Music Server - How it changes plans for system architecture ?

[timetohunt]

Still building both my knowledge of audio as well as my system.

Quick logic check please.
Let me know if this is correct.

If one plans to use a music server as the primary means of managing/storing/playing music on his/her system then that makes the need for high end play back machines (or any play back machines really) pretty much mute? Yes ?

And do music servers have analog outputs. Lets say you want to store some SACDs on it, when that stored music is played, it would typically not be output through multi channal analog from the server would it? Or is it a matter of how much high end capability is built into the server?

The reason I am asking, simply put, is :
If I decide to go the Music Server route, in most cases its not really worth it to chase down expensive disc players or expensive analog-based equipment. Is that generally correct?

 

[stratman]

Have you checked out the Sonos system? Maybe this is what you're looking for. if you connect an NAS to it, it won't need a pc.

Sonos.com

 

[timetohunt]

Have you checked out the Sonos system? Maybe this is what you're looking for. if you connect an NAS to it, it won't need a pc.

Sonos.com

Uh, OK. thank you. But, I didn't really say I was looking for anything. Just trying to gather some basics in order to plan for the future of my sound system. Had a couple questions uppy there.

 

[stratman]

Well I figured the Sonos site might be of help, it's one of the more popular musicservers for it's ability to be a stand alone unit.

 

[fmw]

I think you're right. I put my music server together by ripping my CD collection and vinyl records to 320 MP3's. They reside on a 1/2 TB hard drive on my computer network. The CD ripping was done with a plain old DVD RW drive. The vinyl setup was a bit more complex but still finished by ripping a CD-RW to the hard drive. If there is a difference in the sound between my 320 MPD's and the original CD's it is certainly subtle and not important to the overall enjoyment of recorded music.

I handle the streaming with a little unit called the Squeezebox. It accesses my network and, hence, the music files via a wireless connection and streams the data to my receiver through an S/PDIF connection. The whole thing is operated with the same universal remote that operates the whole system. It is a very nice little product and amazingly affordable for what it does. I'm going to put another one in my upstairs stereo system to access the same files.

There are certainly more sophisticated and expensive units than the squeezebox but I've never been able to figure what they do that my Squeezebox doesn't do about as well.

 

[solomr2]

Media servers generally serve two key purposes; to centralize the storage and access of a lot of media files (music, video, pictures) in one easy to access medium, and to backup (preserve) the original media.

However, backup servers have to be fed, so to load the media you have to have a reader or some means of copying the files from the original source.That could be a CD ROM for CDs, a DVD ROM for DVDs, etc. Most CD ROMs do not read SACDs as far as I know, but then most SACDs are hybrid - meaning they can be played in a regular CD player, minus the multi-channel info.

It all depends on how sophisticated your server is. Some of the newer, more advanced media servers do have multi-channel capability.

 

[timetohunt]

I think you're right. I put my music server together by ripping my CD collection and vinyl records to 320 MP3's.

Hmm. MP3s? Was there a better format you could have used. I can't really say that I have done many true listening tests between formats, but I am fairly sure enough that WAV from FLAC or SHN always sounded better than MP3. I guess storage space is an issue and I would imagine that WAV files would be a typical format to store music on a music server (or I really don't know though). To many it apparently does not matter. I have a friend that downloads so many free concerts that if he were using FLAC, it would consume way too much time/space/effort. But I would think that most audiofiles would try to use the most dense format they can get.

I am going to see if I can find a music server manual online and read it. I should find most info in there to get a full understanding. thanks.

 

[TLS Guy]

Media servers generally serve two key purposes; to centralize the storage and access of a lot of media files (music, video, pictures) in one easy to access medium, and to backup (preserve) the original media.

However, backup servers have to be fed, so to load the media you have to have a reader or some means of copying the files from the original source.That could be a CD ROM for CDs, a DVD ROM for DVDs, etc. Most CD ROMs do not read SACDs as far as I know, but then most SACDs are hybrid - meaning they can be played in a regular CD player, minus the multi-channel info.

It all depends on how sophisticated your server is. Some of the newer, more advanced media servers do have multi-channel capability.

SACD is not PCM based. Only a few professional programs can handle it. It is direct stream digital and the sampling rate is 64 times greater than CD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

I understand it takes a powerful computer about 24 hours to do the mix down from DSD to the CD for the under layer.

So if the guy wants to play SACD, he will need a good SACD player.

 

[davidtwotrees]

I own an Escient Fireball SE-80 music server. It is an entry level server. I looked into, and couldn't afford better servers, say from Audio ReQuest......and this month's Stereophile, which features a Mac server on the cover........so my entry level does 320kbps mp3. I can't tell the difference from redbook cd......and only on multi channel sacd or dvda would I think I could tell the difference. Music servers, to my knowledge don't do multichannel, although I haven't been following their progress. Olive is supposed to be the "classical" listeners server......and I would look to them to be a sacd server if one was to come up as classical is supporting sacd right now.
Does the server replace a hi end source player? ................almost, but not quite. I still use my Denon 3910 for critical listening and multi channel discs. But the CD player in my Fireball is very competent and plays redbooks just fine. '
For anyone that is considering a server, I would HIGHLY RECCOMEND one. It has changed my listening habits immensly. I paid under $1k for my Fireball and have seen them for $700 recently. FMW was right, his squeezebox does the same.........excepting mine is all done in one box in my rack and you need no computer skills outside of a ethernet connection from a router.

 

[fmw]

Hmm. MP3s? Was there a better format you could have used. I can't really say that I have done many true listening tests between formats, but I am fairly sure enough that WAV from FLAC or SHN always sounded better than MP3. I guess storage space is an issue and I would imagine that WAV files would be a typical format to store music on a music server (or I really don't know though). To many it apparently does not matter. I have a friend that downloads so many free concerts that if he were using FLAC, it would consume way too much time/space/effort. But I would think that most audiofiles would try to use the most dense format they can get.

I am going to see if I can find a music server manual online and read it. I should find most info in there to get a full understanding. thanks.

You will have to do the tests for yourself. Personally, I can't hear any difference between FLAC and 320 MP3. I can hear the difference when the MP3's have a lower bit rate but I can't at 320. You'll need to check it out for yourself.

 

[TLS Guy]

You will have to do the tests for yourself. Personally, I can't hear any difference between FLAC and 320 MP3. I can hear the difference when the MP3's have a lower bit rate but I can't at 320. You'll need to check it out for yourself.

I have to say that I don't care for lossy audio codecs. The lossless ones such as FLAC and WMA are fine.

Chandos now offer downloads in WMA. It was chosen over FLAC for DRM issues. However I found my WaveLab6 converted the downloads to WAV. files quickly and I then I was able to put on the track markers and set pauses to make a CD. The quality was CD quality. The problem was the download cost more than buying and shipping the CD from Arkiv music!

 

[solomr2]

You will have to do the tests for yourself. Personally, I can't hear any difference between FLAC and 320 MP3. I can hear the difference when the MP3's have a lower bit rate but I can't at 320. You'll need to check it out for yourself.

Variable Bit 320 MP3 or WMA are pretty darn good, and in most cases the difference is inperceptible from the original CD. However, they are still pretty big. I prefer FLAC when I can get it, but FLAC is incredibly slow to produce and the files are quite large - a common CD will typically take about 300MB.

But FLAC is becoming more widely supported nowadays. I recently bought the Cowon iAudio-7 8GB mini MP3 player for the specific reason that they have native support for FLAC and also becase it has an FM receiver.

 

[Davemcc]

I own an Escient Fireball SE-80 music server...

For anyone that is considering a server, I would HIGHLY RECCOMEND one. It has changed my listening habits immensly. I paid under $1k for my Fireball and have seen them for $700 recently. FMW was right, his squeezebox does the same.........excepting mine is all done in one box in my rack and you need no computer skills outside of a ethernet connection from a router.

This has been my experience with the Fireball as well. It is the most often used source in my system. I also find that I'm digging much deeper into my music collection that I would using a stand alone player, due to sheer convenience of having everything handy at the click of the remote. I've rediscovered a lot of good music that I'd forgotten about.

 

[solomr2]

The convenience once you have ripped your library is definately a major factor. I think this is also why many people like the iPod, it puts 80-160gb of music at your fingertips.

Of course, there are other options besides a dedicated media server. For example, an XBOX 360 or a PS3 does many of the same things a server does. And with a WiFi setup, you can also stream music from your PC via a networked receiver or via the XBOX/PS3, so there are different ways to tackle the challenge.

Incidentally, the XBOX 360 also doubles as a decent CD and DVD player with no additional attachments. Or you can add the $170 HD DVD attachment for HD movies.

Go one further and get the Denon WiFi iPod dock and you can stream wirelessly as well as play from your iPod. There are a lot of choices.

 

[fmw]

I have to say that I don't care for lossy audio codecs. The lossless ones such as FLAC and WMA are fine.

Chandos now offer downloads in WMA. It was chosen over FLAC for DRM issues. However I found my WaveLab6 converted the downloads to WAV. files quickly and I then I was able to put on the track markers and set pauses to make a CD. The quality was CD quality. The problem was the download cost more than buying and shipping the CD from Arkiv music!

That's really distressing. People pay the same for a track on a downloaded highly compressed MP3 as they do for a track on a CD. It makes no sense to get less for the same money. The recording industry just has never understood the fact that what they sell is a poor value. I would own a whole lot more of their product if it were a better value.

 

[jcPanny]

"Audiophile" music server

If you want to experiment with a music server, pick up an Apple TV for <$300. It has a 160GB hard drive, compact form factor, an excelent user interface, and can also wirelessly stream music, pictures, and video.
If you don't like it return it or sell it and you aren't out much money.

If you feel compelled you could hook up a high end D/A converter to the digital output of any music server. This is effectively what you are doning with the high end CD player.

 

[deftech]

I picked up a used ReQuest 120 gig off audiogon. I like being able to access all my music at the touch of a few buttons. I wanted an flac supported player that would be a part of my a/v system, not off the pc. I am building several playlists which is kind of fun. My 200 and 400 changers are pretty much being used for disc storage now.

 

[Rickster71]

The reason I am asking, simply put, is :
If I decide to go the Music Server route, in most cases its not really worth it to chase down expensive disc players or expensive analog-based equipment. Is that generally correct?

Below is a link to a PDF of an Escient server.
http://www.escient.com/literature/MX111SellSheet.pdf
It has a Toslink 5.1 output and can be used as a CD player and CD-RW
It also comes with software, that if you tie it into your PC's network.
The server will look at any music on your PC and output it. As if it's part of your library.
I have the MX-111 and really enjoy it.
It's a good site for info, just to get an idea of what's out there.

The chart on page 2 has the hours of play back, using different formats
like FLAC, MP3, etc.

 

[kleinwl]

file server? Why buy, not build!?

Why spend a grand for a file server?

Build your own HTPC and run an optical out to your reciever. That way you don't need a squeezebox or anything else.

A nice looking HTPC can cost under a grand and manage all your audio files easily. As well as giving you the option to put in a combo blueray/HD-DVD ($300 or so) drive for all your movies.

 

[TLS Guy]

Why spend a grand for a file server?

Build your own HTPC and run an optical out to your reciever. That way you don't need a squeezebox or anything else.

A nice looking HTPC can cost under a grand and manage all your audio files easily. As well as giving you the option to put in a combo blueray/HD-DVD ($300 or so) drive for all your movies.

I couldn't agree more. If you are handy you can build it yourself. Stop pc noise have very quiet power supplies and cooling fans for the microprocessor chip.

I think it is beat to get the DAC out of the computer case. The external devices offer better specks.