Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Music Server implementation possible big mistake (Read 3283 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Music Server implementation possible big mistake

Since 80% of my listening is done via hard drive, I decided to update my front end. Currently using a dedicated Mac Mini with 8GB memory, 256 SSD, 4TB storage, running Pure Music in a headless environment into a Esoteric K-01x.

I thought that using a server exclusively designed for music playback rather than a computer would give me better sound. After some investigating I opted for the new Esoteric N-05 which even though it has an excellent DAC, I will still use the K-01x.

Initially I thought I'd just attach my existing hard drive and use a WIFI to ethernet adapter so that I can use my Ipad to access the library, however I then find out that the USB Drive input only supports FAT32 formatted drives therefore I had to implement a NAS storage solution and have a ethernet line installed in the music room.

Still believing that an attached drive would offer the best connection, I purchased a 2TB SSD drive that I was able to format Fat32 using a 3rd party utility. I will use this for all my high res files and the bulk of my music collection.

This has become a giant pain that I wish I had never undertaken. Initially, I though it was just the cost of the unit however after adding several Audioquest Diamond cables, drives and having an ethernet line installed it landed up costing much more than anticipated. I don't even have the unit yet (due in this week) and I already have a sick feeling that there will be no improvement.

Re: Music Server implementation possible big mistake

Reply #1
As long as the network connection can keep up with the stream you are playing there will be NO difference in sound quality. Audiophile NAS systems, network cables, NIC's etc. is just bullshit. As long as the buffer is filled with digital data the sound will be the same. If not, there is some other thing wrong in your setup.

I play music from my na via wifi to foobar, via wifi to my raspberry pi > Hifiberry > DAC > AMP. Sounds perfect, because it's bit perfect playback.

I even have seen audiophile SATA cables :D . Word docs look way better with those cables also :P

Re: Music Server implementation possible big mistake

Reply #2
I think if you use the same DAC and sound system then yes there will be no improvement. 

Re: Music Server implementation possible big mistake

Reply #3
As long as the network connection can keep up with the stream you are playing there will be NO difference in sound quality. Audiophile NAS systems, network cables, NIC's etc. is just bullshit. As long as the buffer is filled with digital data the sound will be the same. If not, there is some other thing wrong in your setup.

+1

Quote
I play music from my na via wifi to foobar, via wifi to my raspberry pi > Hifiberry > DAC > AMP. Sounds perfect, because it's bit perfect playback.

I have a number of different ways to play the music libraries on my servers.   As long as the playback is by means of the same speakers in the same room, its all the same.

Quote
I even have seen audiophile SATA cables :D . Word docs look way better with those cables also :P

There's a new one born every minute, or even more often than that.

Frankly, enjoying music with the greatest convenience and ease of use is how it sounds the best to me.

Re: Music Server implementation possible big mistake

Reply #4
You probably really do want to use a NAS with that device, because with a NAS, the native format of the NAS's drives are irrelevant as far as your networked audio player is concerned: All it'll "see" are directories and files. And in this instance, that's a good thing because filesystems like EXT4 can handle very large volume and file sizes.

Think it's safe to say that the player's USB port is really intended as a convenience feature for occasional use with a USB stick under 32 GB in size, nothing more. Even if you do use a special utility to create a volume bigger than 32 GB, you can't get around the 4 GB maximum file size limit. So yes, it's a mistake to try to directly connect your primary storage in this manner.

Re: Music Server implementation possible big mistake

Reply #5
Not to be snarky, but if you're buying snake oil like $1,500 HDMI cables, why do you care about cost at all? 

Alternatively, why not buy an equivalent $6 cable and free up some of that money?

Quote
server exclusively designed for music playback rather than a computer

I hate to break it to you, but a server is a computer.  Either way, you're piping files from a hard drive into a speaker.  Take a deep breath and come join us on the ground.

Re: Music Server implementation possible big mistake

Reply #6
... ... ...
I hate to break it to you, but a server is a computer.  Either way, you're piping files from a hard drive into a speaker.  Take a deep breath and come join us on the ground.

I was just going to post that a music/media server is just a PC dressed up so that it looks good on a hifi rack.

That's all fine and dandy, so long as it it comes with computer rather than hifi pricing. And if it is a "lifestyle" necessity that the thing looks pretty and blends in (and why not!) then there are suitable cases easily available. If I were going to build such a machine, I'd be looking (for music; video is a different set of requirements, and I don't do video anyway) at low power, low heat, and for nervosa-based owner satisfaction, one of those nice systems with heat tubes that uses the case to dissipate what heat there is.  The only thing there that would make a difference to the sound is the absence of fans
The most important audio cables are the ones in the brain


Re: Music Server implementation possible big mistake

Reply #8
... ... ...
I hate to break it to you, but a server is a computer.  Either way, you're piping files from a hard drive into a speaker.  Take a deep breath and come join us on the ground.

I was just going to post that a music/media server is just a PC dressed up so that it looks good on a hifi rack.

That's all fine and dandy, so long as it it comes with computer rather than hifi pricing. And if it is a "lifestyle" necessity that the thing looks pretty and blends in (and why not!) then there are suitable cases easily available. If I were going to build such a machine, I'd be looking (for music; video is a different set of requirements, and I don't do video anyway) at low power, low heat, and for nervosa-based owner satisfaction, one of those nice systems with heat tubes that uses the case to dissipate what heat there is.  The only thing there that would make a difference to the sound is the absence of fans

Agreed. The probability of a modern studio being centered on a general purpose PC or Mac is extremely high - probably > 90%.  A good part of the remaining 10% are PC's or Macs that are purpose-built with special hardware such as low noise fans or no fans at all. 

So, an audio-nervosa type audiophile can imagine audible benefits from "Being built for music". However inside the computer the music is just so much digital data, and processed no differently than most other things we process on computers.  As a processing load, music is fairly light.

Still remembering recording 24 concurrent channels on a Pentium-66 running Windows XP.

Re: Music Server implementation possible big mistake

Reply #9
I don't have experience with Pure Music, but having run both Ampache, Subsonic and number of other music servers, I can tell you that the server does not stream analog audio.  It can't do that.  It's probably caching the file in whatever format you tell it to stream in.  So, if you're library is in FLAC, it's going to stream FLAC, and your front end is going to do the decoding.