Audiophile Reference Music Server For A Song

Interesting setup. I'd be curious how it stands up to what many seem to think is a leading $1K bang-for-buck solution of:<br />

<br />

Apple or PowerMax sold refurbished Mac mini ($500)<br />

Apogee Duet ($500)<br />

<br />

Course both setups require some sort of display. <br />

<br />

May be a fun battle?

Hi Chris, this is probably a question you get a lot, but I cannot think of an answer myself and I haven't read one either... so here goes:<br />

<br />

As far as I know there are two dimensions to music in the digital realm, if you consider a single channel: amplitude and timing.<br />

<br />

<ol><li>Sources with bit-perfect output should not be able to differ in amplitude.</li><br />

<li>If you combine different bit-perfect sources with the same DAC that re-clocks the bitstream within the DAC, then the combined amplitude and timing should not be able to differ - at least not consistently (there are always 'random' external influences like equipment temperature etc).</li><br />

<li>I'm assuming that stereo music playback (in the digital realm) on a bit-perfect source keeps the amplitude words of both channels permanently in-sync - so the first word of a song for the left channel arrives at the DAC together with the first word of the right channel, and so on right up to the last word of the song.</li> <br />

</ol><br />

<br />

If you logically combine the above, it says "such music servers cannot differ sonically".<br />

<br />

Which leaves me with the question: how can there be consistently perceived sound differences between different bit-perfect sources, such as the music server you present here and other servers, when you use a good DAC that controls timing? Do you have an explanation? Is my understanding/assumption flawed?<br />

<br />

As you always say, in the end I just let my ears decide, but at some level I'm troubled if I feel that I am missing some fundamental understanding. Hope you can shed some light onto this.<br />

<br />

Thx, VincentH<br />

Well put Vincent. This has also troubled me....just to follow on, if someone else on this forum has managed to get 24/192 out of the optical out of a MacPro (running Vista)...why would this be any worse in sound quality than 24/192 out of firewire (say into the "Amarra") solution.?<br />

<br />

Actually come to think of it as long as the output is "clocked" by a really good clock to minimize jitter, it shouldn't matter which computer/soundcard/output is used. <br />

<br />

Then ease of use of the software becomes paramount......

Well... if it sounds as good as you say... I've got some expensive junk to sell! Guess there's one way to find out...

Regardless of Mac vs PC and bit perfect debates, congratulations Chris for outlining a highly accessible system. <br />

<br />

I'm sure there are a lot of Windows users out there who will already have a PC of similar spec and may be using XP. When they come to upgrade for computing use, the idea that they can recycle their old machine into a reference quality music server is going to be very appealing. It will spread the computer audio message like wildfire.

Chris,<br />

<br />

How did this reference system compare with the Amarra beta?

Hi Guys - Thanks for the comments thus far.<br />

<br />

cfmsp - <i>"Chris, did you try the AES 16 running OS X?"</i><br />

No, unfortunately the new Mac Pros don't have any PCI slots.<br />

<br />

VincentH - I wish I had a good answer for you but this one is out of my realm of expertise. I'd be doing a disservice if I claimed to have the answer here. I have some suspicions, but they are not fit to print just yet. It would be fabulous if all digital interfaces were the same. We could all get by with the cheapest optical output & Toslink cable available and the high-end would never be the same! People could actually afford to purchase all the music they want!<br />

<br />

Shenzi - Thanks for recognizing the value in this one :-)<br />

<br />

Lars - I'd love to comment but it wouldn't be fair to compare an unfinished product to production product. Good or bad the differences will likely change before Amarra is finally released.<br />

<br />

Vincent,<br />

<br />

Yes I agree. I'm using a far cheaper sound card, simply outputting a bit perfect optical stream from my sound card into the DAC within my ADM9.1's. They sound fabulous.<br />

<br />

I can't see how there is a difference between bit perfect from one card to another; I guess drivers have an impact but if you're bit perfect then surely you're bit perfect.<br />

<br />

Chris - just out of interest - how are you controlling this system ? A PC connected to a monitor ? Media Monkey is tought to control from your sofa - I try to but it's not ideal. Maybe there are some good skins out there that make this a little easier.<br />

<br />

I'm very interested in how you're controlling it.<br />

<br />

As for your server, I just knew it would be a combination of a cheap PC with enough processing power to media files and an expensive audio card. Great reading.<br />

<br />

Regards,<br />

<br />

<br />

Matt.

<br />

In addition to my post above I just saw this on the Media Monkey webpage ... Control it using the iPhone ... <br />

<br />

http://www.mediamonkey.com/news/2008/11/05/new-mediamonkey-306-syncs-with-iphone-3g/<br />

Hi beemb - I'm controlling it with my MacBook Air via Remote Desktop. I have iMonkey on my iPod Touch but it is far from a fully functional application.

From what I've read up in forums, the difference between having an inexpensive high jitter interface, and an expensive low jitter interface is the difference between having to reconstruct the signal or potentially leaving the signal alone or not doing very much to it. I also read that high jitter signals reaching the dac can overload the circuits that reclock it, leaving more jitter than the dacs claim is left. It seems kind of like compression: low jitter doesn't need to be reconstructed (like uncompressed data), while high jitter needs reconstruction (like compressed data) which depends on the reclocking mechanism of the dac.<br />

<br />

Cavan

What if your DAC has no AES inputs? (a la Benchmark DAC PRE).

Great article and many thanks for your hard work!<br />

<br />

The main thing I was hoping for from the article, and indeed I got, was a clearer idea of how to approach the whole music server thing with regards to future upgrades. The Lynx card is quite expensive here in the UK - at £650 it is only £150 shy of the cost of a new PS Audio Digital Link III. But, provided the PC has a spare PCI slot then the Lynx can be added at a later date, if so desired. It also seems that, once again, AES is a clear winner of USB? So a DAC with usb inputs for now, and AES for later, would also be a good idea! At my price point, that's me sorted then:)<br />

<br />

Credit crunch anyone? Nah! - thought not!

Chris,<br />

<br />

Common a dell... what you want this too work for like what a couple of weeks. Why not the L22 it works just as well and would save you some dimes...<br />

<br />

Thanks<br />

Gordon

Hi Gordon - I love the comments! This is the first Dell I've purchased in my life and I was really hesitant. Plus the internal components of this machine are nothing to write home about. As I said in the article, everything about this project goes against my grain. Fortunately I am extremely happy with the outcome.<br />

<br />

The L22 only supports 96k digital output and 192k analog output. The AES16 is worth the extra cost.

Chris Hi, you already know my experience trying more or less this system, how does your Mac pro/ lynx/BAD compare to the dell/lynx /BAD the only difference is the OS/software ? Very Best keith.

I have several comments/questions and I have to object on several fronts:<br />

<br />

1. The price – 1040 makes me think of taxes.<br />

2. A computer based audio solution should be a replacement for a CD player. Your solution does not include a DAC for $1,040. Your reference DAC makes this a $6K solution.<br />

3. A noisy computer has no place in audio. Aside from the obvious listening room objections, noticeable noise or vibrations in components rarely improve the sonic qualities of music. Definitely cannot be considered reference quality.<br />

4. The cost of the Windows XP software is not included – foul.<br />

5. Aged software and firmware obsolescence? Are software and firmware upgrades reversible in case users try different versions to improve audio quality over the next, say 5 years? <br />

6. Are the inexpensive upgrades for memory (+$75 for 4GB) or hard disk storage (+$50 for 500GB) not worth the money?<br />

7. Possibility of blown tweeters? – deserves a strong warning to proceed at your own risk unless your in the speaker business.<br />

8. Antenna breakout cables? – I believe your HD26 to XLR AES/EBU Cable Update bears repeating - a better cable is highly desirable.<br />

9. A better computer power supply, better power cord and vibration control should improve audio playback.<br />

<br />

Chris, thanks for trying. Of course the heart (and cost) of what you are recommending is the Lynx Studio AES16 PCI card from your CASH List. But how does it compare to the AES16e card? I feel that a detailed commentary from you is fair game since both cards are from the same manufacturer and I thought identical in price.<br />

<br />

As suggested by ‘blessingx’, the Mac mini and Apogee Duet is probably a more cost effective solution if you don’t mind the 24/96 limits of the Duet.<br />

<br />

<br />

Hi audiozorro - I do hear your concerns but don't share in your cynicism. To be honest your post left a real sour taste in my mouth. Of course I respect your honesty as you no doubt will respect mine.<br />

<br />

<br />

I believe I more or less touched on several of your concerns, but I will address them here as well. <br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<i>"1. The price – 1040 makes me think of taxes."</i><br />

<br />

To be honest the price makes me think of a great way to get into the music server game with a true reference transport for less money than it takes to walk into a high-end store. There is no way I can include taxes in this system because we have readers from 165 different countries and all 50 states of the US which each have different or no sales taxes. There are very few items for sale that include the tax as part of the description. If the 1040 makes you think of 1040 EZ I can't help you there and many of our readers will be lost on that one as well.<br />

<br />

<br />

<i>"2. A computer based audio solution should be a replacement for a CD player. Your solution does not include a DAC for $1,040. Your reference DAC makes this a $6K solution."</i><br />

<br />

Your definition of computer based solution appears to be fixed and must include all components to replace a CD player. I don't agree that there is a fixed definition of computer based audio solution and I addressed some of this concern in my Setting Expectations section. I also mentioned, "...Combined the Alpha DAC and this system are right around $6,000." I could have published the article including the Alpha DAC and still be very excited about the low cost of great sound. I chose to leave the DAC choice up to each listener. Most of our readers are much more familiar with DACs than they are with computers.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<i>"3. A noisy computer has no place in audio. Aside from the obvious listening room objections, noticeable noise or vibrations in components rarely improve the sonic qualities of music. Definitely cannot be considered reference quality."</i><br />

<br />

The sound of this system is 100% reference quality. Noisy is a subjective term and many readers have their own ways of dealing with this. In addition I easily could have included the totally fanless system I just built based ona Zalman TNN300 case, but that would increase the price by about $600. There certainly are pitfalls with the system in this article and I was straight forward in mentioning them. I really recommend you give this system a listen before taking a guess that the sound is not reference quality. The people I briefly spoke about in this article, mastering engineers, component designers, band members, etc ..., all think this system is reference quality. None of them has any vested interest in any computer platform. The systems used for listening tests comprised TAD M1 and Magico loudspeakers with the highest of the high-end performing components to power these speakers. <br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<i>"4. The cost of the Windows XP software is not included – foul."</i><br />

<br />

This was addressed very early in the article. In fact one reader who has already posted a comment suggests people will use a PC they already have and avoid purchasing this license. Since I had a copy and it is pretty likely there are legal avenues to avoid purchasing this license I think it's fair to exclude this from the price.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<i>"5. Aged software and firmware obsolescence? Are software and firmware upgrades reversible in case users try different versions to improve audio quality over the next, say 5 years?"</i><br />

<br />

I also expressed my concern in the article for legacy drivers and firmware and gave many valid reasons for this concern. Fortunately a music server to a certain extent can be frozen in time in terms of upgrades. Plus, the software and firmware are up and down-gradable. As I wrote in the article, "...I had to run an easy program that automatically downgraded the firmware from the current version to Rev 22."<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<i>"6. Are the inexpensive upgrades for memory (+$75 for 4GB) or hard disk storage (+$50 for 500GB) not worth the money?"</i><br />

<br />

That's a personal decision. Worth the money is very subjective. I did not try any of the offered upgrades with this system so I can't say what the effect would have been. I can say my machine has performed flawless thus far.<br />

<br />

<br />

<i>"7. Possibility of blown tweeters? – deserves a strong warning to proceed at your own risk unless your in the speaker business."</i><br />

<br />

Most certainly and is one of the reasons I listed for my hesitancy with this project. Using this system as purely a music server and not attempting to change settings or track names etc... will go a long way towards keeping your tweeters safe. It was worth the risk in my opinion. <br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<i>"8. Antenna breakout cables? – I believe your HD26 to XLR AES/EBU Cable Update bears repeating - a better cable is highly desirable."</i><br />

<br />

Most certainly. As I said in the article, "...Keeping on my theme of readily available components and computers I selected the standard Lynx breakout cable (CBL-AES1604 Eight-channel HD26 to XLR AES I/O Cable for AES16). I do prefer my custom HD26 to XLR AES cable as it removes the unneeded "antennae" from the equation but decided against its inclusion as part of this system because it's not readily available yet..."<br />

<br />

This is also a matter of where to draw the line and when is a reference sounding system rally a reference sounding system. I could have purchased a generator and run this system off the grid as well, but I didn't think that was required and I don't think the cable is mandatory in order to get reference quality sound.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<i>"9. A better computer power supply, better power cord and vibration control should improve audio playback."</i><br />

<br />

Al systems can be improved, but the possibility of improvement doesn't preclude a system from reference quality sound.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

Again, this response is not personal. It contains my honest responses to your comments. I've always enjoyed your candid comments around here and look forward to reading them again. I was a bit taken aback by your comments in this thread so please forgive my if my honesty seems a little to strong. <br />

<br />

Thanks audiozorro!

<em>I installed the in_wave.dll add-on for AIFF support in MediaMonkey. The Output Plugin I use is wave_out.dll.</em>*<br />

<br />

...maybe I have not understood: no more ASIO? Can you explain for the dummies like me, some more about the settings of MM?<br />

<br />

Thankx, Luca.<br />

<br />

*link are welcome

Hi Luca - The ASIO plugin available from the Lynx site work just as well, but because the file is on a Japanese language website it can be difficult for people to download. So, I stuck with the wave_out.dll version and all was good. The settings are real easy. You just tell it to output to the audio card and disable volume control.

<br />

Yes, I think the "definately not reference quality" is a slightly strange comment. Not only is it a quiet PC but I believe Chris mentioned he had it shut in a cabinet or something.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

Ok...thank you: I have already downloaded the ASIO from the link you post last days and without problems; what about the 2 "new" you are telling us now? (Where it is possible to DWNLD it?)<br />

L.<br />

<br />

(Sorry but I am ready to buy the Weiss DFI and to configure my "new" samsungQ45 with XP and mediaMonkey, all TO > external DAC...and...these PC-steps makes me...but I am ready...)<br />

;-)<br />

To me this is virtually identical to the Windows XP Reference Music Server you recommended back in August.<br />

<br />

Windows XP Reference Music Server<br />

- OS - Windows XP Professional ($270 @ Newegg.com)<br />

- Computer hardware - Intel based ($1,500 to $10,000+ depending on customization)<br />

- Music App - MediaMonkey Gold ($20)<br />

- Output Plugin - waveOut (out_wave.dll)<br />

- Digital I/O - Lynx AES16 (PCI version) (~$700)<br />

- Legacy drivers and firmware<br />

- DAC - Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC ($~5,000)<br />

<br />

There is nothing wrong with this, no doubt this is an excellent music server, and perhaps ‘all roads do lead to Rome’.<br />

<br />

No offense is taken by any of your comments and my apologies for not being more sensitive to your efforts. I assume you often have to walk a tightrope between audio users, manufacturers and business interests.<br />

<br />

Yes I probably should have left off my first comment which was intended as an inside the U.S. tongue-in-cheek reference to the often dreaded U.S. Federal Tax Forms 1040 or 1040 EZ.<br />

<br />

The cost savings in the music server are primarily due to using a low cost computer. My personal opinion is that the music server sounds good despite the use of the budget computer. Not that the music server sounds good because the Dell Inspiron 530 is superior to any of the more expensive Dell desktop computers that can take a full height PCI card and that may have higher quality parts inside. But, perhaps you may be correct that spending more money than for the $279 Dell will not bring sonic improvements or that the sonic differences will be negligible.<br />

<br />

Also, how much of the excellent sound is due to the $5K DAC? Would a $1K DAC, like the Benchmark DAC1 USB, using the AES/EBU XLR inputs with the Lynx card sound just as good?<br />

<br />

I am glad to get your assurances that the software and firmware are up and down-gradable. Nothing could be worse than trying out some upgrade that turns out to be a disappointment and is irreversible.<br />

<br />

Please correct me if I am wrong but my take on your November post from your August post is that the Windows XP Reference Music Server is sonically superior to your OS X Reference Music Server.<br />

Hi audiozorro - Thanks for the response. You are exactly right about this system's similarity to the system I mentioned back in August. That's one reason why I tried to create the cheapest solution around and why I mentioned that some readers won't be interested in this article. I'm sure you were one of those readers who read the article and said, "What's the big deal?" No worries. I think this server as a source can only improve a system's sound quality. If people use a Benchmark DAC1 USB the sound will not be hurt and likely improved depending on their existing system. A better source is never a bad thing. Right now I am favoring my Windows XP server over my Mac OS X music server. The XP system has absolutely awesome resolution. That said, I am not abandoning my Mac system as I like the sound of it and I'm awaiting the final version of Amarra and the Sonic Studio 304 hardware.

Chris, thanks for all your research and help.<br />

<br />

Needless to say, I will be building the recommended ‘Audiophile Reference Music Server For A Song’.<br />

<br />

I too will not abandon Mac system. I have a MacBook Pro laptop for portability and convenience and I can’t afford a $4K Mac Pro anytime soon. <br />

<br />

I also like the fact that I can use my AIFF music files on both systems.<br />

<br />