View Full Version : Trying to get into Hard Drive audio
here we go again
28-02-2011, 11:05
I'm hoping some of the more PC savvy members can help me out on this one....
I always seem to be a little behind the times so far as technology is concerned ( I still buy vinyl) but have very recently become intrigued by PC Audio - or at least the storage of my CD's on a hard drive. I've experimented by hooking up my netbook to my Caiman via USB and listening to a few of my CD's that I had ripped using EAC to FLAC and was really rather impressed - but really don't want to have a PC on just to listen to some music + the interface is hardly user friendly.
What I'm after is a one-box solution to this - one that contains a hard drive (possibly upgradeable), a decent small-ish screen/interface/remote control - and maybe a CD Rom drive to actually rip the CD's in the first place. The only thing I have found like this that exists is the Brennan JB7 - but that also includes a DAC and amp which I would have no use for.............
So ............ does such a thing exist? - I've heard of the Squeezebox but really can't understand what it is - does it have a hard drive inside?? If so how do you get the data onto it? I'm not thinking about doing anything wirelessly and cannot honestly think how wireless would help (remember I am always behind the current thinking!)
I am imagining a unit that has simple connections on the rear like power, SPDIF and USB and little else.
If that Brennan JB7 was available without the power amp and DAC and just had SPDIF out then that would be ideal ..................... but sadly it's not.
Any help is very much appreciated. thanks fellas
Stratmangler
28-02-2011, 11:13
Keep away from the Brennan - it does MP3 or WAV, but not FLAC or ALAC.
here we go again
28-02-2011, 11:26
Keep away from the Brennan - it does MP3 or WAV, but not FLAC or ALAC.
Ok thanks Strat - although I have to say i only went with FLAC because EAC steered me towards it! Didn't realise the Brennan was limited to WAV or MP3 though - i presume something that works with FLAC would be considered important/essential?
the Brennan does seem to be ALMOST the perfect product for me - really hoping there is something perfect available........ or maybe there is something that can be built to do what i want? - it's gotta look decent too though.
I think a lot of people venturing into file audio have a vision of no computer and a neat one box solution. I realize you say this is what you want, but why?
It’s a bit like buying a music centre rather than Hi Fi separates.
The fact is, if you have file audio, you have a computer in the chain somewhere, be it a Squeezebox, Sonos, laptop, PC or full blown music server; they are all computers.
In my experience so far is a “separates” approach to file audio will give better audio and leave greater flexibility for upgrade.
Keep the ripping drive, the Dac, the storage and the controller (computer) separate from each other.
Not only does this method reduce the possibility of noise being transferred from one task to another, it also allows experimentation with other Dacs, drives and operating systems/music players.
Stratmangler
28-02-2011, 12:17
A Squeezebox Touch with a USB HDD can be a 2 box solution - it all depends really how big your CD collection is, and whether you want to start experimenting with Hi-Res files.
There are a couple of downsides - first, the Touch has it's own inbuilt server, which works fine. However the processor in the Touch is not capable of keeping up with heavy workload tasks, such as resampling on the fly (sometimes needed with Hi-Res files), or allowing access via a web browser on a networked computer.
Secondly, if you go the route of directly connecting a USB HDD then you're forever having to disconnect the HDD from the Touch and plug it into your computer and back again when you've finished putting music files on the drive.
Because of the processor limitations and browser access issues I have my Touch running on a Server Client on one of the computers - there's another Squeezebox on the network too (SB3) and this does not have all the inbuilt server malarky that the Touch has, so this second device has to have the network server as a controller.
Going back to the Touch, you also have the option of using the analogue outs or digital out (coax or optical) into an external DAC.
I'd suggest the Touch/HDD route to stick your toe into the water, so to speak.
Good advice from both John and Chris...Brennan is the mp3 equivalent of the Bose clock radio, you're only paying for their advertising space!!!
I started by using my laptop and winamp, a cheap external DAC with a digital out into my proper DAC, and a hard drive. Just to see if it was the direction I wanted to go, without spending any money on a trial.
I love the convenience, but others can't be bothered with the additional effort, i.e ripping and indexing, which you'll have to do with any solution.
You're going to have to rip to FLAC for any decent solution anyway, and that FLAC collection will be the source for any future file based solution.
I ultimately went with a SqueezeBox solution, some prefer Sonos or Linn, others prefer a PC/Laptop solution, but either way you need a well ripped FLAC library.
So get ripping, I'd advise dBpoweramp as a start, EAC is good but if you have a lot of CDs it can be a little slow, and a decent CD drive, this will be your library moving forward so it's worth doing well...;)
here we go again
28-02-2011, 12:27
John - thanks for your views and i hear what you're saying - never really thought of it has the 'music centre Vs seperates' argument.
i do wish to keep my existing hifi and existing DAC (for the moment!) but would like something that LOOKS like a hifi source component (if you get my drift!). Something that can be switched on like a hifi component and be playing music within seconds - just like a hifi component.
Also - how much upgrading is necessary or even possible, if all that is within this mythical box is the hard drive containing lossless files and the firmware for playing/streaming it out to a BNC/RCA connector? my current understanding (which may be wrong) is that a lossless file is a lossless file - maybe differences exist between the various firmwares/softwares that are used to play/stream the data? - Is this the case? - in PC speak, does Windows media player do things with the data in a different way than Foobar - or VLC? I can tell no difference between the different players when playing a FLAC via USB - but honestly I haven't listened critically to them all as yet.
once again - I appreciate all the comments - just what I need
here we go again
28-02-2011, 12:34
Chris - so a Squeezebox doesn't have a hard drive then? - so it must be purely the interface and software/firmware for playing/streaming the data? and the files are stored elsewhere like an external USBdrive - ok, think I've got that now.
Will - ok - I'm gonna start ripping - I downloaded EAC last night just because it was mentioned - and it was pretty quick I guess - esp. with the freedb data. I just ripped a couple of CD's though - for comparison purposes - I'll have a look at dbpoweramp now - cheers for the help.
purite audio
28-02-2011, 12:38
You must have a PC orMac? Use that initially , try using a USB to s/pdifconverter, and plug your DAC into that and that's it!
if you are using XP you will have to make sure you have a bit perfect output, I can help with that.
Keith.
John - thanks for your views and i hear what you're saying - never really thought of it has the 'music centre Vs seperates' argument.
i do wish to keep my existing hifi and existing DAC (for the moment!) but would like something that LOOKS like a hifi source component (if you get my drift!). Something that can be switched on like a hifi component and be playing music within seconds - just like a hifi component.
Also - how much upgrading is necessary or even possible, if all that is within this mythical box is the hard drive containing lossless files and the firmware for playing/streaming it out to a BNC/RCA connector? my current understanding (which may be wrong) is that a lossless file is a lossless file - maybe differences exist between the various firmwares/softwares that are used to play/stream the data? - Is this the case? - in PC speak, does Windows media player do things with the data in a different way than Foobar - or VLC? I can tell no difference between the different players when playing a FLAC via USB - but honestly I haven't listened critically to them all as yet.
once again - I appreciate all the comments - just what I need
Graham,
PC playback can be a can of worms, bypassing the windows kernel resampling, direct ASIO drivers, USB output etc, are all factors that affect the quality of the sound.
I have 3 squeezebox players, and a PC/Winamp/M-Audio ASIO, all feeding off the same FLAC library
Sounds like you should go with Chris's suggestion of the logitech Touch, I've got an older Logitech Receiver going into my Audiolab DAX BNC/SPDIF connection, but you'd need a separate server, whereas the Touch can be the server too...
Chris is your man for Touch tips, as it were ;)
I’m reluctant to recommend components in any area of Hi Fi, what sounds good to one may not to another etc etc.
What I would recommend is a strategy for approaching file based audio.
Forget for the moment the convenience aspect and concentrate on what will give the best sonic results at the given price range with the knowledge you have.
As Will mentions, learning how to rip files successfully and getting them stored safely is step one.
You will need a minimum of two external hard drives and I recommend you rip a WAV copy as back up and a Flac copy for play. Why?
There is still some debate concerning audible differences between Flac and WAV. Whether such reported audible differences are due to the de-compressing of Flac files or the nature of the files themselves is still under debate. However, if you have a WAV copy as back up and you believe you can hear a difference at some point you won’t be faced with the task of a collection re-rip.
Most start off with a laptop as a controller. A PC will do the job but tend to be noisier and hotter and even less attractive if that’s something that concerns you.
The advantage imo of using a laptop as opposed to say a Logitech Touch or similar is most have found as their file base increases they need a laptop to do the heavy processing the Touch at present cant cope with; this now means they have two computers in the audio chain and that brings more complexity and further expense.
Also, the Touch is limited to the OS supplied with it. Many will howl with protest but I don’t think all OS do sound the same and the same applies to music players.
With a laptop you can find if these things are important to you or not. With the Touch or other similar player you’re stuck with the system supplied.
File audio is just like any other audio replay, everything makes a difference, and whether or not those differences are audible is for the individual to decide for themselves.
The temptation is to just dive in and start ripping. Take a great deal of time to research which ripping application works best for you and then practice with it until you are absolutely confident that your rips are perfect.
here we go again
28-02-2011, 13:05
You must have a PC orMac? Use that initially , try using a USB to s/pdifconverter, and plug your DAC into that and that's it!
if you are using XP you will have to make sure you have a bit perfect output, I can help with that.
Keith.
Keith - thanks for the comments - yep, I do have a netbook running XP and it was this that got me experimenting over the weekend - I also have a Caiman with a USB input so the 2 were hooked up and away I went.
I just feel that the library (when I've ripped it!) won't be very accessible - ie. I will have to have the netbook near the hifi - and of course there's no remote so i can hop around albums in comfort!! - the interface that a laptop/computer provides is just not very user friendly imo.
However ................. i didn't realise that there were variables when using a PC OS to play music - I just assumed that no matter which program was used (wmp,vlc,foobar) - the data was simply streamed out on the USB!! - pure and simple! - guess not though, so I could do with some help there - obviously I want it as 'perfect' as possible!!
here we go again
28-02-2011, 13:10
John - that sounds like great advice - many thanks.
I'm having trouble keeping up with all the responses - my typing ain't the quickest! - but I am extremely grateful for them all. Please keep them coming.
I see you are using Windows XP. Imo this is still the best Windows OS for audio.
I would suggest you try these players out.
http://www.foobar2000.org/
http://www.mediamonkey.com/
http://www.mediajukebox.com/
You will also need this to bypass the Windows k mixer which has a horrible habit of resampling all audio.
http://www.asio4all.com/
Just getting these set up properly should keep you amused for a while, give you some topics to research and your money out of the hands of the “buy this and you’ll be sorted” recommendations ;)
Oh arr, almost forgot.
Go here and read everything.
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/
Go here for advice on setting up asio4all
http://www.ayre.com/usb-xp_setup.htm
Go here for advice on EAC ripping
http://blowfish.be/eac/
Good luck.
purite audio
28-02-2011, 14:36
There is an iPod/iphone app for Foobar, which would act as a remote, make sure you have bit perfect output first and then go from there.
Foobar and it's kss.do streaming app would be my recommendation at least to start with.
Keith.
here we go again
28-02-2011, 15:34
I see you are using Windows XP. Imo this is still the best Windows OS for audio.
I would suggest you try these players out.
http://www.foobar2000.org/
http://www.mediamonkey.com/
http://www.mediajukebox.com/
You will also need this to bypass the Windows k mixer which has a horrible habit of resampling all audio.
http://www.asio4all.com/
Just getting these set up properly should keep you amused for a while, give you some topics to research and your money out of the hands of the “buy this and you’ll be sorted” recommendations ;)
Oh arr, almost forgot.
Go here and read everything.
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/
Go here for advice on setting up asio4all
http://www.ayre.com/usb-xp_setup.htm
Go here for advice on EAC ripping
http://blowfish.be/eac/
Good luck.
:eek: thanks John - great stuff, I'm working my way through all those links right now ............................................... there's more to this than meets the eye it seems!!
A couple of often overlooked tips.
Whichever app you use to rip, rip each album to a folder.
With XP, I make a new folder in My Music with band name and album title.
Whether you choose to send that folder empty to your external hard drive and instruct say EAC to rip to that folder or keep the folder in a directory on your internal hard drive and then move it to the External hard drive after is a matter of choice; both have their advantages.
Keep cue sheets and rip reports in this single folder along with the tracks. I keep a cue sheet for both WAV and Flac.
You will probably want album pictures and perhaps other information about the album.
I use this.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/album-art/
Some rippers and some music players will do this for you once you’ve figured out how to set them up.
If you use the above, it will download each image to an album folder.
It will download the chosen front image as “folder” but to download say a back image or other information you need to tell Album Art Downloader to save the file as “back” or “internal” to get the right images to show in the right places in your music player GUI.
Once you’ve downloaded the images you require then open the folder you saved the tracks to and drag each image (not folder) from the Album Art Folder to the music file folder. You’ll end up with all the music files and all images and cue sheets as individual files within one folder.
Given you already have Stans 7520 but you’re planning to use a laptop (?) which doesn’t have SPDIF output (?) then to take advantage of the best performance Stans Dac can offer it may be worth considering either a straight USB to SPDIF converter or even an asynchronous converter.
here we go again
01-03-2011, 12:07
here we go ......................
I'm following the ayre DAC instructions for setting up XP to output a USB stream without using the Kmixer! (whatever that is) - and have hit the first problem.
I've downloaded asio4all and installed it - no dramas
then whilst configuring foobar I was told to download the asio4all support dll and place it in the components folder of the foobar installation as below
To use ASIO4ALL with Foobar 2000, you must also download the "ASIO Support" DLL file from the Foobar 2000 website. To install the ASIO Support file, simply copy or move it to the "Components" folder of your Foobar 2000 installation.
then I started foobar again, went to the drop down to select asio4all as below
Start the Foobar 2000 application and then go to "File - Preferences - Playback - Output". Under the drop-down list for "Output Device:" select "ASIO : ASIO4ALL".
................ and it's not there .......
I've tried rebooting several times - unplugging the usb several times - tried it without the usb dac connected several times ............. what the ...!!:(
This asio4all malarky had better be worth it 'cos it is truely taking some time ................................. as you predicted John!!
any ideas what may have happened?
purite audio
01-03-2011, 12:18
Graeme Hi, have you downloaded the ASIO dll app from the ' components' page on Fooobar ( header bar on the Foobar page), once you have downloaded it, then you need to drag it into the Foobar components folder on your PC, which will be in programme files.
Macs are much more straightforward!
Keiht.
here we go again
01-03-2011, 12:28
Keith - yep, as my post says I've done that.
Progress - i had to 'Add new' first !! - it didn't mention that. Anyway - opened the asio4all configuation window - configured a load of stuff - unchecked an 'Always re-sample' box - and exited.
Then my battery went so had to give up while I re-charge! Phew - what a bloody mare this is - i think i have to go back and configure summat else later too!!
here we go again
01-03-2011, 12:49
Ok - everything seems to be working now! - whenever I open foobar i get the asio4all box (with the play/pause symbol) on the system tray too - which i guess means that everything is working together and my usb stream is bit perfect?!?!
Please tell me that's correct!!
next thing ....................... having read up a little more about my Caiman DAC, it seems the internal USB-SPDIF chip is a PCM2902 which is ISOsynchronous - anyone know if this good/bad/irrelevant??
Hi Graeme :)
Cool, you’re getting there then. No, it’s not easy first time round :doh:
It’s true the Macs are easier but you don’t have a Mac do you so ………..
Yep as long as you have the icon showing on your task bar (green with white arrow) you’re good to go.
I’m off out for the rest of the day but I have more info regarding setting up which I will try to get sorted for tomorrow.
Well done anyway :)
Your question regarding the method of data transfer.
“Given you already have Stans 7520 but you’re planning to use a laptop (?) which doesn’t have SPDIF output (?) then to take advantage of the best performance Stans Dac can offer it may be worth considering either a straight USB to SPDIF converter or even an asynchronous converter.”
here we go again
01-03-2011, 13:35
hi John - yep, green box on the taskbar so all is well - excellent. Bleedin' mare that was!!
as for your answer to my question about USB transfer ....................... I'm confused (again!). No - my netbook does not have SPDIF. I don't have a Standac 7520 either ............ I have a CAIMAN - which has a USB input rather than the second toslink input - and that usb input uses an internal PCM2902 convertor.
So ..................... is this USB input a 'decent' way to do it? - Or do you think that a seperate external USB/SPDIF convertor using a coax input on my Caiman would improve things? If so - by some margin? or is the PCM2902 likely to be used in any external convertor anyway!
The part about isosynchronous and asynchronous beats me too! ...................... despite wiki doing it's best, I still cannot fathom the differences nor tell which is used/needs to be used!!!!
Isosynchronous is just the term covering the different time dependant transfer modes. You want to be be looking for the differences between adaptive and asynchronous modes.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Asynchronicity-USB-Audio-Primer
StanleyB
01-03-2011, 14:45
So ..................... is this USB input a 'decent' way to do it? - Or do you think that a seperate external USB/SPDIF convertor using a coax input on my Caiman would improve things? If so - by some margin? or is the PCM2902 likely to be used in any external convertor anyway!
The part about isosynchronous and asynchronous beats me too! ...................... despite wiki doing it's best, I still cannot fathom the differences nor tell which is used/needs to be used!!!!
From a manufacturer's point of view I would suggest that you stick to using the USB on the Caiman. The classifieds on a number of forums has seen the resale of various USB to SPDIF converts that people bought to use with the Caiman ;).
As for async versus adaptive USB: it's your money, but don't swallow the async hype. Maddoff got away with his for decades..
here we go again
01-03-2011, 16:52
hello Stan - I hear what you're saying and actually it was the existence of the (unused) USB input that got me into this in the first place so I don't particularly want to start 'upgrading' it already! - and it did sound pretty good when I first hooked up.
Anyway, now that I apparently have a usb stream that is as good as it can be (at least i think that's what i now have!) I can at least start to listen critically to some more music in WAV/FLACs
I'm still sure that until I can find an interface/box/server/streamer that is user friendly - I am more likely to just stick a record on or play a CD than I am to move the lappy over to the hifi, plug it in, boot it up and listen that way!!
hello Stan - I hear what you're saying and actually it was the existence of the (unused) USB input that got me into this in the first place so I don't particularly want to start 'upgrading' it already! - and it did sound pretty good when I first hooked up.
Anyway, now that I apparently have a usb stream that is as good as it can be (at least i think that's what i now have!) I can at least start to listen critically to some more music in WAV/FLACs
I'm still sure that until I can find an interface/box/server/streamer that is user friendly - I am more likely to just stick a record on or play a CD than I am to move the lappy over to the hifi, plug it in, boot it up and listen that way!!
You could use winamp instead of Foobar, as it has a nicer interface IMHO and an android phone app to control & sync, but it's a pig to set up with ASIO, even worse than foobar, as there's no official winamp plugin...
Given your repeated 'requirements' the SqueezeBox Touch sounds like the boy for you...;)
here we go again
01-03-2011, 19:03
hi Will - thanks again for the input ........... just a couple of questions.
Is it the case that the Squeezebox Touch, together with a simple external usb hard drive - will do what i want it to do? - that is, select & play a FLAC/WAV and output it down the SPDIF? - nothing else needed so to speak.
presumably it has a remote of some kind too?
Are there any 'bit perfect/asio4all' issues with storing the files on an external USB hard drive??
I have also read a few reports suggesting that the SB Touch has occasional issues with an external USB hard drive - typical!!
If you’ve followed all the instructions on the Ayre site regarding your OS, music player you should now have a basic file audio setup.
The bad news first then :(
What you have now (XP foobar, asio4all) is a system capable of 16/ 44.1, 24/44.1 and 16 (and/or) 24/48.
You won’t be able to play higher resolution files with this configuration.
Natively, (without proprietary drivers) Windows will only play 24/96 max using USB as data transfer. One advantage Macs have with Snow Leopard, they’ll play natively through to 24/192.
You can buy!! Asio drivers to get around this and I’ve been told they work well but…..
There is a way around but once again it takes a bit of head scratching.
This is a great tool and rarely gets mentioned these days.
http://reclock.free.fr/
However, it runs best with this.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/
also a fantastic player but as ugly as a ducks arse and about as user friendly as your local Hi Fi dealer.
You need this to get the best out of reclock/MPC
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Video/Codec-Packs-Video-Codecs/KLite-Mega-Codec-Pack.shtml
It’s a bit of mission to set up but worth persevering with.
The easy alternative is to transfer to Windows 7 if your laptop can handle it. You’ll need at least 1 gig of RAM to keep Windows 7 happy and a processor above 1.5GHz. Win 7 will run something called Hog Mode for best audio playback. Worth looking into at some point.
There is also Linux Voyager which will (I have on good authority and have heard) play hi res up to 24/192.
While the Linux system is great (the Touch runs on Linux) the guys who man the forums speak a really odd language (geekish) and I retire with a migraine just trying to find out the simplest things :doh:
However, my Music Server will be Linux based, just need to get in a big enough stock of paracetamol to get it sorted :mental:
Finally but possibly the best solution if you have the right setup is the Logitech Touch. This will play all resolutions to 24/192. Some may mistakenly believe I have something against the Touch; I don’t its fantastic bit of kit but it has connectivity issues and processing power issues. Give it a bit more development time and it will probably make most of the above redundant :eyebrows:
You’ve gone the hardcore route and despite all the frustrations imo you will be in far better position to evaluate file based audio and future tweaks and upgrades than if you had just gone for a plug in solution at the outset……..you can kick me later.
”I'm still sure that until I can find an interface/box/server/streamer that is user friendly - I am more likely to just stick a record on or play a CD than I am to move the lappy over to the hifi, plug it in, boot it up and listen that way!!”
The Logitech touch would go some way to sorting the ease of use out. But, as mentioned it has its drawbacks.
If you find file audio gives better quality audio than your CD player setup as I did (had Exposure 2010 CD) then its worth taking a more serious view of file audio and getting mains powered remote hard drives, dedicating a laptop to just music, perhaps considering building a music server etc.
There are a great many options but imo the thing to remember is file audio is no different from any other audio and to approach it as a convenient way to get a few tunes from a computer will result in exactly that…….a few computer tunes.
Possibly the best quality audio I have heard has come form a file based system; okay it was a lot more complex and costly than what you or I have but it is possible to get outstanding audio from a computer, it just takes time and knowledge………oh arr, forgot the important bit….money.
Anyway, I hope this has all helped.
here we go again
02-03-2011, 08:41
hello John - thanks again for a great post with loads of good info.
For the time being any file audio i have is going to be ripped from my own Cd collection so the ability to transfer & play 24/192 is not important. For my first foray into this file audio world I'm happy with what my Netbook/Caiman can do.
In the slightly longer term and regarding the Touch and your suggestion that it has connectivity issues - are these issues the usb hard drive problems that I have read about? or other things?
the lack of processing power issue concerns me a little - how much processing power does it need to play an audio file?? - I can't believe it is that much - are you saying that you think the Touch has been underspecced to carry out this fundamental task and has problems doing that?
There will be loads more questions as I go down the road further - I greatly appreciate the help from one and all.
hello John - thanks again for a great post with loads of good info.
For the time being any file audio i have is going to be ripped from my own Cd collection so the ability to transfer & play 24/192 is not important. For my first foray into this file audio world I'm happy with what my Netbook/Caiman can do.
In the slightly longer term and regarding the Touch and your suggestion that it has connectivity issues - are these issues the usb hard drive problems that I have read about? or other things?
the lack of processing power issue concerns me a little - how much processing power does it need to play an audio file?? - I can't believe it is that much - are you saying that you think the Touch has been underspecced to carry out this fundamental task and has problems doing that?
There will be loads more questions as I go down the road further - I greatly appreciate the help from one and all.
The best setup for any SqueezeBox player, the touch included, is for it to have a central server supplying the music and controlling the players, there are some thoughts that it is even better to have them hard wired, as opposed to using the wi-fi connection, although there are lots of debates about this on the SB forum.
I got into the SB setup before the Touch came out, so I have a central QNAP TS-119 1 Tb server, and 2 Receivers (one into my main Audiolab DAC), and 1 SB3/Classic, and I use the wi-fi connection for all of them...the whole idea for me was NOT having Ethernet cables throughout the house.
The Touch does have it's own optional server capabilities, when one plugs in a USB HD it defaults to becoming a server as well as a player.
By all accounts (N.B. I have no personal experience of the Touch) it's functionality as a server is a little restricted, playlist size is restricted to 100 tracks etc. And it can only serve up standard resolution FLAC, although the player portion has higher resolution capabilities.
There are also thoughts that using it as a server & player has a detrimental effect on the quality of playback, as you say the device is not over speced, so it must be being pushed to its limit.
There are some Touch owners on this site with experience of it as a stand alone machine, and some of those that have moved towards a client server, and have experience of both configurations... Chris, Ali Tait & Gazjam all spring to mind.
For me the whole point of a SB configuration is the ability to have multiple players running from the same server and source, I also use winamp on my PC & laptops against the same FLAC library. So I'd always advocate the use of a central server, whether with SB or not.
If you did go with the Touch on it's own initially, to dip your toe in the water as it were, you could always augment it with a server at a later date.
There are also aftermarket mods available for all the SB players, along with better power supplies etc.
If you have a smartphone there are a few apps out there that allow you to control a SB setup, I use SqueezeCommander on my HTC desire (about £3) very successfully, and I believe iPeng on an iPhone will also act as a player...come on you android developers I want a player too :eyebrows:
I should make it quite clear here my opinion of how to get the best sound from file audio and what is, or isn’t important, is just opinion.
My view is computers and Dacs handle data better than an analogue signal so the longer you can keep audio files as data the better.
USB is the most common computer connection and is under progressive development; SPDIF isn’t.
Asynchronous USB in general gives better results than adaptive USB, or SPDIF.
This is a decent review of the Touch.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Logitech-Squeezebox-Touch-Review
Apart from that mentioned by Will above for me the touch has one major drawback, while you can input via USB (one socket) you can’t output via USB and that rules out the use of a USB Dac.
It also means that you can only connect a single remote hard drive.
Apart from the above and as Will mentions it’s limited in processing power and won’t handle a large music library without the aid of another computer.
There are other applications that will run on a laptop that will give remote control ability if that’s important to you so I can’t really see the point of having yet another computer in the chain for the sake of convenience.
I have two external hard drives (not a NAS) connected to my laptop, one for play files the other for backup and of course, I have a USB only Dac so the touch doesn’t really make sense for me in its present guise.
Given file audio is my sole means of playing music upgrading potential is important. While there are tweaks for the Touch the possibility of upgrading electronics, connection methods and alternative players and OS’s would seem to be very limited without a completely new model.
Finally, I’m not interested in network streaming audio so this feature of the Touch is wasted on me.
This has been a very interesting thread with plenty of great advice from John & Will. I do a fair amount of my listening now via file based audio and am very pleased with the results, especially after buying the Caiman DAC. Easy access to my music was the driving force for me, as scrabbling around looking for a CD in subdued lighting with 50 year old eyes, was starting to annoy me! DAC's have improved immensely and become more affordable too. In fact I'm sitting in bed listening to Tori Amos on my netbook, via my iBasso DAC to files accessed wirelessly from my FLAC library and I cannot fault the quality at all. Since I ripped my collection, I have also listened to much more of my music and played things I have not played for ages...... I've also bought more music as well, but I'm not sure how that happened, I suspect joining the forum has not helped!
I researched and assessed many different methods of sourcing audio files, before settling on my current format. I didn't like the Touch due to it's lack of processing power and adaptability. It is a convenient device, but for me it couldn't provide what I needed. The Squeeze options were discounted for similar reasons. The major deciding factor for me however was that I already had a Windows 7 netbook, as well as 2 normal laptops and a desktop computer. So it seemed crazy to buy another device that wouldn't really do anymore than what I already had.
My library is all FLAC and now held on a 1TB NAS, with a backup on my desktop PC and a further 1.5TB HDD backup stored away from the PC (can't be too careful!).
I still listen to CD's on my main system, mainly during the day. Later at night I tend to switch to headphones, as I live in an apartment and use my HD650's. Normally via a headphone amp and the Caiman DAC, using USB and the netbook, or my main PC if working on that. All my computers are networked, so any one of them can access the library. I also have my DVD library on a HDD now and play those via HDMI from my newest laptop to the plasma TV.
I have tried all the differing players, but keep coming back to Foobar especially now there is WASAPI (all my machines are Windows 7, you need at least Vista for WASAPI). I like a very minimal layout, no album artwork or add-ons, just the simple easy to navigate default Foobar interface. I'm also still using a 2008 version of EAC (v0.99) for ripping as I have it configured just how I like it and it works.
For me file based audio and Spotify have taken my enjoyment of music to another level (and a smaller bank balance!). I doubt it will ever replace my main system, it just enhances it and makes music so much more accessible. I don't download music either, as I like to have the physical CD and these are so affordable now with Amazon Marketplace and eBay.
I still tinker with things, but the above is pretty much my preferred format now, but that's the beauty of being computer based, you can tinker and upgrade. I can also remotely control my other PC's if needed from my netbook using RADMIN remote control software - http://www.radmin.com/ which is very easy to use and setup. Backing up my library is also very simple, using Allway Sync, file synchronisation software - http://allwaysync.com/
Pros:
Ease of access to my music library
Playback quality that meets my needs
Error free play and no buffering issues
Upgradeable and flexible
Cons:
Additional hardware costs
Needs maintenance, requiring regular backups if you add to the library a lot
The initial huge time investment needed for ripping a large CD collection to audio files (1,000 CD's should take at least a couple of weeks of working all day and that's on a fast desktop machine, a laptop will take considerably longer)
For me the pros outweigh the cons quite considerably, when balanced against the enjoyment it gives me. It may not work for everyone, but it sure works for me and I wouldn't be without it now :)
The initial huge time investment needed for ripping a large CD collection to audio files (1,000 CD's should take at least a couple of weeks of working all day and that's on a fast desktop machine, a laptop will take considerably longer)
Agreed...Oh man, doing the first big rip is a grind, well worth a full sized CD/ROM, if I'd used a laptop drive I'd still be doing it now, and with far more errors.
It really is worth buying a good drive for the increased accuracy too, you only want to do this once so best get it right first time.
I did about 2k over a course of about 3 months, every spare moment, a couple before work, a couple during dinner...I'd better stop before the flashbacks return ;)
P.S. This is where dBpoweramp pays for itself IMHO :)
People may have different opinions on the best way to source and play FLAC, and there's probably pros and cons with all...and indeed I'm sure I'll change my replay methods over time, but the main thing is that I have my FLAC library moving forward which will be future compatible...even if one day it's hosted on the 'cloud'.
Oh and I can play it on my Android phone too now...which is nice;)
here we go again
02-03-2011, 14:48
Wow!!
It's great to hear these different viewpoints from folk who, presumably asked the same questions as I am doing - albeit some time ago now (told you I was always behind the current thinking!)
This is how I see it right now
1. laptops/netbooks/remote servers/networks and all that, is not for me at this point - i have a very traditional approach to music - my hifi is at one end of the room on it's own and I like it like that - I don't own an ipod/iphone so the remote control thing would be a problem.
2. It has been great to get my netbook set up properly and listen to some usb streamed lossless files - just to dip my toe and hear what the fuss was all about and whether i could see it working for me - and I certainly can - notwithstanding the accessibility and remote issues.
3. The Touch seems to be a product that is 'almost' perfect for me - but if the issue with a usb drive reared it's ugly head I would be peeved - leaving me with no option but to go the whole hog and get a server/remote drive thing for it.
So ................. for the moment I'm gonna continue to rip my CDs while I listen to file audio occasionally using my netbook/usb/Caiman and keep my ear to the ground for another 'yet to be released' solution - Touch Mk2 perhaps!
Once more - my thanks to all you file audio converts for taking the time to show me the way.
So ................. for the moment I'm gonna continue to rip my CDs while I listen to file audio occasionally using my netbook/usb/Caiman and keep my ear to the ground for another 'yet to be released' solution - Touch Mk2 perhaps!
Once more - my thanks to all you file audio converts for taking the time to show me the way.
That is a very good idea ;)
. . . it was the hardest part of the whole thing for me, takes a lot of time, patience and 'T' and biscuits :)
I can only tell you what has worked well for me.
I got an older apple T.V. mine has been moded like Hell and has a 7200 rpm Sata 500gig hard drive in it and has been modded to run very much cooler.(makes a nice music server)
I use a real glass optical cable to a stand alone DAC. and an HDMI cable to our 65 inch T.V. so you can scroll through the menu in high def and the cover art looks great.
I use the apple lossless codec.
It sounds pretty good going into a nice tube amp.
Good luck, as computer assisted audio can be a real big pain in the Arss.
I would suggest using the latest version of Itunes with a plug in called Tune up companion.
So simple to find the correct artwork this way.
The hardest thing for me was giveing up my massive Lp collection and first rate vinyl rig.
After I get my whole collection replaced and ripped and backed up all my CD's will be boxed and stored.
I have 112 gigs of apple lossless at just under 5,000 songs/412 albums at this point .
That is a very good idea ;)
. . . it was the hardest part of the whole thing for me, takes a lot of time, patience and 'T' and biscuits :)
I'll second that. The 'Touch' is a step in the right direction - an affordable step toward ditching your computer, but at the moment in terms of SQ and practicality its not quite there yet.
I'll second that. The 'Touch' is a step in the right direction - an affordable step toward ditching your computer, but at the moment in terms of SQ and practicality its not quite there yet.
I can understand the reservation in terms of practicality (not everyone savours spending the time required to get a Squeezebox Server up, ripping the CDs, etc). However in terms of SQ it gives away little when used as a transport feeding very high quality dacs.
Things can move a step up when a Squeezebox Server is combined with a digital room correction like Inguz or BrutefirDRC.
Ali Tait
06-03-2011, 17:28
I should make it quite clear here my opinion of how to get the best sound from file audio and what is, or isn’t important, is just opinion.
My view is computers and Dacs handle data better than an analogue signal so the longer you can keep audio files as data the better.
USB is the most common computer connection and is under progressive development; SPDIF isn’t.
Asynchronous USB in general gives better results than adaptive USB, or SPDIF.
This is a decent review of the Touch.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Logitech-Squeezebox-Touch-Review
Apart from that mentioned by Will above for me the touch has one major drawback, while you can input via USB (one socket) you can’t output via USB and that rules out the use of a USB Dac.
It also means that you can only connect a single remote hard drive.
Apart from the above and as Will mentions it’s limited in processing power and won’t handle a large music library without the aid of another computer.
There are other applications that will run on a laptop that will give remote control ability if that’s important to you so I can’t really see the point of having yet another computer in the chain for the sake of convenience.
I have two external hard drives (not a NAS) connected to my laptop, one for play files the other for backup and of course, I have a USB only Dac so the touch doesn’t really make sense for me in its present guise.
Given file audio is my sole means of playing music upgrading potential is important. While there are tweaks for the Touch the possibility of upgrading electronics, connection methods and alternative players and OS’s would seem to be very limited without a completely new model.
Finally, I’m not interested in network streaming audio so this feature of the Touch is wasted on me.
John, you can tweak the Touch to output via USB. There is a thread about it on the Squeezebox forum.
Ali Tait
06-03-2011, 17:29
Here 'tis-
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82110
Cheers Ali.
I’ve already checked this out and it won’t work with asynchronous data transfer and you’re still left with connection problems and lack of processing power. Too many problems and unsupported partial solutions :(
Next one maybe mate, but by that time I’ll have my server built………….perhaps :eyebrows:
Ali Tait
06-03-2011, 18:37
Yes, if only they'd designed the Touch properly in the first place.
To be fair it is a great sounding bit of kit if …………
It’s the ifs that are the problem.
For people using or wanting to use SPDIF out and have a SPDIF ready Dac it could be just the answer as long as they don’t have a large music library or don’t mind boosting its performance with another computer.
Maybe we should nip round to Logitech and tell em where they went wrong :eek::lolsign:
here we go again
06-03-2011, 19:03
Well I've spent the last few days ripping away at my Cd's and slowly creating a library of music on my hard drive. One thing I had omitted to do initially was to set up Exact Audio Copy as per the instructions a few pages back - there was so much other stuff to 'configure' that I obviously missed it somehow!!:scratch:
Anyway - it does take quite a bit of time to rip a CD - especially some of my older ones - but i am ripping to WAV, converting to FLAC and then keeping both, separating them into different folders - the FLACs to play and the WAV's as a backup. I've only done about 20 CDs!! - feels like I've been doing it all weekend :rolleyes:
I've plugged my netbook into my Caiman a few times too - just be give a few albums a good ole listen - and I have to say it's pretty damn good!! :) - I'm confident that I'm making accurate rips now - and streaming it with foobar/asio4all seems to do the trick. Now that I've got the foobar display looking decent it is also reasonably user friendly too!! - almost there but no cigar yet.
I'm sure I've read every review of the Touch that the web has to offer now and while there are lots of people who have had problems using the Touch as a standalone with a usb HD - there are quite a few folk who use it in this manner and have had no problems at all - the trick seems to be a firmware update, no power saving stuff on the drive, removing all but music files from the drive, no embedded cover art, small cover art jpgs and a simple folder system ...................... then for the most part the Touch seems happy!
There is still something holding me back though - can't help but think that there is a Touch Mk2 version just around the corner - hopefully with all the niggles addressed!! - unless I find one real cheap I'm likely gonna hang on for the Mk2.
We tend to think of CD replay and CD players as necessary companions. A separate transport is one possibility.
This is another;
http://www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/perfectwave-transport?cat=audio
I’m very keen on getting the optical drive out of the main computer. They are not all the same (much like CD transports) and a good quality drive can vastly improve ripping time and quality. I can’t find a single reason why an optical drive can’t perform the task of reading digital data from a disc as well as an audiophile CD transport. What it does with that data afterwards is something else.
Computer sites rather than Hi Fi sites are the best place to research these.
I thought this looked quite interesting.
http://www.synology.com/us/products/DS411slim/index.php
This has become a bit of a problem with file based audio; having to trawl through not necessarily related sites etc to find the info you need.
Not a lot here on the relative merits of passive cooling, processors etc or music server building :doh:
Perhaps this is something the ones keen on file audio can make a start on sorting out :)
My theory is this. In time many audiophiles are going to turn to file based systems and we all know what happens when the term audiophile and what may be a fairly ordinary product get together; the price quadruples :eek::eek:
.
So far, this isn’t happening with computers, they want to sell lots and this helps to keep prices down. Most of the stuff of interest to file audio enthusiasts is going down in price rather than up, SSD, Dacs, suitable Mother Boards, ready built music players. Also, the computer guys are a bit more realistic in their gear assessment; they tend to go by measured performance, particularly noticeable in anything to do with gaming such as GFX cards and powerful processors.
The down side to all this is very few of us have got a clue know what’s going on inside the chips and getting information in plain English about exactly how something does what it does is virtually impossible. For example, to my ears different music players sound different but I don’t really have a clue why.
Anyway - it does take quite a bit of time to rip a CD - especially some of my older ones - but i am ripping to WAV, converting to FLAC and then keeping both, separating them into different folders - the FLACs to play and the WAV's as a backup. I've only done about 20 CDs!! - feels like I've been doing it all weekend :rolleyes:
.
Hope you don't mind me saying, but that seems a lot of work? If you are keeping the CD's, then that would be one backup, then just keep a backup of your music library on another disc. I backup to another hard drive at the end of every ripping session.
I find I can do a CD in around 4 minutes using EAC. I have 2 ripping profiles, one for speed and one for error correction. I've tested it quite a lot and if the CD is in pristine condition, I rip with the speed profile and this gives me good accurate audio files. If the disc is marked or scratched I use the error correction profile, which takes a long time, but you get good files. If you are checking them with 'accuraterip' then you should be fine either way. As 95% of my discs are pristine, then I get through them at a good rate.
You could be at it a very long time if you have a large library....... :scratch:
Stratmangler
06-03-2011, 19:59
Hope you don't mind me saying, but that seems a lot of work....
I had the same thought.
If you dig around a little bit in EAC, under the Action dropdown you can create a cue sheet for the files you are ripping.
I'd also set EAC to do the FLAC conversion after ripping each track.
As you are manually compressing to FLAC you must already have a FLAC compression/decompression tool, so all you have to do is decompress the files to WAV, and use EAC and the cue sheet to burn up a CD.
here we go again
06-03-2011, 19:59
Hope you don't mind me saying, but that seems a lot of work? If you are keeping the CD's, then that would be one backup, then just keep a backup of your music library on another disc. I backup to another hard drive at the end of every ripping session.
You could be at it a very long time if you have a large library....... :scratch:
When I was first looking at this file audio lark I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was a good idea to a WAV file stored rather than just a FLAC - so I started doing that. At the moment my rips are just being stored on my netbook hard drive - in seperate folders - FLAC & WAV. All the CD's are still available next to my hifi. When I get around to moving to the next level - ie. with a Touch/Touch Mk 2 with an external HD - then I'll have the FLACs on one HD, connected & available to play - plus a HD full of WAVs as a backup - at that point the CD's can be boxed up as they are ripped........................
at least that's how I envisage it panning out!! - things may change though :scratch:
Stratmangler
06-03-2011, 20:02
The FLAC compression/decompression is lossless - you can convert back and forth as much as you like and take note of the checksums at each step - there will be no degeneration or changes.
here we go again
06-03-2011, 20:04
I had the same thought.
If you dig around a little bit in EAC, under the Action dropdown you can create a cue sheet for the files you are ripping.
I'd also set EAC to do the FLAC conversion after ripping each track.
As you are manually compressing to FLAC you must already have a FLAC compression/decompression tool, so all you have to do is decompress the files to WAV, and use EAC and the cue sheet to burn up a CD.
I'm not really sure what a 'cue' sheet is guys :scratch:
Right now i rip with EAC to WAV - which then compresses to FLAC after each track using FLAC.exe - I uncheck the EAC options box which says 'delete WAV after compression' - and that leaves the WAV file in the same album folder for me to organise later - maybe it's taking quite a long time because it's a netbook with an external usb CD drive!!
Stratmangler
06-03-2011, 20:07
I'd tick the "delete WAV" option.
If you use FLAC.exe to compress the files, you can also use FLAC.exe to decompress them.
The cue sheet is just for recreating CDs if you want to or need to do so.
here we go again
06-03-2011, 20:10
The FLAC compression/decompression is lossless - you can convert back and forth as much as you like and take note of the checksums at each step - there will be no degeneration or changes.
I just like the idea of keeping the original WAV available as the backup - with no compression or file manipulation having taken place - the data straight off the disc so to speak - which I THINK it what it is!! - maybe that's not the case though?!?
"I'd tick the "delete WAV" option."
I wouldn’t, despite the fact I listen to Flac, I still store a WAV copy that hasn’t undergone any processing.
Can I hear a difference between an original WAV and Flac? ……..nope.
But, if one day I can, I don’t want to be faced with a collection re- rip or decompressions.
Given you only want to do this once and want the best possible copies is it worth taking any chances despite what the science and current opinion may say.
Stratmangler
06-03-2011, 20:20
I just like the idea of keeping the original WAV available as the backup - with no compression or file manipulation having taken place - the data straight off the disc so to speak - which I THINK it what it is!! - maybe that's not the case though?!?
I can see where you're coming from, it's just that you can covert to and from flac ad infinitum with no loss of quality.
If you take a WAV file, and convert it to a FLAC, then covert that FLAC to a WAV the resultant 2nd WAV is identical to the 1st.
You can fill your HDD with subsequent generations of compression and decompression, and when you've finshed you could compare WAV 1 with WAV 273,292 and they'll be identical.
That's how lossless FLAC compression/decompression is.
here we go again
06-03-2011, 20:23
re - NOT deleting the WAV
Yeah - I'm with you on this John - I think it was you that mentioned it earlier on and it makes sense to me too. Just nice to have available should the worst happen.
here we go again
06-03-2011, 20:25
If you take a WAV file, and convert it to a FLAC, then covert that FLAC to a WAV the resultant 2nd WAV is identical to the 1st.
You can fill your HDD with subsequent generations of compression and decompression, and when you've finshed you could compare WAV 1 with WAV 273,292 and they'll be identical.
That's how lossless FLAC compression/decompression is.
Yep - I hear you Chris ....................... I'm just being rather old fashioned i guess!!
maybe it's taking quite a long time because it's a netbook with an external usb CD drive!!
OMG..... you are a very determined fella, hats off to you then as that will take a long time - you need a beer after that :cool:
it will be worth it in the end :)
I still store a WAV copy that hasn’t undergone any processing.
Can I hear a difference between an original WAV and Flac? ……..nope.
But, if one day I can, I don’t want to be faced with a collection re- rip or decompressions.
Given you only want to do this once and want the best possible copies is it worth taking any chances despite what the science and current opinion may say.
I can't argue with that logic...... too late for me now :scratch:
I can't argue with that logic...... too late for me now :scratch:
I can...:)
If one can recreate the exact bit for bit version of the WAV file from the FLAC file, at any time, why would one want to archive a copy of the WAV file along with it...unless you have shares in Seagate? You're increasing your storage requirements by 150%!
John just keep a copy of one WAV handy, so you can do a comparison every now and again just to re-assure yourself there's no difference between them. And if one day you can, then just convert your collection to WAV...storage will be much cheaper in the future...;)
Think of FLAC as WinZip for WAV files...
If one can recreate the exact bit for bit version of the WAV file from the FLAC file, at any time, why would one want to archive a copy of the WAV file along with it...unless you have shares in Seagate? You're increasing your storage requirements by 150%!
I can't argue with that either . . . so my vote goes this way ;)
Stratmangler
08-03-2011, 00:17
I can't argue with that either . . . so my vote goes this way ;)
Welcome back;)
Given the current price of storage, the extra space argument isn’t really relevant.
Anyway, I’ll be hanging on to my WAV rips, just in case.
This forum and others are full of people’s subjective evaluations defying current scientific assessment. At currently over 1TB of music, I’m taking no chances ;)
Given the current price of storage, the extra space argument isn’t really relevant.
Anyway, I’ll be hanging on to my WAV rips, just in case.
This forum and others are full of people’s subjective evaluations defying current scientific assessment. At currently over 1TB of music, I’m taking no chances ;)
Hi John,
Is that a Tb of FLAC or WAV, or both ? ;)
If I stored a WAV copy too, I'd need over 2.4TB (I'm at 800 Gb with FLAC alone) so a 3TB server, plus another 3TB for a RAID image, and another 3TB for a software backup...it starts to mount up, DASD may be cheaper than it was, but it's not that cheap :)
Where does your suspicion of FLAC stem from? :eyebrows:
That’s Flac mate! :eek:
It sounds like an awful lot of music but bear in mind it’s not all CD or download based.
I have a great deal of music on reel to reel tape which is gradually getting transferred to file and is irreplaceable.
”Where does your suspicion of FLAC stem from? ”
Same place my suspicion of a great deal of audio related “facts” comes form, years of experience and a science based education. I know it seems odd for someone who has a reputation as a die hard objectivist :mental:
I listen to Flac and as I’ve said, so far I have been unable to tell the difference between it and WAV on my system. However, listening to WAV and Flac on my mates kit and I’m not so sure. Whether it’s because within the decompression process the hardware and software make an audible difference or that there is an intrinsic difference I can’t say.
I don’t have the best hearing or the best kit by a long chalk but as my knowledge and experience of file based audio increases, certainties diminish :eyebrows:
I just want to add…
I’m not an advocated of file audio for convenience, something I get the impression a lot of contributors here are. I don’t think it is that convenient; putting a CD in a player is a lot easier ;)
My interest in file audio is quality based; it can be better than any CD system I’ve heard so far.
It’s all very well comparing a laptop based system to some of the £20000+ systems recently on show, or making statements that a some £5000 pre amp will provide superb audio. The fact is a great many of us can’t afford to spend these amounts on Hi Fi.
What file based audio has done for the first time in my memory at least is make excellent quality audio availible at a reasonable cost and so far (this is changing unfortunately) without all the audiophile bollocks that often comes with vinyl and CD.
A simple laptop based server, a modestly priced Dac, amp and speaker system can give astoundingly good quality audio at a fraction of the cost of some of the more esoteric systems I’ve heard.
I’m not remotely interested in streaming audio from room to room or having my music collection available on my phone or any of the other trick gadgetry often associated with computer based audio.
That’s Flac mate! :eek:
It sounds like an awful lot of music but bear in mind it’s not all CD or download based.
I have a great deal of music on reel to reel tape which is gradually getting transferred to file and is irreplaceable.
”Where does your suspicion of FLAC stem from? ”
Same place my suspicion of a great deal of audio related “facts” comes form, years of experience and a science based education. I know it seems odd for someone who has a reputation as a die hard objectivist :mental:
I listen to Flac and as I’ve said, so far I have been unable to tell the difference between it and WAV on my system. However, listening to WAV and Flac on my mates kit and I’m not so sure. Whether it’s because within the decompression process the hardware and software make an audible difference or that there is an intrinsic difference I can’t say.
I don’t have the best hearing or the best kit by a long chalk but as my knowledge and experience of file based audio increases, certainties diminish :eyebrows:
You must have a server farm John :lol:
I agree that there could be differences in FLAC v WAV playback, on certain 'players', transcoding and all that malarkey, but as you say I can't hear the difference on my kit.
If I do have to go to WAV I will have a beast of a conversion exercise to do, we'll see if that bridge ever needs crossing ;)
But at least I can do it if needs be...
2 TB remote Flac based hard drives plugged into a laptop, 3 more 1 TB drives with WAV as backup.
I don’t have all the music I have in WAV…..I’ll leave that one to your knowledge of the internet and music availability :eek:;)
...all paid for I'm sure ;)
StanleyB
08-03-2011, 12:02
I agree that there could be differences in FLAC v WAV playback, on certain 'players', transcoding and all that malarkey, but as you say I can't hear the difference on my kit.
Have you tried something a bit better and more revealing like a Caiman/Gator combination? You'll notice the difference without straining your ears ;).
Not yet Stan but I’ll work my way down to that one day ;)
Have you tried something a bit better and more revealing like a Caiman/Gator combination? You'll notice the difference without straining your ears ;).
All depends on what's producing the digital signal for the DAC to consume :)
StanleyB
08-03-2011, 12:33
So goes the theory, but as many happy Caiman owners can confirm, the Caiman/Gator combination defy many commonly held believes ;).
So goes the theory, but as many happy Caiman owners can confirm, the Caiman/Gator combination defy many commonly held believes ;).
Come on Stan, your DAC could be the best in the world, but it's still dependant on its source, it's not magic! :)
StanleyB
08-03-2011, 13:48
Come on Stan, your DAC could be the best in the world, but it's still dependant on its source, it's not magic! :) Of course it isn't magic. It's just a better product :).
Of course it isn't magic. It's just a better product :).
You're a Caiman not a snake Stan :lol:
Is it dependant on it's source;)
a. Yes
b. No
c. It's magic
d. All of the above
e. None of the above
Reid Malenfant
08-03-2011, 14:30
Is it dependant on it's source;)
No source = no music ;)
Crap source = crap music :eek:
Good source = good music :)
Garbage in, garbage out... Of course it's dependant on the source :eyebrows:
No source = no music ;)
Crap source = crap music :eek:
Good source = good music :)
Garbage in, garbage out... Of course it's dependant on the source :eyebrows:
He's a slippery customer young Stan :lol:
magiccarpetride
08-03-2011, 17:46
So goes the theory, but as many happy Caiman owners can confirm, the Caiman/Gator combination defy many commonly held believes ;).
I am a happy Caiman owner, and I can confirm the above. Still, subsequent to reaching the 'peak' of digital-to-analog conversion, I've made a series of improvements upstream from Caiman (most of those regarding the digital pathway before it hits Caiman), and let me tell you -- the improvements have been enormous.
Caiman is very grateful if you feed it healthy, clean, pristine signal. It is incapable of salvaging shitty signal, that much is certain.
So no, no magic, none at all.
Interesting thread, I'v red only last 3 pages yet, but seems that people interested how Caiman with Gator sound with different sources, so here is my experience:
I've found NO difference in sound (listened via HD800 plugged to Caiman) in between following:
1. MacBook Pro model 2,2 via optical toslink cable [FLAC]
2. iMac coire i7 via optical cable [FLAC]
3. NAD T562 DVD player via optical cable - original CD which I converted to FLAC used above
4. Squeezebox Touch via optical cable
Where I've found difference:
1. cheapo optical cable/ toslink->3,5mm optical jack convertor caused sometimes "popping". After replaced with new toslink/jack convertor all OK
2. Toslink optical vs SPDIF coaxial: using SPDIF from T562 or Squeezebox makes high frequencies a subtle little bit less harsh
3. Using different MacOS X software for playback: VLC, Ayrewave ,Decibel etc.. - here I found biggest differences - good software will:
- lock sound output exclusively just for your player
- set bitrate of SPDIF/TOSLINK interface to rate matching source data
- set volume to 100% (so no digital volume control is available and therefore no change to data is done)
- optionally load whole track into memory to avoid any potential stuttering caused by loaded HDD/network source).
Then the only problem with software could be bad implementation of decoding or adding some black magic secret post processing to enhance audio - I have no problem with that until it is clearly visible it's applied and I can really disable it.
So my conclusion is that either all three source devices are about the same quality or i'm deaf :)
Maybe comparison of source devices from other galaxies, like 30eur dvd player vs 3000eur CD player could reveal something else, but I have no access to anything like that :)
Another one of those GREAT threads in the Art of Sound forums!
Let me ask… I also own some hundreds of cds and find myself listening less and less to them… I even download some of them in order not to bother with finding them.
On the other hand, file audio looks like a mixed bag to me.
I have thought about it before, never decided to give it a go. Where I get puzzled is what to use as a source. I don’t want a tower in the sitting room period. It would not survive 3 kids either.
I need something more elegant and simple. A netbook? I don’t know. I feel uncomfortable with it too. Ideally I would like a machine that may reproduce all of my files (wav, flac, ape – less important – mp3) AND HD audio files – aka 24/96 Flac bought over the internet. Needless to say it should also be able to output all of them in full definition to feed the Caiman…
Any interesting ideas that might help?
Thank you in advance!
Ali Tait
17-03-2011, 15:08
Simple- buy a Squeezebox Touch.
Stratmangler
17-03-2011, 15:10
Simple- buy a Squeezebox Touch.
Got there before me - +1
After much deliberation about which way I should go with this and after listening to various 'high-end' solutions, I am currently in the process of building my own dedicated music server. I will be completing a build diary on my personal web-space so those wishing to have a go, can have some idea of what's involved. If I get enough interest I can post links to this in my signature, or maybe start a thread on AoS.
It won't suit everyone, but will at least give some pointers if you should think about it yourself and I will share my cock-ups too, should I make any! ;)
here we go again
18-03-2011, 00:03
You know, since I started this 'hard drive audio' experiment I find myself getting more and more excited about the concept :) - my flac library on my netbook is getting larger and larger - the space taken up by the towering stack of cd's in the living room is getting smaller and smaller - and most importantly and crucially..................... I'm listening to more music than ever before!!!
Bizarrely I seem to have overcome the 'hassle' of booting up the netbook and hooking up the usb to Caiman - the end result is so much more rewarding - seemingly much more enjoyable than dragging the silver disc of the shelf used to be - is it me?
Additionally, I travel a lot so the flac library comes with me on the lappy. Because of this, I recently 'invested' a mighty £40 in a pair of Superlux 668B headphones .................... OMG!!
I've never been a great headphone listener but these phones are just fab - esp. for the money. My flacs played using foobar with that asio4all business sound spectacular and this is just using the inbuilt realtek DAC in my netbook - at home using my Caiman, it feels like a religious experience!!!!
This feels big - I find myself telling everyone about this new way of listening to music :)
Bottom line - I'm so looking forward to getting a good streaming device and I cannot wait to get all my CDs ripped and on a hard drive - pretty much the ONLY thing stopping me buying a Squeezebox Touch is the suspicion that a new one might just be around the corner.
Come on Logitech - you know you want to.....
You know, since I started this 'hard drive audio' experiment I find myself getting more and more excited about the concept :) - my flac library on my netbook is getting larger and larger - the space taken up by the towering stack of cd's in the living room is getting smaller and smaller - and most importantly and crucially..................... I'm listening to more music than ever before!!!
Bizarrely I seem to have overcome the 'hassle' of booting up the netbook and hooking up the usb to Caiman - the end result is so much more rewarding - seemingly much more enjoyable than dragging the silver disc of the shelf used to be - is it me?
Additionally, I travel a lot so the flac library comes with me on the lappy. Because of this, I recently 'invested' a mighty £40 in a pair of Superlux 668B headphones .................... OMG!!
I've never been a great headphone listener but these phones are just fab - esp. for the money. My flacs played using foobar with that asio4all business sound spectacular and this is just using the inbuilt realtek DAC in my netbook - at home using my Caiman, it feels like a religious experience!!!!
This feels big - I find myself telling everyone about this new way of listening to music :)
Bottom line - I'm so looking forward to getting a good streaming device and I cannot wait to get all my CDs ripped and on a hard drive - pretty much the ONLY thing stopping me buying a Squeezebox Touch is the suspicion that a new one might just be around the corner.
Come on Logitech - you know you want to.....
Welcome to the club mate...
The whole portability/accessibility of your collection is a revelation once you've FLACed it, as it were...even on your android phone :eyebrows:
The next step of the addiction is whacking up massive random playlists synchronised to several squeezeboxes in your house, all of course with ReplayGain added...who needs a radio station ;)
And the of course you can access the same library from any PC in the house too...
The one thing that has got me interested in doing File Audio "properly" is something that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, but is actually the crux of why File Audio has the potential to outperform CD replay, even into the same DAC. I'm not sure everyone new to File Audio "gets it" - it has certainly taken me a while!
The rather obvious penny dropped for me the other day. When you play a CD, there will always be errors in the actual optical reading process - a slight smudge on the CD or a speck of dust will cause "jitter". The next time you play the same CD, it will probably send a different set of errors to the DAC!
However, with File Audio you take this variable out of the equation - by creating a bit-perfect digital copy of the CD, you will be feeding the digital data directly to the DAC and the results will be virtually the same every time you play the track.
It might just be data, as I had always thought - but by removing the "on the fly" data extraction (the optical drive) in the playback process is one of the reasons File Audio will always potentially be better than CD...
If I get enough interest I can post links to this in my signature, or maybe start a thread on AoS.
It won't suit everyone, but will at least give some pointers if you should think about it yourself and I will share my cock-ups too, should I make any! ;)
Sounds interesting to me!
I would really appreciate it if you could share the info.
Stratmangler
18-03-2011, 08:29
The one thing that has got me interested in doing File Audio "properly" is something that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, but is actually the crux of why File Audio has the potential to outperform CD replay, even into the same DAC. I'm not sure everyone new to File Audio "gets it" - it has certainly taken me a while!
The rather obvious penny dropped for me the other day. When you play a CD, there will always be errors in the actual optical reading process - a slight smudge on the CD or a speck of dust will cause "jitter". The next time you play the same CD, it will probably send a different set of errors to the DAC!
However, with File Audio you take this variable out of the equation - by creating a bit-perfect digital copy of the CD, you will be feeding the digital data directly to the DAC and the results will be virtually the same every time you play the track.
It might just be data, as I had always thought - but by removing the "on the fly" data extraction (the optical drive) in the playback process is one of the reasons File Audio will always potentially be better than CD...
Now just you try getting that across to a load of audiophiles wedded to their exotic and expensive transports :eyebrows:
It might just be data, as I had always thought - but by removing the "on the fly" data extraction (the optical drive) in the playback process is one of the reasons File Audio will always potentially be better than CD...
Exactly, there is a lot that has to happen in the CDP before it gets to the DAC, moving parts, things spinning at high speed and the error correction is vital to the process. That's all been done during the rip process and if done correctly you will have an error free audio file, that should never change. Reading data direct from a hard drive should always be easier than an optical drive doing it on the fly. The penny didn't really drop for me until I did a lot of direct comparisons with my CDP...... I sat there :scratch: thinking how can that (netbook) sound so much better than my CD player. But when I thought about what was happening, it made sense. I also had some pointers from folk here that confirmed what I was thinking. It gave me the biggest upgrade to my sound, for the least amount of money. Of course, if you have a very high end CDP, the difference may not be so dramatic. But my 10 year old A3 against Stan's Caiman was no competition.
The final two components for my dedicated music server arrived this morning too, so I will be building soon :)
The final two components for my dedicated music server arrived this morning too, so I will be building soon :)
Will be watching with interest Tim - good luck!
Will be watching with interest Tim - good luck!
Thanks, I think I know what I'm doing, but who knows....... ;) Won't be able to start for a few days though, got a long weekend away this weekend, then off to Holland for the Marillion Weekend on Wednesday :cool:
:)
Now just you try getting that across to a load of audiophiles wedded to their exotic and expensive transports :eyebrows:
This is an interesting read from less loss company...
(I hope that this is not against forum rules and has nothing to do with promoting a company in any way. In case I made a mistake I appologise and ask for the link to be removed).
http://www.lessloss.com/page.html?id=40
It explains in detail (but not too much of it) how optical componets plague listening to music...
I found it very helpful and I realy hope you will enjoy it too!
An interesting article and lots of the points raised are things I have been thinking about. Having played around with differing sources, I found that having things like screens, keyboards and mice in the equation can have an impact on the sound. Using a laptop, as I do right now, can introduce imperfections in the sound - so my server will have as little in it as possible, with as little connected to it as possible. I also noticed a difference when streaming from a NAS wirelessly, than playing files direct from the hard drive.
I also noticed a difference when streaming from a NAS wirelessly, than playing files direct from the hard drive.
Which one of those transfer methods did you find to be "better"?
I’ll be interested to see how you get on with this server build Tim ;)
I’m on build 3 (uncased) and I’ve had a few problems and I’m not after anything complicated, no wireless streaming, no touch screens, no remote options.
Which one of those transfer methods did you find to be "better"?
Direct from the hard drive.
One thing that does occasionally cause me an issue, is that often when I am listening to music streaming from my NAS, I am using the Internet as well, so everything can slow down and on rare occasions I could experience buffering issues. This doesn't happen often, but even once a day is unacceptable for me, hence my wishing to now upgrade to a dedicated music server. It has to be consistently better than a CDP, or I won't put up with it.
I’ll be interested to see how you get on with this server build Tim ;)
I will let you know - the basic plan is silence, no fans at all, no peripheral devices attached (keyboard, mouse or screen), no wireless/bluetooth and all audio data stored on a single 2TB drive, with the operating system and media player on an SSD. Not a lot else at all and every process and driver disabled in the O/S, unless its actually needed. I want to remove everything from the process of delivering music, except that process itself.
Its suck it and see really, but in theory it should provide me with an improvement on my current set-up, which is already superior to my CDP.
Hmm, I’m finding there’s a bit more to it than that :doh:
Hmm, I’m finding there’s a bit more to it than that :doh:
I'm trying to keep it simple, doing nothing more than building a simple PC, as my capabilities stop there - getting out a soldering iron is going to be a step too far right now. I'm very happy with the results I have now, so this will suit.
And I have you to thank actually John, after your comments about pad this, stream that etc.... ;) Got me thinking you were right and I should build it myself, instead of buying something costing significantly more, that was likely to be inferior.
Glad to have been of service.
I haven’t been at all impressed with the few commercially availible one box solutions I’ve heard. It seems as with a lot of HI Fi kit, you’re paying for a name and a lot of box work and gadgetry that has little to do with getting decent sound
dave2010
18-03-2011, 12:25
I'm coming late to this thread.
I suspect that it's a bit simplistic to suggest that hard drives are always better than CD players. It'll depend on the CD player, and also on the hard drives.
CD players do have all that mechanical stuff to deal with before the bits get off the CDs, but the better ones are really good at this, and they may have good D-A converters (for those not using external DACs), and be good at sorting out jitter.
Ripping a CD to a computer file should largely remove problems and hopefully produce a bit perfect rendition of the data. If this is stored on a hard drive, there is still the issue of reading the data from that when needed, and hard drives, just like CDPs are mechanical devices.
Perhaps it'd be better to store all the data on solid-state devices, or make sure it's stored on solid-state memory at the time of playback.
This is normally what happens in a computer - data is read into memory, and buffered up, and if not all the data is read in, then as the buffer is emptied, more data comes in from the hard drive. Usually this works fine.
The processing power of many modern consumer computers is such that they can do many things at once, including playing back music. Older computers may not be so powerful. However, if a computer is used in this way, other tasks running on the CPU will perhaps have some effect on timing, so if you want to be sure that this doesn't happen you really need a dedicated computer to playback music, and only run sufficient processes to make sure that the music gets fed out correctly and with as accurate timing as possible.
This might, of course be overkill, as some DACs have sufficient buffering, and will re-time the data, so that the computer only has to make sure that the DAC buffer is sufficiently full.
There are major disadvantages in going the full digital route. One is the time taken to rip the data from CDs, DVDs etc., and another is that hard drives can be unreliable. Without a major backup plan, such as using NAS or RAID devices it's quite possible that days or even weeks of ripping can go down the tubes due to device failure. I've heard that some of the Drobo units are quite good - http://www.drobo.com/ - but using NAS or RAID is likely to put the overall costs up quite a bit. If money's no object, go for a networked system with multiple RAID units in different locations.[Multiple in case one gets clobbered by a cat or a dog!]. Some NAS systems can do backups and copying over the network, but I had problems with a couple of Buffalo units. When I tried to back one up to the other it killed the firmware in one, seemingly irrecoverably!
I've still not done this (ripping) for most of my CD collection - which is rather over 2000 CDs, and I don't want to have to spend a lot of time converting these to digital files. I have had drive failures, and network problems.
I do use a Classic Squeezebox, which is very good, and I'm happy with it, but I don't spend a lot of time ripping CDs. Usually I'm satisfied with the output of my CD player (a now fairly old Marantz) fed into a Caiman. I'm still getting to grips with amplification - so sometimes I feed that into a Bantam Gold amp, which I'm evaluating, and sometimes not.
I'm coming late to this thread.
I suspect that it's a bit simplistic to suggest that hard drives are always better than CD players. It'll depend on the CD player, and also on the hard drives.
CD players do have all that mechanical stuff to deal with before the bits get off the CDs, but the better ones are really good at this, and they may have good D-A converters (for those not using external DACs), and be good at sorting out jitter.
Ripping a CD to a computer file should largely remove problems and hopefully produce a bit perfect rendition of the data. If this is stored on a hard drive, there is still the issue of reading the data from that when needed, and hard drives, just like CDPs are mechanical devices.
Perhaps it'd be better to store all the data on solid-state devices, or make sure it's stored on solid-state memory at the time of playback.
This is normally what happens in a computer - data is read into memory, and buffered up, and if not all the data is read in, then as the buffer is emptied, more data comes in from the hard drive. Usually this works fine.
The processing power of many modern consumer computers is such that they can do many things at once, including playing back music. Older computers may not be so powerful. However, if a computer is used in this way, other tasks running on the CPU will perhaps have some effect on timing, so if you want to be sure that this doesn't happen you really need a dedicated computer to playback music, and only run sufficient processes to make sure that the music gets fed out correctly and with as accurate timing as possible.
This might, of course be overkill, as some DACs have sufficient buffering, and will re-time the data, so that the computer only has to make sure that the DAC buffer is sufficiently full.
There are major disadvantages in going the full digital route. One is the time taken to rip the data from CDs, DVDs etc., and another is that hard drives can be unreliable. Without a major backup plan, such as using NAS or RAID devices it's quite possible that days or even weeks of ripping can go down the tubes due to device failure. I've heard that some of the Drobo units are quite good - http://www.drobo.com/ - but using NAS or RAID is likely to put the overall costs up quite a bit. If money's no object, go for a networked system with multiple RAID units in different locations.[Multiple in case one gets clobbered by a cat or a dog!]. Some NAS systems can do backups and copying over the network, but I had problems with a couple of Buffalo units. When I tried to back one up to the other it killed the firmware in one, seemingly irrecoverably!
I've still not done this (ripping) for most of my CD collection - which is rather over 2000 CDs, and I don't want to have to spend a lot of time converting these to digital files. I have had drive failures, and network problems.
I do use a Classic Squeezebox, which is very good, and I'm happy with it, but I don't spend a lot of time ripping CDs. Usually I'm satisfied with the output of my CD player (a now fairly old Marantz) fed into a Caiman. I'm still getting to grips with amplification - so sometimes I feed that into a Bantam Gold amp, which I'm evaluating, and sometimes not.
If you can't be bothered to rip your collection why do you own a squeezebox? To listen to the radio ?
I did 2.5k, get on with it man!!! ;)
You'll be glad you did in the long run :)
I think you guys are way ahead of me here, I don't intend to do too much. The CPU is going to be a 1.8GHz Atom, so adequate for my needs and not producing much heat. 4GB of Ram should be ample too, an SSD storage drive would be great, but with nearly 1TB of data, not cost effective.
I'm doubt I am going to be much help with further idea's as my server is going to be quite modest and my expectations are that it only needs to outperform what I have now and a Squeezebox or Sonos system :(
I think the squeezebox is a great solution afterall!
Paired with the Caiman it should give me a great sounding solution at a fraction of the cost of any branded single box...
Is there any reason to expect price drops? there seems to be a new model expected in the near future if I interpret some signals right...
I think you guys are way ahead of me here, I don't intend to do too much. The CPU is going to be a 1.8GHz Atom, so adequate for my needs and not producing much heat. 4GB of Ram should be ample too, an SSD storage drive would be great, but with nearly 1TB of data, not cost effective.
I'm doubt I am going to be much help with further idea's as my server is going to be quite modest and my expectations are that it only needs to outperform what I have now and a Squeezebox or Sonos system :(
I've got a QNAP ts-119 (1.2ghz & 500Mb RAM 1tb HD) with RAID 1, 12w active, 5w sleeping, screenless (interface is web page), silent & fanless, and a 7 day power schedule.
It runs SB server and controls 3 SB clients very well, with no playlist limits.
So your spec is more than enough, in fact I'd suggest the 4GB of RAM is a bit of overkill, I barely hit 10% memory usage of 500Mb.
If you can get used to configuring the QNAP or some such linux based device they are very reliable, and cost effective. ;)
”I suspect that it's a bit simplistic to suggest that hard drives are always better than CD players. It'll depend on the CD player, and also on the hard drives.”
True. But I don’t think anyone is saying audio from file will always sound superior to any CD player. What I have found and many others it seems is that at the kind of price range many of us would consider spending on a CD player (say up to £1500 for the average audiophile :rolleyes:) file audio outperforms the CD option in the majority of cases in that price range.
There are always going to be exceptions and there will always be those who state such and such a player in their experience was better. But, you get that with everything audio related so as a reason for not using file audio it’s irrelevant. Like verything else it has its problems but they’re no greater than say the accidental bending of a cartridge needle or a skipping CD transport both of which I’ve had in the past.
Interstingly, its not the physical drive that fails in most external hard drives, its more often a software issue and this applies equally to SSD. The advantage in SSD is not that they are any more reliable, it’s the fact they’re silent.
“The processing power of many modern consumer computers is such that they can do many things at once, including playing back music. Older computers may not be so powerful. However, if a computer is used in this way, other tasks running on the CPU will perhaps have some effect on timing, so if you want to be sure that this doesn't happen you really need a dedicated computer to playback music, and only run sufficient processes to make sure that the music gets fed out correctly and with as accurate timing as possible.”
True again but if you’re serious about file audio you don’t use the computer you stream music from for anything else and will have put some effort into reducing OS activity that is unnecessary to the audio replay.
Strange how all the knowledge and tweaking involved in say setting up a record deck gets forgotten in such debates. Yep, it is a different set of skills perhaps but the problem has imo always been that somehow the notion that computer based audio is easy and requires none of the rigors associated with other types of audio reproduction has been put at the forefront of computer audio proactiveness while the problems associated with quality file audio have been largely ignored. It has it’s own set of problems but so do the other formats.
“There are major disadvantages in going the full digital route. One is the time taken to rip the data from CDs, DVDs etc., and another is that hard drives can be unreliable. Without a major backup plan, such as using NAS or RAID devices it's quite possible that days or even weeks of ripping can go down the tubes due to device failure. I've heard that some of the Drobo units are quite good - http://www.drobo.com/ - but using NAS or RAID is likely to put the overall costs up quite a bit. If money's no object, go for a networked system with multiple RAID units in different locations.[Multiple in case one gets clobbered by a cat or a dog!]. Some NAS systems can do backups and copying over the network, but I had problems with a couple of Buffalo units. When I tried to back one up to the other it killed the firmware in one, seemingly irrecoverably!”
Yep, shit happens but it happens to every audio format, vinyl gets scratched CDs do as well, needles wear out or break etc etc.
However, what gets overlooked here is if you’ve backed up your files properly it doesn’t matter if a drive crashes while if your CD or record becomes unplayable for some reason you’re fucked.
Yes, the ripping process is a pain in the arse, but once it’s done and done properly its over and if you’ve done it right you’ll have sufficient copies to ensure that you will never lose your music collection.
From my own point of view, the NAS route takes too much out my control. If the software in a NAS throws its dollies out of the pram there is always the possibility it will throw my music collection out with it, backups as well. So, I don’t use it. I keep my external drives separate and back up manually. It really isn’t much of a chore and imo its safer……………….assuming my memory doesn’t pack up!
Assuming that one ripped the original CD correctly, a computer will always be able to extract the data from that ripped file perfectly, every last bit, every time, a CD transport no matter how good could never match that.
The rest is just a question of the right components, on both sides of the equation :)
Other points that often get overlooked; people tend to concentrate on CD being the root for file audio.
Well, it may be for some time but I have downloaded music (lets see yer CD player do that! :stalks:) and I have a considerable amount of music transferred from reel to reel (Does yer CD player of record deck do that! :rolleyes:)
If I don’t like the sound, with digital files I have the option to use some form of digital signal processing to alter it (erm, nope, CD wont do that with running it through a computer of some sort :rolleyes:)
Finally a convenience point; I can put my entire music collection in a small back pack, get on my bike and take it round my mates. The CD and vinyle people will need a a large van at minimum :ner::lolsign:
Other points that often get overlooked; people tend to concentrate on CD being the root for file audio.
Well, it may be for some time but I have downloaded music (lets see yer CD player do that! :stalks:) and I have a considerable amount of music transferred from reel to reel (Does yer CD player of record deck do that! :rolleyes:)
If I don’t like the sound, with digital files I have the option to use some form of digital signal processing to alter it (erm, nope, CD wont do that with running it through a computer of some sort :rolleyes:)
Finally a convenience point; I can put my entire music collection in a small back pack, get on my bike and take it round my mates. The CD and vinyle people will need a a large van at minimum :ner::lolsign:
...and on your phone too John, there are FLAC players for andriod :)
Downloading a couple of 24/96 albums from HDtracks was what it took to realise there is no turning back...
This trend will only strengthen in the near future!
Reid Malenfant
18-03-2011, 16:38
<snip> and I have a considerable amount of music transferred from reel to reel (Does yer CD player of record deck do that! :rolleyes:)
No my player couldn't but my CD recorder could :eyebrows:
“No my player couldn't but my CD recorder could ”
On my round your gaff then with some tapes :eyebrows:
Oh arr, how much did that bit of kit cost then? :lolsign:
Reid Malenfant
18-03-2011, 16:56
I honestly can't remember John :scratch: I think it was a couple of hundred new rather than the standard price of about £450 :eek:
Do bear in mind this was only about 1 year after stand alone CD recorders became generally available ;)
You can pick up a Philips that is only different to my Traxdata in one respect for less than £30 these days on ebay ;)
I’ve been having a totally f****d up mission trying to get my reel to reel stuff onto file.
Lots of places say they can do it, lots of kit says it can, but it’s a bit like needle drops 90% of them are just plain awful compared to a CD rip.
Atm my mate is doing his best with his Metric Halo but even with custom filters for hiss etc it’s taking a lot of time and of course, the tapes aren’t getting any younger, much like their owner :doh:
Reid Malenfant
18-03-2011, 18:17
This is the Philips version of my Traxdata (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Philips-CDR870-CD-Recorder-/270719696337?pt=UK_AudioTVElectronics_HomeAudioHiF i_CDPlayerSeparates&hash=item3f0826bdd1), the only difference is in the amount of gain in the record circuit via record volume on the analogue inputs ;)
Cheers Mark but I think I’ll carry on with my mate’s kit ;)
There are major disadvantages in going the full digital route. One is the time taken to rip the data from CDs, DVDs etc., and another is that hard drives can be unreliable. Without a major backup plan, such as using NAS or RAID devices it's quite possible that days or even weeks of ripping can go down the tubes due to device failure.
:scratch: .... you have to wonder who would spend weeks and weeks ripping a large CD collection, without making a backup? This wouldn't need to be a RAID or NAS either, just a simple synchronized copy on another hard drive would suffice. With 1 & 2TB drives so cheap these days, why make it that complicated? Of course, nothing to stop you using RAID or NAS, but there are much simpler and cheaper alternatives.
You mentioned Drobo's and they are a good product, but what happens if the Drobo unit itself fails? :( Don't get me wrong, I think Drobo's are great, simple to use and very flexible, but their achilles heel is if the unit itself fails - you then have to try and transfer a data set across to another Drobo, its not a straightforward task which can fail, so this needs to be considered and as with any backup plan, never put all your eggs in one basket. They are also expensive, when all you really need for a simple solution is another drive containing your data. A 2TB drive should in most cases be sufficient for collections of around 4,000 CD's and you can pick them up for around £60.00 these days.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.