JIMV, I think you are right. Although some very fancy servers are now coming out. I have heard them (most notably, the McIntosh) only at shows. It is difficult to make judgments on the basis of listening in strange hotel rooms, but you do get an idea as to whether something is worth pursuing later.

All of the cheap servers I have heard (my experiences are NOT extensive, but casual and scattered about) commit the same old sins. No sound stage width or depth, no midrange, a lot of 70hz-90hz boom, and MUCH drop-out, i.e., too many instruments seem missing in action.

I can't wait to hear some of the better servers in more isolated listening situations. Theoretically, I suppose, a well-designed server should be able to compete with high-end CD players. But, I have to suspend judgment until I can hear for myself.

I've heard the McIntosh, Escient, Audio Request, and the Arcam. Not surprisingly the Arcam kicked their asses rather convincingly. It truly sounded like a high-end CD player and I'm talk about using it's own internal DAC. However, the user interface left a lot to be desired. But they did make sure that after initial install an owner could use it without a video display.

Cost alone has never been the deciding factor in audio. Getting closer to the intent of the music is the sole reason you own a better piece of equipment and there have been sufficient numbers of low priced, well designed and well built components (not sold at Best Buy) throughout the last sixty years which have proven just how close you can get with not that much money. But, in the end, they are still budget components and they are always bettered by higher priced gear with equally good intentions and a designer with a very good ear for music.

I think if you read the reviews closely, you'll see the same is still true today with computer based music servers. You can get alot for not much when you shop smart and you can get very little for quite a bit if you don't.

As to the $50k speakers and so forth, you're missing a large part of why anyone would want to own such items if you really think a PC under the desk is the same thing.

I don't buy it.

If an Apple portable can get the proper bits to the proper place at the proper time, then I don't think it requires gold plated point to point blah blah blah.

All the server has to do is get the data to the point at which we wish to begin to manipulate it to our tastes.

Look at any high end CD player. Does it require gold cufflinks in its interior Phillips based laser diodes to get the job done?

At some point, we start bullshitting ourselves about this stuff.

With where we are headed with data storage and delivery, we will soon be able to buffer an entire SACD and reassemble all the bits to our liking before the first note plays.

Look at JA's great recordings. Where do they live betwen recording and playback?

Apple laptop, eh?

Thanks for that oh wise one

RG

Hi, JimV,

I think where we differ is that I merely consider the computer to be the equivalent of the CD or SACD itself, and playback proceeds from there.

I see JA's Apple as an advanced equivalent of a digital disc - he just keeps the data on a hard drive.

I think the Hi Fi part begins when we try to move the data from there.

JA's list of his recording chain is very telling. It seems copper wire and silicon chips are OK in the digital domain. While they are holding still, bits are just bits, it's when we start to move them around that we gotta be careful!

You think gold plated connections and silver wires inside JA's Apple would make for better sound?

I don't, but you may, and that's cool.

I agree with Buddha. Parts selection and/or wiring may matter in the analog chain. However, as long as one uses an external DA converter, ANY PC will do.

Think about this: If bits weren't bits, you would consistently get data corruption when sending a file from one computer to another. The fact that you get reliable delivery, with bit per bit perfection guarantees that all PCs are the same as DIGITAL DELIVERY SYSTEMS. Once you turn the digital stream to analog, that's when problems begin.

Quote:
I have read for years that specific parts have specific sounds. That expensive capacitors are more musical than cheap ones, that point to point wireing is better than inexpensive printed circuits, and that there are better digital/analog converters than others. That cabinet resonances matter and that gold plated connectors are better than steel...OK, if this is the case with my CD player, why do those rules sort of vanish when one is talking about a computer?

The rules don't change from a CD player to a computer. But most of those "rules" you have read for years are wrong. However, cabinet resonances do matter and should be minimized. The rest is mostly myth. Proven by the vast amount of high quality music produced entirely inside computers with cheap capacitors, affordable A/D converters, and no point to point wiring.

--Ethan

It seems to me that taking the digital out of any of the servers and running into at least a BenchMark DAC is the way to go. Yes, even the Mac is not high end audio wise, but a neat piece of hardware. At $6K the performance is not up to Mac standards. It is too bad the interface of the Arcam is not up to par, but I would trade some operational issues for sound quality any day.

I do think the masses and some of us will eventually move there, especially with higher quality downloads. I just downloaded the free Nine Inch nails hi rez flac files. I also down loaded the mp3 files for my 13 year old son. I am old, but an audiophile and I could hardly tell the difference due to the electonic nature of the Trent Rexnor music. I could detect very little 3D or spacial cues.

I am not sure that releasing this on SACD would make a greater audio experience. This genre is not quite my cup of tea. An interesting experience none the less. In this case the server would not be the problem. I think you can find it at www.nin.com It is free in various formats. you will need Bit Torrent to extract the files.

The CD has a built-in DAC. As long as the DAC is separated from the CD and it's used strictly as a transport, a lot of these issues go out the window.

For the most part, yes. Naturally, you want reliability, so that's when the better part selection comes in, but as far as delivering digital data, one is as good as the next.
This is ESPECIALLY true if you're streaming other than PCM.

This is of course assuming that they all adhere to standards (this is where the engineering part comes in).

I believe all the Accuphase have digital inputs so yes, you might find it difficult to discern the difference between the boombox digital out to the Acccuphase digital in versus the Accuphase CDP.

You might also consider that Linn outfit recently introduced their state of the art 20K digital player. The only input it has is an ethernet jack!

RG

Quote:
Which implies that any device acting as a transport is as good as any other device regardless of parts, build, quality or engineering....Is that really what you mean?

Quote:
For the most part, yes.

Quote:
Wow, lots of ink wasted over the years on the high priced spread

One of you is deluded.

"The rest is mostly myth. Proven by the vast amount of high quality music produced entirely inside computers with cheap capacitors, affordable A/D converters, and no point to point wiring."

I'm not sure I get what you are saying, but I've never heard a decent analogue out put from ANY computer, and the one's I use are designed for A/V and animation. The sound cards you get suck- even the Pro versions, compared to a good CD player. Or maybe it's all the other junk inside, like power supply or whatever.

Computers do work well in the digital realm because they have a lot of error correction and redundancy, but the analogue realm is a total crap shoot. It's too bad really, but they never really designed them for great music...

The ease of use certainly can make one giddy and when someone is excited they can easily over look details. The ease of use of music servers is addicting. Again, the Arcam is in a completely different league than anything else on the market that I know of right now. It's a high-end CD player with a hard drive. No need for an external DAC at all. The sound is better than their CD192 which is saying something. The server is neck and neck with their top of the line CD player, the CD36. The server's a little better here, the CD36 is a little better there. At the end of the day between those two it would come down to personal opinion. The other servers are in the dust!

I agree. In "the other magazine" while review a server the pretty much said it sucked sonically, stating that a good external DAC was mandatory. That server wasn't cheap either, because of it's great user interface it got a pass. Unacceptable in my opinion. Still there is little doubt in my mind that servers are the future of digital music.

Servers, regardless of the parts used are very noisy products due to the architecture of the system. As such, they're not really made for use as an audiophile grade component. What they're made for and what they do well is deliver digital data. So, if you think of your music server as a digital data storage and delivery system, it allows you to view it in its proper light. So, since it's a digital data delivery system, a noisy one at that and not really meant to be a hi-fi device, separating it from the hi-fi is a good idea. If it's separated and used to deliver digital data to a hi-fi grade DAC or something like the Squeezebox which then feeds the DAC, then you'll find that the music server is a very convenient device that will store, catalog, and stream your music (just another set of data) to your well built hi-fi components.

As you should be able to guess from the responses you've been getting JIMV, the only really critical component of the "music server" chain is the DAC. Chassis of machined billets of aluminum, silver wiring, teflon circuit boards and all those other geegaws of hi-end audio at least have some justification for being included in the DAC. The other elements of the chain only have to assure that the DAC is getting the right data. Nearly any PC or laptop can reliably stream the bits over a home network. The only reasons for having higher-quality components serve that role would be for higher reliability and better appearance.

Quote:
Servers, regardless of the parts used are very noisy products due to the architecture of the system.

Good point Alex, streaming to something like a squeeze box would allow the physically noisy computer to be located else ware

Getting rid of the mechanical hard drives in servers and going to solid state memory when those types of drives are big enough would do the trick too.

To a great extent. There are some implementation issues that come up when a transport doesn't follow best engineering practices, but for the most part, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Quote:
I've never heard a decent analogue out put from ANY computer, and the one's I use are designed for A/V and animation. The sound cards you get suck- even the Pro versions, compared to a good CD player.

That hasn't been my experience. Even the stock sound card in my Dell Inspiron laptop sounds fine, for playback anyway (I never record through it). I mostly use a FireBOX card with the laptop, and that sounds fine too. That's in my living room system. My home studio upstairs has a Delta 66 card and that sounds fine to me too. If you're ever in my part of New England, you're most welcome to stop by for a listen and maybe some A/B comparisons.

--Ethan

Music servers can be in the same room as the system without a noise penalty. Laptop drive based servers are very quiet. There are additionally many options for putting together a very quiet PC (and probably for Macs as well).

Ethan,

I would love to stop by for a visit. Would it be ok to come down this weekend?

Quote:
I would love to stop by for a visit. Would it be ok to come down this weekend?

Yes, I'd love to meet you in person! This weekend is okay, though next weekend would be better. But if next weekend is not good for you, either this Saturday or Sunday afternoon are okay. I'm shooting a video here Friday night to explain all about diffusion, and I know I'll be hot to get cracking on the editing. But there's no real deadline on the video.

--Ethan

A while back I started getting computers with digital audio outputs, so I added a home-theater style amp with toslink inputs and connected the my Mac Pro via those.

The difference in sound quality from my previous setup really amazed me. Of course just losing all of the buzzes from inside the computer was great, but also the DAC in the home-theater receiver (nothing fancy, just a middling but new Yamaha) seems to do a much better job than the one in the Mac.

Really all I lost was the ability to control the volume from the computer keyboard -- now I have to use the amp's remote.

By the way, I recently upgraded to the latest Mac Pro and I'm astonished by how quiet it is, although if I had a dedicated listening room (I don't) I'd probably want to keep it in a closet or whatnot.