Knuck

Bigblue, I too was once a Mac guy but after experimenting with a late 2009, late 2012 quad and the new 2014 Mini and not achieving the SQ I was looking for I opted to experiment with a Windows Server 2012 R2 dual PC setup. I obviously have too much time on my hands and am a little over the top with respect to this hobby, but I did find using Windows Server relatively simple. There aren't a lot of software upgrades to deal with. Once setup properly it works. In fact I haven't updated Windows Server since installation. Software is straight forward. I use Jplay and HQPlayer. I have also used Foobar successfully. I run both the audio and control pcs headdlessly through Remote Desktop. I convert all Redbook to DSD and run Acourate room correction filters. I am blown away by the result. I have tried the Auralic Aries and Sony HAP-Z1ES and although excellent products and very simple to use, IMO I found no comparison in SQ. I have not tried the Aurender.

A music server per se is not a means to improving SQ but is a means to organizing and distributing music throughout your home. Having said that, there are several ways you can create a computer audio system that will both organize and distribute your music as well as improve SQ. If your system is revealing enough then you can significantly improve SQ with a computer system. Chris' CAPS system is a great place to start if you want to go the Windows route. If you are more of a Mac person then the Mac Mini may be preferable. Many of us have turned computer audio into a hobby and if you are of that mindset then you may enjoy doing the extensive research that is required to maximize SQ. If you have no interest in learning about what is necessary here then there are companies such as Small Green Computing that can build something for you. Regardless of whether you go Windows or Mac, IMO the two best places you can spend your money is on a decent USB asynchronous DAC and linear power supply. From there the number of hardware and software choices are endless. You can choose from single vs. dual computer systems, optimization of various operating systems, selection of various hardware accessories such as power filters and fanless cases and so on. Good luck and welcome to the world of computer audio.

Which software are you using and are you converting files?

I suggest you contact Uli at Acourate. He is very helpful.

According to iFixit the 2012 Mac Mini power supply is 85 watts. The HDPLEX should be powerful enough. You will need to remove the internal switching power supply, which is relatively simple and replace it with a board that will connect the mini to an AC/DC connection. Talk to Superdad who may sell you what you need. He has an excellent fan module that goes with the DC board.

Unfortunately my memory isn't what it used to be so I'm not really in a position to provide a detailed comparison. I haven't used Dirac in almost a year. They are both excellent products and originally I was satisfied with Dirac but there were some compatibility or feature issues that required me to look elsewhere. I can't remember specifically what they were but I recall communicating with Dirac technical support, who were very responsive, but couldn't resolve my specific issue. It may have had to do with integration with various software players and/or calibration issues. Dirac is a much simpler product to use but Acourate is more powerful. As far as SQ, its been awhile but to the best of my limited recollection, Acourate sounded slightly clearer for lack of a better term, not that Dirac was fuzzy by any means. I did do AB comparisons at the time and found my results with Acourate to be better but only slightly and I would have been happy with either product. My decision to go with Acourate over Dirac was more a usability decision that an SQ one.

I decided to write a mini review of Acourate to share my success and perhaps enlighten others, who are not familiar with this software and who have less than ideal rooms, to consider the potentially daunting world of room correction. I am not a professional reviewer so please forgive my lack of "audiophile terminology". These are my real world perceptions. I have no connection to Acourate other than being a paid client. I strongly believe in the benefits of physical room treatments. My listening room, however, offered limited options in this area as it has lots of glass, hardwood and a wife. The sound lacked definition and focus. I started using Dirac and received decent results until I discovered Acourate by AudioVero. I have been using it for quite awhile now and have achieved excellent results. Although there is a learning curve, Acourate is intuitive to use and there are lots of useful tutorials to help with setup and use. I am by no means an expert with the software but have been improving steadily. I have created filters that work well with Jriver and Foobar convolvers and am going to move onto HQplayer, which requires the creation of mono filters, which, thanks to the help of Acourate's creator Uli Brueggermann, is a simple process. I have found Uli to be very responsive to questions and a pleasure to deal with. Acourate also allows you to create digital crossovers which I understand from other users significantly improves SQ. I am in the process of learning how to do this so I cannot comment on this feature at this time. I will update this review when I have a chance to implement them. It is easy to discern the sonic differences between using and not using the Acourate filters. In Foobar simply load the convolver or remove it. Initially I was concerned that adding filters would create a veil over the sound. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the opposite was true. Instead of blurring the music the Acourate filters resulted in a significantly more focused and detailed sound. For example, without Acourate, vocals sounded spread out. In my Secret Life by Leonard Cohen, without Acourate, it sounded like Cohen's voice came from the entire area between the speakers and sounded like it was on top of Robinsons' voice. With Acourate, the location of the singers became identifiable. Cohen was no longer singing over Robinson. They were in different locations on the stage. As a result, I could discern more detail from both voices. This of course holds true for the instruments as well. For example, in The Bill Evans Trio's Waltz for Debby, without Acourate the piano spread across the entire stage and sounded on top of the guitar and later the percussion. With Acourate the piano now had its own space separate from the guitar and percussion making it easy to identify where on the stage each instrument was located. In My Foolish Heart, Acourate allowed much greater detail. I could now clearly hear the tinkling of glasses, which was almost indiscernible without Acourate. I am pleased I discovered Acourate and now that I have it in my system I could not imagine listening without it.

Do yourself and your pocketbook a favour and check out the Resonessence Concero.

Does anyone have an opinion about replacing the e3-1241 v3/X10SLH-M combo suggested by Chris with an e5-2609 v3/X10SRi-F combo. The cost is pretty close but with the e5 you get 15MB of Smart Cache vs 8 on the e3, lower voltage DDR4 memory on the e5 vs DDR3 on the e3 and 4 channels of memory with 53 Gb/s bandwidth on the e5 vs 2 channels with 26 Gb/s bandwidth on the e3. Although the DD4 memory is more expensive, I don't think 16 Gb is necessary especially if you use the C.A.P.S. as an audio PC. The tradeoff is that the e5 has a 1.9 Ghz processor vs 3.5Ghz on the e3. I would think the memory benefits would outweigh the processor disadvantage if the PC is being used only for audio. There are other advantages to the e5 that I haven't listed. At similar cost, I think it is worth consideration. Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply

Does anyone have an opinion about replacing the e3-1241 v3/X10SLH-M combo suggested by Chris with an e5-2609 v3/X10SRi-F combo. The cost is pretty close but with the e5 you get 15MB of Smart Cache vs 8 on the e3, lower voltage DDR4 memory on the e5 vs DDR3 on the e3 and 4 channels of memory with 53 Gb/s bandwidth on the e5 vs 2 channels with 26 Gb/s bandwidth on the e3. Although the DD4 memory is more expensive, I don't think 16 Gb is necessary especially if you use the C.A.P.S. as an audio PC. The tradeoff is that the e5 has a 1.9 Ghz processor vs 3.5Ghz on the e3. I would think the memory benefits would outweigh the processor disadvantage if the PC is being used only for audio. There are other advantages to the e5 that I haven't listed. At similar cost, I think it is worth consideration. Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply

I thought a thread suggesting alternative configurations to Chris' Pipeline might be useful. Does anyone have an opinion about replacing the e3-1241 v3/X10SLH-M combo suggested by Chris with an e5-2609 v3/X10SRi-F combo. The cost is pretty close but with the e5 you get 15MB of Smart Cache vs 8 on the e3, lower voltage DDR4 memory on the e5 vs DDR3 on the e3 and 4 channels of memory with 53 Gb/s bandwidth on the e5 vs 2 channels with 26 Gb/s bandwidth on the e3. Although the DD4 memory is more expensive, I don't think 16 Gb is necessary especially if you use the C.A.P.S. as an audio PC. The tradeoff is that the e5 has a 1.9 Ghz processor vs 3.5Ghz on the e3. I would think the memory benefits would outweigh the processor disadvantage if the PC is being used only for audio. There are other advantages to the e5 that I haven't listed. At similar cost, I think it is worth consideration.

Adam, did the two USB cables come with the case or did you have to get them separately? I read somewhere that Streacom doesn't include them.

Great questions unsleepable. Chris could you also tell us why you recommend the X10SLH-F over some of the cheaper X10 models like the X10SLM-F.

Jim, please provide a link to the answer as I have not seen it. I appreciate your acknowledgement that there is no satisfactory answer as you assume I would not accept it. I don't think my comments about your business practices have been biased or unreasonable.

I guess you couldn't come up with that polite reply. Thanks for ignoring my question Jim. Also thank you for forcing me away from JRiver. I now have discovered significant SQ improvements by using HQPlayer and Foobar. For those newbies whom Jim apparently started this thread for, do yourselves a favor and compare these other players before committing to JRiver.