPnP capability so it can't be difficult or expensive. People can choose from an abundance of already existing UPnP servers and control points and remote control apps. Give Linn and Naim a run for their money!
 
I use
- Squeezebox - SB3 so nowhere near as good a user interface as latest models, but still good nonetheless
- hifi PC - dedicated miniITX PC so I can play Spotify, artists' sites, myspace, Youtube etc.
- use netbook, mobile phone, tablet etc. for remote desktop access into hifi PC

I went for the dedicated PC before spotify plugins were available for the Squeezbox, and so that I'd always be able to use 'son of Spotify' whatever that may be in the future.

I'd like to use the PC as a CD transport, but haven't dedicated the time to find out:
- how to slow down the optical transport ('cause otherwise it's very noisy)
- how (best) to get an inserted CD to autoplay
- the CD remote is easier and more intuitive than a remote PC, so I'd want to implement a dedicated conventional remote


BUT

overall I'd simply recommend a Squeezebox Touch (my preference) or a Sonos.
In particular, because the whole user interface and remote control are so well integrated and can be (more) readily explained to the other occupants of my house
 
Whatever your thoughts or end result, make it a two-box solution.
Keep any 'data transport' separate from the DAC.
- removes one set of potential interferences from the DAC
- allows the DAC to be upgradeable/replaceable as required
 
I disagree! Put the data transport inside the DAC. No s/pdif in sight. No de-jittering needed for there is no embedded clock to de-jitter. The absolutely correct clock frequency is known as it is part of the file's meta-data. Checkout the new Linn DSM stuff, or the Naim NDX.
 
I disagree! Put the data transport inside the DAC. No s/pdif in sight. No de-jittering needed for there is no embedded clock to de-jitter. The absolutely correct clock frequency is known as it is part of the file's meta-data. Checkout the new Linn DSM stuff, or the Naim NDX.
word clock output from DAC (which the MDAC already has) overcomes this problem
And John seems to be extremely confident about the de-jittering capabilities of the MDAC :)

And the DAC and transport will talk to each other so any 'higher level' information can readily be passed from transport to DAC
 
You've got a lovely buffer full of data. Why add a clock signal to it, convert it to spdif, put it down a wire into another box which promptly has to strip out the clock signal and put the same data into a very much smaller buffer and clock it using the extracted clock? Even a humble squeezebox clocks data straight out of it's buffer into it's own internal DAC under the control of its own fixed internal clocks. You only have multiples of 44.1 and 48 to worry about for music.
 
You've got a lovely buffer full of data. Why add a clock signal to it, convert it to spdif, put it down a wire into another box which promptly has to strip out the clock signal and put the same data into a very much smaller buffer and clock it using the extracted clock? Even a humble squeezebox clocks data straight out of it's buffer into it's own internal DAC under the control of its own fixed internal clocks. You only have multiples of 44.1 and 48 to worry about for music.
Different ways of killing a cat - I've given my reasons, you've given yours
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top