Jump to content

peedee

  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    New Zealand

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie
  1. Not hostile, maybe a little abrupt, but I have experienced the same as you say before. The Antipodes music server ( AMS ) is indeed quite superior to any Squeezebox I have heard ( some with substantial modifications, including my Duet with a PSU of the calibre my vortexbox uses ). I have not heard the Sonore or the Sotm servers, nor the W4S servers. I have heard Olive's, Naims, Linns, Cyrus, MF, amongst others. OK. Some are not servers but network music players. I think that of the list, only the Naim and Linn gear would compete with the VB servers which are correctly set up. The AMS would be better than the Cyrus, far better than the Olives. I suspect that it would compete with, but not outperform the Naim and Linn gear I heard. So maybe I was not overly clear in my initial post. The AMS is good. But, in MY system, listening with MY ears, it can be bettered. But, of the commercially available units, it, the Sotm, Sonore etc are superior value than the big dollar brands.
  2. I don't dispute this at all, indeed, it follows true in my comments in a following post in this very thread that its not really about WHICH connection is used, but HOW its implemented. The Antipodes server is more or less using identical parts to mine - ok, the motherboard is a different brand, and its in a different case ( I used Silverstone LC19 ). Its not about the different hardware parts, its about the approach used. The modifications to the VB code appear to be more related to administration than anything else - Antipodes appears to have some form of "phone home" code so when it comes to remote administration, they can firstly find the device on the web, and then not have to worry about port forwarding to enable access to the device. The code surrounding the actual playback appears to be bit identical ( not that I know how to find this out, but the person who built the power supplies informs me of this ). I did consider swapping the STX into the Antipodes server, and the Sotm USB TX into my own build, however I used a PCI-e motherboard, and the antipodes one uses PCI, so this was unable to be completed.
  3. Fair enough request on the images - I will get some when I am home, currently in a hotel room but will be home Friday.
  4. I think that this is the most balanced approach to the various interfaces. All have their weakness's in my opinion. Spdif is finicky but implemented properly, can be very very good. USB is similar - although my experiences have not been the best with it, others would tend to disagree. I2S, firewire, they all have some exceptionally good implementations, but also, there is a fair share of bad implementations. Without "being there" anything is a compromise.
  5. I actually have an Antipodes music server, with a 3TB hard drive. My wife bought it for me as she had seen me researching music servers. Unfortunately, I had already ordered the parts to build my own one. Anyway, as you do, I was "overjoyed" to be gifted this - a not inconsiderable sum of money had been paid for it. I did not have the heart to inform her that I had built my own one a few days prior!. Due to the reasons listed below, I chose to go for a Spdif output device as opposed to USB. Long story short, it went into my Bel Canto DAC 3.5/VBS -VAC Signature pre/ pair of Pi300a's in mono configuration and Focal Maestro utopia/sub utopia system cabled with Nordost Heimdall IC, digital and speaker cable. A pretty revealing system in my opinion, and i have spent a long time tuning it finely for the room. The Bel Canto is not aimed at USB usage so I bought the recommended halide bridge, and connected this to the Spdif input on the Bel Canto. Results were to be perfectly honest, not overly exciting. I listen to a wide range of music, and have a fast growing collection of high resolution music, but I never really got the feeling that I was being delivered all that I could be. I had read positive reviews on the Sotm DAC-200HD. It duly arrived. A good DAC, but to my ears, the Bel Canto is better with an Spdif input, and no comparison can be drawn via USB as the BC requires an external bridge for this. But, how do the two vortexbox based devices - the Antipodes built version, and my own version compare? My version has an Asus Xonar STX card installed - with an external, linear power supply powering both the box, and via a separate regulated supply's, the optical and hard drives, and a separate again supply for the Xonar STX. Maybe this is overkill, but a friend who builds custom electronics for a living built them for me, and specified not more than .001% voltage ripple in his design. They did cost a lot for what they are!. Via Spdif, into either DAC, my own build was more engaging and had better imaging. Via USB into the DAC-200HD, the Antipodes server just sounded a bit lifeless in comparison. The Bel Canto is a much more suited to this setup, via SPdif, in my system, than the Sotm DAC-200HD via USB, and still shows a clear lead in relation to the Spdif input on the Sotm device. Micro dynamics are simply more realistic, decay is smoother and more lifelike. Neither gives me the "I am there" experience I would love to be able to achieve at home. I doubt anything ever will. But the Antipodes server is just a little further away than my own build, which was really a fairly basic design other than the power supplies ( which did make a notable difference ).
×
×
  • Create New...