Media Server Reviews

MTrot, yes we do Amazon Streaming

I wonder whether the drive can even spin at CD playback speeds like a conventional CD transport ...... It is possible that the drive in the server can only spin at 2X, 4X or more speeds, which is useful for CD ripping ....... It is also possible that the mechanism is designed to do both ie. playback and ripping :-) ........

Hi, is there any relationship between the rate of disc spinning and digital data retrieval for storage in the server? ...... What is the maximum optimum spinning rate? ....... 2X, 4X, 8X or more for example? ........ What is your opinion? :-) ........

Kelaur wrote:

For $2000 it should play a CD or DVD smoothly.

It sure does play a CD or DVD smoothly but that's not what you are buying this for.

The error correction system commonly built-in the DACs will most likely take care of that ....... Of course, I'm not disputing about the errors in CDs being transferred to the storage in the servers :-) ........

As an owner of both a nucleus and a Wolf (not this version), I feel the need to correct a couple of things. First, the Wolf does not take a "back seat" sonically. Jason's review mentioned a couple of passages (known to be "hot") and liked what Nucleus + power supply did. My older version Wolf certainly has not been bettered (it has been best sounding unit that I have used). Secondly, the Wolf does a LOT more than the nucleus. In fact, it is this flexibility (including video, which enhanced my movie watching experience and was great for the kids) that separates it from competitors, many of which use processing systems no more robust than last generation cell phones.

Of course !!! Finally someone nailed it!
It's about enjoying music through the hi fi system and not the other way around. It is and always will be that way, until "perfect music forever" become truly present, that day all hi fi brands will disappear. Meanwhile, like it or not all equipment MUST have tone controls to taylor the sound to the person is hearing it. Jeez...

I totally agree with the concept that music has the first fundamental goal of bringing us joy, and not a fight with our senses in order to preserve an alleged accuracy.

And I must reinforce the “alleged” part of the sentence, because even if we could be 100% sure that nothing was lost or changed between the master recording (and this is usually a big “if”), we would still hit the hard fact that it’s very unlikely that two studios have the exact same gear/monitors and acoustics.

And even if they did, not all audio engineers will have the same taste or be mixing for the same final consumer (most records are mixed and mastered with the best “compliance” possible between several lower to mid consumer grade products, not caring about audiophile standards).

And then we still have different headphones, loudspeakers and listening rooms introducing a huge “sonic signature”, which will have most likely the biggest impact on the so-called accuracy.

Unless the listener was in the recording venue, had the opportunity to compare the live sound with the one being recorded (making clear mental notes of the differences introduced right there), and then playing it back on a given sound system (which is a very hard exercise by itself given the range of human audible memory), absolute accuracy is a moving target.

I understand the concept of avoiding EQ (or simple tone controls) on some levels, but having to bear harsh sound in name of accuracy (without even knowing if the audio engineer who did the final mastering wasn’t over-compensating for a laid-back monitor system/acoustics) is the kind of self-imposed audio suffering that I honestly don’t understand.

On the subject of the review itself, if we’re comparing two very competent (and I write this as an understatement) digital audio players and one of them is harsh where the other one isn’t, I would be inclined to believe that one of them is anything but accurate on turning those 0 and 1’s back into an analogue signal.

We’re not talking about cheap components found inside budget smartphones that have to be able to be an jack of all trades.

I believe that having more examples and photos of the actual process of using this server would have added value to the review of this product.

But these are only my personal opinions, which can be as wrong as any other. :-)

I enjoy JVS's reviews, and I bumped into once at a show and found him a very pleasant and gracious fellow. I've always thought of him as the audio reviewer equivalent of Linda Evangelista in that he won't get out of bed to review a components that cost less than $10,000. He certainly has a very fine reference system and is a meticulous tweaker yet we learn in this review that his room has a 'slap echo—on my end, an issue that will disappear once I find room treatment I can afford'.
I couple of things made me curious - why such a tweaker would not address room acoustics and why are solutions not affordable - compared to high end components acoustical treatments would seem relatively affordable? Over thinking this makes me wonder, then, is JVS's reference system loaned and not owned. And if your reference system is loaned do you then have to be a more positive reviewer to maintain good industry relationships?

My reading of this particular review is that JVS spent many words saying he found his nucleus+ with LPS preferable to the Wolf server. That doesn't mean you can't be positive about the Wolf but at more than twice the price I feel there should be a little reservation in the summary.

13DoW

May I add ...... Don't buy a smartphone, if you just want to make and receive phone calls :-) .........

Have you read JA1's comments about the CD errors could be corrected by the servers? ....... See, JA1's comments above :-) ........

So, how come JA1 said the CD rip from the server could sound better than the original CD physical disc with errors? :-) ........

The database should be able to tell the server to put 1 or 0 in the appropriate place :-) .......

The server has two parts ..... The transport and the storage ....... The transport rips, accesses the database, make any corrections, and then provides that data to the storage which stores that data :-) .......

That stored data is presented the DAC ...... I don't think any further corrections will be made by the server ...... JA1 could correct me, if I'm wrong :-) .......

The examples you are showing appear to be CD-R/RW copies made from original stamped retail CD ....... We don't know what machine was used to make those CD-R/RW copies ....... We don't know whether that machine is connected to internet or not ....... We don't know whether that machine has access to the database or not, which JA1 mentioned above ........ The CD rippers usually don't work like CD copiers ....... CD rippers can spin at multiple speeds and can access the database like JA1 mentioned ...... CD rippers usually don't make CD-R/RW copies :-) ........

reading a CD via optical transport includes regular control of check sums but note, a CD has only approx. 10% of redundancy information [i.e. check-sums] stored compared to a proper PC file such as *.wav or *.flac on a HDD or SSD, so it is much more sparse in comparison.

In case check-sum errors occur, a real-time CD replaying CD transport may re-read the relating part: I would however not assume that all CD transports re-read the last turn ad infinitum or until all checksums are finally correct, as there is limited time for correction before the data buffer is empty (if so the music stops playing, or skips a tiny part, perhaps not noticed by the listener). Not sure about buffer size, but I'd assume rather a few kB or so, i.e. tiny compared to the track size.

Instead, when the server (PC) reads a disc it checks the CD check-sums (as any transport would do) but eventually also checks the check-sum of the complete scanned track (file) against values stored in data bases, and if it is not correct, it re-reads the track a number of times until correct, and it does so reading with 8-times or if need be even 0.1 times real time, dependent on how scratchy the CD. In the end, such a scanned CD is, unless deeply scratched, by all means 99.99% correct or better. You will most likely not get this data (stream) quality from a real-time played CD, perhaps also not with a 10k transport on good days.

Storing and re-reading the scanned music data in a file on HDD or SSD happens with 10x more checksums compared to data on a music CD, and as experience tells with normal files on a PC ssd or hdd, hardly ever a file has flipped bits or is corrupted, reading time from latest SSD is super fast, ca 1GB per second (~1.5times an entire CD, that allows for some comfortable re-reading if data is erroneous, which on the other hand would be much more obvious because of 10x more redundant "check data" stored with "music data"). So no issue here, neither with error correction nor timing.

Summary:
1) scanning a CD (to HDD or SSD): one more extra source to identify reading errors (data base), AND, should errors occur, there is plenty of time to re-read the CD until all check-sums are correct. Replay is not introducing errors (well.. no errors comparable to uncertainty of real-time CD replay).
2) real-time CD replay: very limited error correction (if at all), at some point re-reading must be skipped anyway to keep the music playing.

Good catch!

Would have liked to see more value as exemplified by specially designed bespoke parts for $10k as well.

... here:
https://www.quietpcusa.com/Streacom-FC10-ALPHA-HTPC-Chassis

Actually, no. Any mini-pc will NOT do better. Form factor is certainly a matter of choice.

What makes you think it is only 50% chance of getting the corrected errors right? ....... It could be 60%, 85% or even 100% correcting the errors right :-) .......

You're saying the transport will interpret errors, there may be different errors in writing to HDD/SDD, and yet other different errors introduced in reading the HDD/SDD (worst case)? Instead of just the transport reading and interpreting a single set of errors, yes?

If I have that correct (or not), that thought intrigued me. So, I went to see my SMART error codes as an (admittedly anecdotal) test. I found no reports of read or write errors between the three. One with 20,000 hours on it unfortunately doesn't show how much has been written to or read from it, but it was my drive for music recording and mixing for years. A couple dozen or so projects had been worked on through it. I also know I've had it near full quite a few times before offloading the projects to other drives, so there will have been a good number of write/read/rewrite/read...etc. going on in it.

What does this mean for any of us? I don't know; nothing, likely. It's just interesting, especially thinking of how many errors could be introduced throughout the recording, mixing, and mastering process - if any.

Ok ...... So, how can that damaged CD with errors sound better in a regular CD player with regular CD transport? ...... Can it? :-) .......

May be the CD player does 'sins of omission', while the server does 'sins of commission' :-) .......

The only way to know is to play each and every CD on a regular CD player and do a listening test comparison with what is recorded in the server ........

The Acronova Nimbe CD ripper, which is mentioned above, discards unrecordable CDs to the server ........ I don't know whether the Wolf server has that particular feature or not ....... Probably the Wolf server has that particular feature also :-) ........

If you are using any other digital reconstruction filter other than the standard linear phase filter in the CD player's DAC, you have to use the same filter in the DAC which you are using with the server, for the listening tests ........ Bryston BCD-3 and Hegel Mohican CD players come with minimum phase filters, for example ....... Good luck :-) ........