?'s and thoughts on digital music storage and the Roku Soundbridge
Jan 30, 2004 at 6:46 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 58

Super-Gonzo

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 1, 2003
Posts
137
Likes
10
Hi guys and gals, long time reader, first time poster.

Early warning: this is a long post. I can't help it, I love talking about this stuff too much!

So, on to the topic of discussion: I'd really like some feedback from people who have taken the plunge, and ditched their cd players. Permanently.

There has been a lot of discussion here around this topic, but I'd like to consider it from a different perspective: instead of using a computer as the source, what about a dedicated, networked device (like the product from Roku, mentioned below.)

First some background:

I've been using compressed audio formats (mp3, mpc, wm9) for some time now, mostly for portable and work listening. The convenience of compressed audio is hard to deny. Playlists, random selection, having all my music available instantly, among many other traits, make it a very attractive medium.

Unfortunately, when it comes to serious listening, the quality has always been lacking. In 2 areas really:

1. lossy formats: I've gotten quite good at getting decent sound from mp3's using EAC and LAME, but there is still a perceived difference between the compressed audio and the original. If there is more music detail available to me, I loathe to give it up.

2. hardware: I know some of you have seen good results using a high grade sound card or using digital output through an external DAC, but for me, the sound of a computer in the same room is simply too distracting to make these solutions work. With open ear headphones like hd600's, this absolutely ruins the detail of quiet passages.

Fast forward to current day:

So what to do? I want the convenience of having a central library for all my music, without giving up the quality associated with the original cd, and dedicated listening equipment.

Recently, I've become aware of products like the roku soundbridge. (Its a long list, as this seems to be a popular type of product right now... the squeezebox, turtlebeach audiotron, etc.)

www.rokulabs.com/products/soundbridge
www.slimp3.com
www.turtlebeach.com/site/products/audiotron

The Roku unit in particular seems very attractive to me:
- It can play lossless formats (FLAC, WAV) among others, streamed over a network from a server.
- It has digital outs (coax and optical)
- It can be controlled via a web page or with a remote, and has a really nice screen (a good interface is a must when sorting through one's entire music collection)
- It can be configured to work on a wifi or wired network

So I've been thinking, why not rip my entire collection to a large hard drive, in a loss-less format like FLAC, and stream all the music to a remote device like the roku? I could then hook it up to my DAC via the digital out. I'd keep the server in a completely different room, so my listening environment should be supremely quiet. (I wouldn't even have to listen to the CD spin up any more!)

Of course, there are always concerns about the quality of the digital signal. But, it occurs to me that a solution like this would be at an advantage over a traditional cd player, as the data is buffered on the local device (the roku has 16mb's of memory) and the error correction reading from the original physical storage medium (the cd) has already been done. If using appropriate software (like EAC) to rip the CD, this error correction has most likely been done to a much greater extent than a typical cd player would ever be able to perform.

These traits would seem to lower the jitter normally associated with reading a cd. In reality this is probably more dependent on the implementation of the actual circuitry, but at a cursory glance, it seems to have an advantage.

Mostly, this idea excites me, because it allows me to use a really good external DAC, which is (in my opinion) the most important factor in determining the sound quality from a given source, given an equal medium.

For those of you that are curious, my current setup looks like this:

Rotel 85? CDP -> MSB Link III DAC -> PPA -> HD600

So, who else has considered doing something like this?
cool.gif


Are there any hidden gotchas that I'm not thinking of?
confused.gif


Has anyone used any of the products mentioned above? (I don't think Roku's unit will be out until the end of Feb., but the turtle beach audiotron has been around for a while.)

and the MOST important question: Will the resulting sound be as good as or better than it would be from a good CDP?
600smile.gif
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 6:55 PM Post #2 of 58
Any of these digital devices, combined with your MSB Link III, would likely be a devastating combination. There's no need to worry about these digital devices being bad transports -- by their very nature, the signal is buffered in memory on the device before being output on the digital outs, so the potential for jitter is minimized.

Also, the Roku Soundbridge uses the same software (SlimServer) as the Squeezebox, so choosing between those devices is really a choice of which hardware meets your needs better.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 7:11 PM Post #3 of 58
Roku looks cool. I wouldn't mind getting the smaller one.

I believe the power supply still has a factor in the soundquality. I'd probably ditch the wallwart and use something better and add power conditioning for the device and DAC. I'd use glass optical out to connect the 2.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 7:12 PM Post #4 of 58
I drew the same conclusion about digital signal jitter, Wodgy. Nice to hear that someone has the same thoughts.

Good point about the server software (slimserver.) Looking at it, I also noticed its open source, which could make for fun tweaking in the future.

Based on the hardware alone, at this point, I'd have to go with the Roku Soundbridge, as it has a beautiful display.

Has anyone run into any trouble with these devices and the size of their music collection? Do they get slow or (worse) not work at all with bigger libraries?

Once I rip my entire collection to FLAC's, I'll most likely have 4000+ songs, growing by the day... (man do I love the $5 used cd store store near my house!) I'd hate to run into trouble because I have too much music.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 7:17 PM Post #5 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by lan
Roku looks cool. I wouldn't mind getting the smaller one.




I was thinking the same thing!

Quote:

I believe the power supply still has a factor in the soundquality. I'd probably ditch the wallwart and use something better and add power conditioning for the device and DAC. I'd use glass optical out to connect the 2.


Thats a good idea, I've been pursuing a new power supply for my PPA, might be a good time to consider building one for the Roku as well.

Why do you suggest using glass optical? I understand that it disconnects ground between the two devices, but I've always heard that when it comes to SPDIF, coax sounds better. I've never had a cdp that does both, so I've never A/B'd the two.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 7:41 PM Post #6 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by Super-Gonzo
Why do you suggest using glass optical? I understand that it disconnects ground between the two devices


It's less noisy this way and doesn't pickup any air bourne RFI/EMI.

Seems like Harvey's electronics is a dealer. Maybe I'll wait until it's released and they get it and I'll try it at home.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 8:21 PM Post #7 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by Super-Gonzo
These traits would seem to lower the jitter normally associated with reading a cd. In reality this is probably more dependent on the implementation of the actual circuitry, but at a cursory glance, it seems to have an advantage.

and the MOST important question: Will the resulting sound be as good as or better than it would be from a good CDP?
600smile.gif


I've been thinking the same thing, and before buying a CD player for work I did a search for standalone devices like this (ie, includes a hard drive instead of networking to a separate computer). I didn't find much - the field is still young. It seems like a great idea though. The CD is such a lousy way of holding digital music - cumbersome, easily damaged, difficult to achieve error-free reads in real-time - and with good extraction and lossless formats you shouldn't lose any quality.

That said, how long till the current batch of Hi-fi companies or perhaps a whole new crop begin the onslaught of ads promoting hard drives "utilizing proprietary read heads and specially designed recording medium designed to eliminate the jitter associated with normal hard drives and ensure the best <insert your favorite marketing babble here>, for only 25 times the price of inferior drives!" Or better yet, the computer companies run the show and we spend most of our listening time rebooting, updating software and trying to figure out if Device X is compatble with Device Y. Just what I need - a combination of the worst parts of my job and my hobby! Bastards.

Of course, I'm not bitter or anything...
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 8:37 PM Post #8 of 58
I did a bit of research on this a couple of months back and came to the conclusion that I pretty much had to build my own computer.

The major gotcha with some (or all?) of these is that they stream from some other server using a compressed format. So even if you rip and store in FLAC, you end up with compressed MP3 decoded by the receiver itself.

I don't know about the Roku, but I did read that the slimp3 products do this. Several others do as well. I wish I had taken better notes at the time so I could give more info.

Basically for the most flexibility on formats, storage requirements, networking, playback software, etc., you have to build it yourself.

I plan to, but don't have the time to really pursue it now.

I hope my (limited) info helps.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 8:46 PM Post #9 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by faustus
<insert your favorite marketing babble here>. Or better yet, the computer companies run the show and we spend most of our listening time rebooting, updating software and trying to figure out if Device X is compatble with Device Y. Just what I need - a combination of the worst parts of my job and my hobby! Bastards.

Of course, I'm not bitter or anything...


Ha!
biggrin.gif


I have the same concerns... the last thing I want is my source locking up in the middle of a good listening session!
rolleyes.gif
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 8:59 PM Post #10 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by rwooda
I did a bit of research on this a couple of months back and came to the conclusion that I pretty much had to build my own computer.

The major gotcha with some (or all?) of these is that they stream from some other server using a compressed format. So even if you rip and store in FLAC, you end up with compressed MP3 decoded by the receiver itself.

I don't know about the Roku, but I did read that the slimp3 products do this. Several others do as well. I wish I had taken better notes at the time so I could give more info.

Basically for the most flexibility on formats, storage requirements, networking, playback software, etc., you have to build it yourself.

I plan to, but don't have the time to really pursue it now.

I hope my (limited) info helps.


If that is true, then it misses the whole point of the original encoding! Don't get me started about the dangers of encoding twice.

Looking at the squeezebox and slimserver FAQs:

http://www.slimp3.com/pi_faq.html

I'm not entirely sure if that is what they do (in the current version anyways) They say the following:

Quote:


What kind impact will Squeezebox have on my wireless network?
While streaming music, Squeezebox will use some network bandwidth. The amount of bandwidth depends on the bitrate of the audio file. MP3 files use up to 320k bits per second, AIFF, WAV, AAC and other formats may use up to 1.5M bits per second. A solid 802.11b network can generally support around 5M bits per second of data, even though it's rated for 11M bits per second. This means that you can support more than one Squeezebox on an 802.11 network, but the number depends on the audio data rate.

If you have an 802.11g network, adding any 802.11b device (including Squeezebox) will cause the overall performance of your network to slow down. The amount of that slowdown depends on the devices in your network, but our tests indicate that a mixed 802.11b/802.11g network will see overall performance reduced to about half of the full rated 802.11g performance.


If they are using different amounts of bandwidth for different formats, then they can't be re-compressing the data... that wouldn't make sense

also here:

Quote:


What compression formats does Squeezebox use?
Squeezebox supports MPEG 1/2, layers 2/3, for both VBR and fixed data rates up to 320Kbps (the maximum for MP3). Additionally, Squeezebox can play raw, uncompressed audio. This means that the original data from the CD is being played digitally, without any compression or loss of sound quality. The SlimServer software can automatically handle many formats, including Ogg Vorbis, Flac, and AAC.


I suppose the real question is in the statement "automatically handle" it depends on what they do with the FLAC file... if they simply decompress it to WAV and stream it, then its fine. If they decompress it to WAV, re-encode it in mp3 and then stream it, then we are in trouble. My guess is they stream the WAV format, as its easier and doesn't require as much computing power.

Thoughts?
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 9:10 PM Post #11 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by Super-Gonzo
I suppose the real question is in the statement "automatically handle" it depends on what they do with the FLAC file... if they simply decompress it to WAV and stream it, then its fine. If they decompress it to WAV, re-encode it in mp3 and then stream it, then we are in trouble. My guess is they stream the WAV format, as its easier and doesn't require as much computing power.


OK -- I may have wrongly maligned the slimp3. I did find this the following on this page http://www.slimp3.co.uk/features.html:

AAC, FLAC, Ogg Vorbis Supported through server-side decoding
PCM (AIFF, WAV): Supports raw pass-through of uncompressed audio


One would hope that this means that since they can handle uncompressed AIFF and WAV on the client-side that they convert FLAC to PCM on the server-side and send it uncompressed.

Even so, I would still build my own to have control over the DAC and playback software (and to double as a picture-viewer on my TV).

Cheers!
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 9:37 PM Post #12 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by rwooda

Even so, I would still build my own to have control over the DAC and playback software (and to double as a picture-viewer on my TV).


I built a HTPC and I watch all my movies with it... it does a fantastic job of scaling and deinterlacing to my HDTV rear projection unit.

But, I do my headphone listening in my office, and the TV and that system is downstairs. Rather than build another machine just for headphone listening, this seems like a good solution for me.

Plus I don't have to deal with the noise from the fans and hard drives when trying to relax and really listen to music. That, and the signal has a chance at being a littler cleaner, being away from the interference a TV and tons of computer equipment can generate.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 9:50 PM Post #13 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by Super-Gonzo
. . . .


Good points. I want to build a fanless mini-ITX box to make it quiet for interface to my main stereo system. In my office I have a couple of computers anyway -- it certainly isn't quiet -- and I already use one of them for playback from a centralized file server.

Don't you have a computer in your office?
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 9:51 PM Post #14 of 58
I found an interesting white paper from an EE's website. They cover his thoughts on optical vs. coax digital connections:

http://members.cox.net/pjaceto/Digit...ansmission.pdf (PDF)

I have had the same thoughts concerning optical vs. electrical digital connections. It would seem to me that for short runs, the optical connection just makes more sense, if only because it disconnects ground and won't pick-up EMI.

Perhaps all the $$$ hi-fi companies are trying to convince us of the reverse because there is no money in an optical solution...

I suppose this topic could be discussed in a thread of its own. (If it hasn't already) But, I thought I'd post it for any curious readers.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 9:54 PM Post #15 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by rwooda
Don't you have a computer in your office?


I have a laptop, but I rarely use it in the office (I LOVE wifi
biggrin.gif
)

I say office because it has a desk, but it's really more like my project/reading/music listening room.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top