Hi fidelity iTunes Music Server

Just wanted to share this experience I've had building my itunes music
server.
My goal was to make it as hifi as possible, within budget contraints, of
course. The music server had to be based on itunes because:
1. My library consists of Apple Lossless files.
2. iTunes is a great music management application. I love it
flexibility with playlists. The itunes interface is hard to beat.
Knowing that the audio quality's there in my lossless files, I just have
to find a way to get it out to my stereo . . .with minimal digital
destruction Since my DAW is a windows XP box, I started my pursuit
there. I ran itunes, connect my echo Mia analog outputs to my stereo.
FYI, iTunes plays all its music through quicktime on Windows systems.
The music sounded adequete. I kept using my Panasonic S-35 DVD player as
my reference. The Pansonic easily beat that setup. Next, I explored the
idea of using the SPDIF connection and transferring the music digitally
to an SRC converter. I can not afford the Benchmark DAC1, so I searched
around and found the Behringer Ultramatch SRC2496. For $120, the price
definitely made it worth experimenting with.
So my next setup was iTunes on Win XP through my Echo MIA via its SPDIF
connector to the SRC2496 to my stereo. That sound was adequete. With all
that I had read on the net I had thought that SPDIF would sound much
better. Perhaps it was the SRC2496? For some time I almost gave in to
beleive that, but then I started to explore another idea that the
Behringer may be getting garbage in (as in upsampled digital data
somehow), so garbage is coming out. I tried many different iterations of
the MIA soundcard, purewave mode, WDM mode. I even reluctantly changed
the sample rate from the default of 44.1 Khz to 48 Khz in hopes that the
SRC in QUicktime might perhpas be a bit better than Windows, if it was
doing any upsampling. Still no dice. The Panasonic DVD player
absolutely killed the windows based itunes music server. Next up:
foobar2000 based itunes server.
I found a plugin on the internet which enables itunes to bypass
quicktime and play its' music via foobar2000. I downloaded foobar, the
mulit-part plugin and configured everything. For the life of me I could
not get iTunes to work. The multiplugin was killing itunes somehow. For
kicks I removed the mulitplugin and just played with the newer version
of iTunes. A biref digression here: my DAW had itunes 6 and was running
fine, but the new multiplugin required itunes 7. iTunes 7 runs
signinficanly slower on my lowly
Pentium III based music server/DAW. Even if I could get this new
configuration to work, the sluggishness of iTunes 7 was quite
off-putting. Since nothing was working and I desperately wanted to hear
at least what this foobar engine was about, I launched foobar and played
some wav files I had. They definitely sounded better, but they also
sounded strange. Some vinyl that I had digitised experienced unusually
emphasized surface noise when playing through foobar. Also, when
comparing the foobar output to the Panasonic dvd player, the panasonic
still won, but at least fobar was better. Still, with so many glitches
in this configuration that I could not get working, I gave up on it.

I was fresh out of ideas. Then I thought more about the notion that
Windows systems tend to base their audio sampling rates at 48Khz, yet my
music is at 44.1 Khz. As mentioned earlier, maybe there's some
resampling going on that I do not know about, or have no control over.
I've also seen threads saying that Macintosh systems use the base
sampling rate of 44.1 Khz. Luckily I have a Macintosh G3 Blue & white
minitower that I use for my main "working" PC: browse the web, Word docs
etc. Also lucky for me, the Echo Mia has Macintosh drivers. So, off to
experiment number 3.
I removed the Echo MIA from my windows PC and dropped it into my Mac.
Powered it up and installed the drivers. The I fired up itunes (still
itunes 6, no upgrade needed) and listened. WOW. From the first few
moments I heard it, and I heard it good. The music sounded really good,
like music, not processed digital data that's put together to be a close
proximity of music. I listened for 30 mintues, which went to an hour,
then to 2. It was good. Compared to the Panasonic DVD, the Panasonic
still won, but not by much, not by much at all. The main difference I
could see was a slight frequency imbalance. If the Panasonic is neutral,
then the itunes 6 on Macintosh G3->Echo MIA->SPDIF->SRC2496->stereo was
a bit bright, sibilance was a little too hot. Also, every once in a
while, the music just skips randomly. It's not the files. When I rewind
to the section just skipped over, it plays fine, always. Other than
that, the music sounded very good. AND, I think I may be able to address
the sibilance and skipping issue. My G3 Macintosh is over-clocked to 400
Mhz. I'm going to take it apart and reset it back to its factory setting
of 350 Mhz. We'll see how that goes.

With the G3 clocked back to 350 Mhz all skipping is now GONE Also, the
frequency balance is much better as well. The music is more neutral now.
There is a very slight bump in top end, like around 5-8Khz, but now I
think that may be the Behringer analoge side of its D/A converter. I
plan on exploring some modifications of the SRC2496. It may not be a
DAC1, but less than a 3rd of the price with some future mods, I think it
may get quite close.

Food for thought for anyone building a computer based music server.


CD

In article <NHOUg.11$TM5.0@newsfe09.lga>,
Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

> With the G3 clocked back to 350 Mhz all skipping is now GONE Also, the
> frequency balance is much better as well. The music is more neutral now.
> There is a very slight bump in top end, like around 5-8Khz, but now I
> think that may be the Behringer analoge side of its D/A converter. I
> plan on exploring some modifications of the SRC2496. It may not be a
> DAC1, but less than a 3rd of the price with some future mods, I think it
> may get quite close.
>
> Food for thought for anyone building a computer based music server.

Did you consider just using the D/A that's built in to the B&W, feeding
the analog audio right to your amp?

You might be surprised.

Isaac

isw wrote:
> In article <NHOUg.11$TM5.0@newsfe09.lga>,
> Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>With the G3 clocked back to 350 Mhz all skipping is now GONE Also, the
>>frequency balance is much better as well. The music is more neutral now.
>>There is a very slight bump in top end, like around 5-8Khz, but now I
>>think that may be the Behringer analoge side of its D/A converter. I
>>plan on exploring some modifications of the SRC2496. It may not be a
>>DAC1, but less than a 3rd of the price with some future mods, I think it
>>may get quite close.
>>
>>Food for thought for anyone building a computer based music server.
>
>
> Did you consider just using the D/A that's built in to the B&W, feeding
> the analog audio right to your amp?
>
> You might be surprised.
>
> Isaac
I had a tendency to dismiss the idea of using the built in sound because;

1. I'm trying to avoid any D/A conversion within the computer itself.
2. The B&W's output jack is a miniheadphone jack. I look at those type
of jacks on a soundcard as indicating how serious the soundcard
manufacturer is, or not, about producing audio. You know, like those
gaming cards with 7.1 channels, etc etc.

Still, I may give it a go just to see what it has to offer.

CD

Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

> I removed the Echo MIA from my windows PC and dropped it into my Mac.
> Powered it up and installed the drivers. The I fired up itunes (still
> itunes 6, no upgrade needed) and listened. WOW. From the first few
> moments I heard it, and I heard it good. The music sounded really good,
> like music, not processed digital data that's put together to be a close
> proximity of music. I listened for 30 mintues, which went to an hour,
> then to 2. It was good. Compared to the Panasonic DVD, the Panasonic
> still won, but not by much, not by much at all. The main difference I
> could see was a slight frequency imbalance. If the Panasonic is neutral,
> then the itunes 6 on Macintosh G3->Echo MIA->SPDIF->SRC2496->stereo was
> a bit bright, sibilance was a little too hot. Also, every once in a

Seems kind of nutty. Just passing out the USB port, into a good D/A
converter, and into the stereo amplifier sounds great. And considering
you're using a bottom-of-the-line Panasonic DVD-S35 as a "reference" it
really isn't clear why you're futzing so much. m.

--
matt neuburg, phd = matt@tidbits.com, http://www.tidbits.com/matt/
Tiger - http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/tiger-customizing.html
AppleScript - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596102119
Read TidBITS! It's free and smart. http://www.tidbits.com

matt neuburg wrote:
> Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I removed the Echo MIA from my windows PC and dropped it into my Mac.
>>Powered it up and installed the drivers. The I fired up itunes (still
>>itunes 6, no upgrade needed) and listened. WOW. From the first few
>>moments I heard it, and I heard it good. The music sounded really good,
>>like music, not processed digital data that's put together to be a close
>>proximity of music. I listened for 30 mintues, which went to an hour,
>>then to 2. It was good. Compared to the Panasonic DVD, the Panasonic
>>still won, but not by much, not by much at all. The main difference I
>>could see was a slight frequency imbalance. If the Panasonic is neutral,
>>then the itunes 6 on Macintosh G3->Echo MIA->SPDIF->SRC2496->stereo was
>>a bit bright, sibilance was a little too hot. Also, every once in a
>
>
> Seems kind of nutty. Just passing out the USB port, into a good D/A
> converter, and into the stereo amplifier sounds great. And considering
> you're using a bottom-of-the-line Panasonic DVD-S35 as a "reference" it
> really isn't clear why you're futzing so much. m.
>
You'd be surprised how that "bottom of the line" player sounds. Even
fooled me. I bought just a s basic DVD player for my setup. Using it for
Audio wasn't even on my mind. It's junior to the Panasonic S-55, the one
that gets great raves, but they have very similar internals, like the
24/192 D/A converter.

CD

> Did you consider just using the D/A that's built in to the B&W, feeding
> the analog audio right to your amp?
>
> You might be surprised.
>
> Isaac

Echo that, I ended up with a pair of Bose's top-of-the-line headphones
a couple years ago when they were all the only store around had in
stock (it was a PX in Kuwait). Plugged into my B&W G3, they give
outstanding audio, and I have nearly perfect hearing according to my
doctor. I'd rate the B&W's built-in as comparable to the Audigy 2 PCI
card in my Dell; well below a Denon or Aiwa component system, but
pretty good. Apple spends some effort on their audio subsystems: look
at the Bose speakers built-in the lowly iMac G3's. I haven't noticed so
much of the system noise carrying over into Apple's audio subsystem as
in PC's.

David

Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> writes:

> 1. I'm trying to avoid any D/A conversion within the computer itself.
> 2. The B&W's output jack is a miniheadphone jack. I look at those type
> of jacks on a soundcard as indicating how serious the soundcard
> manufacturer is, or not, about producing audio. You know, like those
> gaming cards with 7.1 channels, etc etc.

Elsewhere someone mentioned this:

http://www.behringer.com/MS40/index.cfm?lang=ENG


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

> > Did you consider just using the D/A that's built in to the B&W, feeding
> > the analog audio right to your amp?
> > You might be surprised.
>
> Echo that, I ended up with a pair of Bose's top-of-the-line headphones

That is funny. Bose has never made a good sounding piece of equipment
in their entire lifetime as a mediocre manufacturer to the masses.

> a couple years ago when they were all the only store around had in
> stock (it was a PX in Kuwait). Plugged into my B&W G3, they give
> outstanding audio, and I have nearly perfect hearing according to my
> doctor.

Its more about discernment that hearing. Any audiophile will tell you
that. Especially in regards to spacial perception. That is the aspect
of the soundstage. To get into this, see The Absolute Sound and
Stereophile. They don't mince words. If a component is useless, they
tell you so. Yes some of the equipment is crazy expensive (several 2
channel speaker systems are over $100,000) and lots of turntables over
$10,000, but the principles are sound and if you get thrilled with audio
realism, its a good starting point.

> I'd rate the B&W's built-in as comparable to the Audigy 2 PCI
> card in my Dell; well below a Denon or Aiwa component system, but

Aiwa? Now that's a quality manufacturer. lol.
Do they make music systems a touch better than clock radios?

> pretty good. Apple spends some effort on their audio subsystems: look
> at the Bose speakers built-in the lowly iMac G3's. I haven't noticed so
> much of the system noise carrying over into Apple's audio subsystem as
> in PC's.
> David

Well this ain't no audio newsgroup. So be it.
Judging from the original post this guy obviously knows his sound well
and can discern faults in it effortlessly. He can also identify things
because he only changes one thing at a time. He's spent a great deal of
time listening and identifying what he wants. Seek and ye shall find.
So appropriate here.

I'd be interested in what kind of speakers he's using. Or if he ever
uses quality headphones.

Hearing about audio compromises with a slightly overclocked system
sounds new. Anybody have any idea why that occurs? Any technical
theories anybody wants to put forward?

Audiophile nearfield listening is a new concept but as more and more
people use their computer more and more, perhaps it will catch on.
Almost all "computer speakers" have a crossover point over 150 hz which
allows the subwoofer to mess with the midrange. It would be great to be
able to control the sub crossover point/slope via software. Is this
possible with Mac or PC yet? Any soundcards allow that? You don't have
to play so loud since you're close to the speakers so that has definite
advantages. And I'n not talking about some self powered garbage used to
monitor musicians in a studio. You almost never find quality speakers
with amps "built in". As everybody's tastes are different for speakers
and amps, its not smart.

In article <flash-8A80FA.18240005102006@shawnews>,
Flash <flash@flash.spam> wrote:

> Almost all "computer speakers" have a crossover point over 150 hz which
> allows the subwoofer to mess with the midrange. It would be great to be
> able to control the sub crossover point/slope via software. Is this
> possible with Mac or PC yet? Any soundcards allow that?

Maybe you haven't looked at computer speakers lately? Several computer
speakers claim they get down to perfectly reasonable points for a
subwoofer to take over. For example, Apple's iPod HiFi claims 53 Hz at
its -3dB point. Audio Engine 5 claims 60 Hz at a -1.5dB point (and it
still has output at 40 Hz).

Lots of subwoofers let you select their crossover point, so then you are
depending upon the slope falling off at much the same rate as your main
speakers. Might be better to use an active electronics external box to
do crossover anyhow.

> You don't have
> to play so loud since you're close to the speakers so that has definite
> advantages. And I'n not talking about some self powered garbage used to
> monitor musicians in a studio. You almost never find quality speakers
> with amps "built in". As everybody's tastes are different for speakers
> and amps, its not smart.

With self powered speakers doing 60-22kHz at +-1.5dB, and being a whole
heap more convenient than external amplifiers, I think they have a great
future in nearfield computer audio setups. The amplifiers can match the
speaker drivers more closely. Much more convenient if you are running
one amplifier per driver, since you eliminate high power crossovers.
People will have all their music on the computer anyhow, so it isn't as
if there will be any CD player or hifi amplifier sitting around wasting
space. Just needs a few more speakers with optical digital inputs. My
home theatre speakers already take their input direct from an iMac
optical digital connection. Perfect for watching a DVD up close on your
LCD monitor.

In fact, that leaves no place whatsoever for anything except speakers
from the AV industry. Computer monitor instead of TV, hard drive for
your music and video media instead of CD and DVD players, podcasts and
internet radio instead of an AV receiver, active loudspeakers with
digital amplifiers instead of external integrated amplifiers. The AV
industry won't even be able to sell an expensive interconnect, because
optical digital works fine with cheap plastic.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

> > Almost all "computer speakers" have a crossover point over 150 hz which
> > allows the subwoofer to mess with the midrange. It would be great to be
> > able to control the sub crossover point/slope via software. Is this
> > possible with Mac or PC yet? Any soundcards allow that?
>
> Maybe you haven't looked at computer speakers lately? Several computer
> speakers claim they get down to perfectly reasonable points for a
> subwoofer to take over. For example, Apple's iPod HiFi claims 53 Hz at
> its -3dB point. Audio Engine 5 claims 60 Hz at a -1.5dB point (and it
> still has output at 40 Hz).

http://www.apple.com/ipodhifi/specs.html
53 hz is the bottom limit of the sub - not the crossover point. 53 hz
isn't even in sub territory! Its just a woofer. No mention of the
crossover point but its a single box - not a sub. Its probably using a
passive crossover at about 200-300 hz.
http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/re...specs19539.html
These are just main speakers - actually satellite speakers - they don't
produce any real bass at all. Their low point is 60 hz.

> Lots of subwoofers let you select their crossover point, so then you are
> depending upon the slope falling off at much the same rate as your main
> speakers. Might be better to use an active electronics external box to
> do crossover anyhow.

That's probably where I'll be leaning. Car stereo electronic crossovers
might work as well. Its for the bass so a low pass filter. Unless its
total garbage, it should be fine. Then I can focus on good bass
speakers.

> > You don't have
> > to play so loud since you're close to the speakers so that has definite
> > advantages. And I'n not talking about some self powered garbage used to
> > monitor musicians in a studio. You almost never find quality speakers
> > with amps "built in". As everybody's tastes are different for speakers
> > and amps, its not smart.
>
> With self powered speakers doing 60-22kHz at +-1.5dB, and being a whole
> heap more convenient than external amplifiers, I think they have a great
> future in nearfield computer audio setups. The amplifiers can match the
> speaker drivers more closely.

There is no such thing as "matching". That's an excuse for a
manufacturer to package an amp with a speaker. Either speakers are good
or not, either an amp is good or not.

> Much more convenient if you are running
> one amplifier per driver, since you eliminate high power crossovers.

Not an issue here at all. Electronic crossovers introduce far more
problems than they solve. You will never find any high end speaker
using electronic crossovers at a point over 150 hz. Only for the sub.
And passive crossovers at 2k and higher are extremely efficient. Hence
their universal use.
These are serious speakers - never an electronic crossover used on any
frequency anywhere near the midrange.
http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/ces...image_065.shtml
http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/ see the 1.1
Now here's a serious sub.....$28,000 & all 420 lbs of it!
http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/ces...image_035.shtml

> People will have all their music on the computer anyhow, so it isn't as
> if there will be any CD player or hifi amplifier sitting around wasting
> space.

The music may be on the computer, but amps of varying quality will
always be needed. Different tastes, budgets and room dimensions will
dictate a wide range of products sold.

> Just needs a few more speakers with optical digital inputs. My
> home theatre speakers already take their input direct from an iMac
> optical digital connection. Perfect for watching a DVD up close on your
> LCD monitor.

Yes, finally people are realizing that their computer monitor is a whole
lot better than the boob tube they've been watching for years.

> In fact, that leaves no place whatsoever for anything except speakers
> from the AV industry. Computer monitor instead of TV, hard drive for
> your music and video media instead of CD and DVD players, podcasts and
> internet radio instead of an AV receiver, active loudspeakers with
> digital amplifiers instead of external integrated amplifiers. The AV
> industry won't even be able to sell an expensive interconnect, because
> optical digital works fine with cheap plastic.

Haha....you're probably right on most of those points!

Flash wrote:
. . . . . . . . .
>
> Well this ain't no audio newsgroup. So be it.
> Judging from the original post this guy obviously knows his sound well
> and can discern faults in it effortlessly. He can also identify things
> because he only changes one thing at a time. He's spent a great deal of
> time listening and identifying what he wants. Seek and ye shall find.
> So appropriate here.

Why thank you . . . I think I wouldn't say that I can find faults
effortlessly, but I try.

>
> I'd be interested in what kind of speakers he's using. Or if he ever
> uses quality headphones.

I have a pair of Cambridge Soundworks Tower IIs. As for headphones, I
love my Koss Portapros.

>
> Hearing about audio compromises with a slightly overclocked system
> sounds new. Anybody have any idea why that occurs? Any technical
> theories anybody wants to put forward?

Here's my not so deeply technical interpretation of what may have
happened: when you over-clock a CPU you change the speed of the system
as well, like the PCI bus. Because all the internal systems of the
computer have to remain at a certain ratio of speed compared to the
CPU, changing speed on one component changes everything. I
overclocked my CPU from 350 to 400 Mhz. That in term changed the PCI
bus's speed from 33 Mhz to 38 Mhz. The Echo MIA PCI soundcard, having
timing sensitive circuits on it, was built to work on the standard 33
Mhz PCI bus speed, and must have been a bit off kilter running at 38 Mhz.


>
> Audiophile nearfield listening is a new concept but as more and more
> people use their computer more and more, perhaps it will catch on.
> Almost all "computer speakers" have a crossover point over 150 hz which
> allows the subwoofer to mess with the midrange. It would be great to be
> able to control the sub crossover point/slope via software. Is this
> possible with Mac or PC yet? Any soundcards allow that? You don't have
> to play so loud since you're close to the speakers so that has definite
> advantages. And I'n not talking about some self powered garbage used to
> monitor musicians in a studio. You almost never find quality speakers
> with amps "built in". As everybody's tastes are different for speakers
> and amps, its not smart.

CD

> > Well this ain't no audio newsgroup. So be it.
> > Judging from the original post this guy obviously knows his sound well
> > and can discern faults in it effortlessly. He can also identify things
> > because he only changes one thing at a time. He's spent a great deal of
> > time listening and identifying what he wants. Seek and ye shall find.
> > So appropriate here.
>
> Why thank you . . . I think I wouldn't say that I can find faults
> effortlessly, but I try.

Effortless was the wrong word. I should have said you can discern small
differences due to the time and care you're spent with your system.

> > Hearing about audio compromises with a slightly overclocked system
> > sounds new. Anybody have any idea why that occurs? Any technical
> > theories anybody wants to put forward?
>
> Here's my not so deeply technical interpretation of what may have
> happened: when you over-clock a CPU you change the speed of the system
> as well, like the PCI bus. Because all the internal systems of the
> computer have to remain at a certain ratio of speed compared to the
> CPU, changing speed on one component changes everything. I
> overclocked my CPU from 350 to 400 Mhz. That in term changed the PCI
> bus's speed from 33 Mhz to 38 Mhz. The Echo MIA PCI soundcard, having
> timing sensitive circuits on it, was built to work on the standard 33
> Mhz PCI bus speed, and must have been a bit off kilter running at 38 Mhz.

Interesting possibilities. Does anyone know if its possible to control
the PCI bus speed after you're overclocked a motherboard?