Cheap, Silent Music Server

praedet

I thought I would start a thread about the "DIY" music server I have running right now. So that no one thinks I am trying to take credit for this idea, here is the thread that started it all on Audio Circle.

Basically, the idea is to have a silent, low power, headless music server as a transport to serve a USB DAC, or in my case, a USB to S/PDIF converter to a DAC. The Music is on a separate server and the control is provided by a separate computer or Touch/iPhone/Android device that interfaces with the music server.

Based on the premise of a cheap, reliable, silent computer, Nick chose the PC Engine's Alix 2d2. The alix is a processor on a board with a 500 MHz processor and 256 MB RAM. The hard drive is taken care of by a compact flash card reader built in. It has 2 ethernet jacks, 2 USB 2.0 ports, and a serial port. It needs between 7 and 20V DC fed from a 2.1mm plug. (Mine uses a AC converter right now but it will soon be on Battery) That is pretty much it. It uses about 3 watts at idle and I have yet to see it go beyond 5.

Here are a few pictures of the front, with only the 3 lights, the back, and the inside.




Mine is currently reading Music from my Windows Home Server and feeding that music through a Music Fidelity V-Link USB to S/PDIF converter and into my modified Lite Audio DAC-60. I am then sending the analog into a Dodd Audio Battery Tube Buffer. I am using a Wndows 7 box to control the Music with GMPC. Running Voyage MPD Linux, the Alix can send out up to 24/192kHz audio info into a USB Class 2 Audio device. With the V-link and DAC-60 I can only confirm it sends 24/96 as neither goes beyond that.

The basic process is as follows.
1. Buy an Alix kit.
2. Buy a Compact Flash Card (could be part of the kit above)
3. Use a Linux box, or a Windows box running a Virtual Linux Box, to install Voyage MPD onto the Compact flash card (or purchase a card with it installed as part of 1.)
4. Put the card into the Alix and plug her in.
5. Using another computer, configure the Alix to find music on your server, and to play music.
6. Configure the "Remote" (Computer, Touch, iPhone, Android phone) to see the Alix and control it.
7. Sit back and enjoy!

So, why is this better than a Squeezebox of some type? In theory, it is because the operating system, Voyage MPD, is stripped of EVERYTHING other than what is needed to send music out the USB. The Alix does not have any video processing, or hardware, to interfere with the signal. Oh yeah, it is CHEAP!!!!

Now, the link at the top walks you through, but I definitely had issues getting the Alix to talk with my Windows Home Server shares properly. So, out of all the guides I tried, this one is the only one that worked. That was the first hurdle. Because of the issues I had with getting that, I actually had to kind of do step 3 as I messed up some of the seetings on the pre-installed card I had. :redface: It wasn't too bad though.

So, how does it sound? Better than the BDP-83 sending coax into the same DAC and better than the modified SACD played sending Redbook analog into the Dodd buffer...

So, the next part I am going to do is switch over to batter power to go with the rest of the DIY Battery 2 channel set-up I am building

AsSiMiLaTeD

You say its better than a squeezebox, have you compared them directly?

How much did the build cost, total?

praedet

I have not, and I mean that in theory, it is better...

Others have compared to stock Mac Minis, modified Mac minis, and Various forms of Squeezebox. The only one that might have edged it out was an extremely modified Mac Mini. But, the Alix in question was stock running on a 9V AC brick power supply with no power improvements at all...

I purchased the brand new Alix, case, AC power supply, and Voyage MPD Linux Compact flash card in an auction on Audio Circle $100. (I donated another $25, so I guess $125) I had the DAC but purchased the V-Link for $169...

That is everything...

heiney9

Where's the remote? How do you see your track listing/song selection and art work? Can it stream internet radio? How do you make song lists? How do you make play lists all while seated listening to the unit?

Saying it's better than the Squeezebox without comparing them is a pretty lofty statement. Have you looked at the SQB software? I wasn't aware it had video capability and was so bloated that it affected the sound quality.

I think you need to back up your statements about the software being the issue with the Squeezebox, rather than just saying it's not as good.

I'm not trying to start an argument and I hope my tone doesn't sounde terse, I am not meaning to sound that way. Just a better explanation why this is better than the SQB I think is in order. Not links from other people, but why YOU think this sounds better.

H9

heiney9

So this isn't wireless either? I also see you need an iPhone or Android phone for remote.

H9

cokewithvanilla

heiney9 wrote: »

Saying it's better than the Squeezebox without comparing them is a pretty lofty statement. Have you looked at the SQB software? I wasn't aware it had video capability and was so bloated that it affected the sound quality.

am I the only one who reads exactly what was written? He says 'in theory it is better' he goes on to say that the SOUND QUALITY is better.... he did not say the interface is better, he did not say it has more features. He just said "in theory, the sound quality is better"

So, he didn't even say it is in fact better, he just says that it should be, due to the lack of all the things you went on and asked about.

For people who sit there with a damn record player or a CDP because of 'sound quality', this might be an option that will allow them to easily listen to their entire collection without sacrificing the quality of the sound (if, in fact, the theory is correct)

edit: not meaning to sound like an **** or anything, it's just that everyone is jumping on the guy about something he didn't say

heiney9

He never expounds on the "theory" of why it's better. I was just asking as I believe his information is errouneous as to the SQB software doing video. As far as I know it has nothing to do with video.

Also he mentions nothing about the interphase of this unit with the USB which, in theory, could be a large sound quality issue if it's done incorrectly or cheaply. USB transfer can sound horrible if proper steps aren't taken to do it properly. Is it asynchronous?

He also doesn't really touch on whether or not this is a wireless device or if has to be hardwired and all the components have to be in the same proximity to the rig. Some of my questions were to have the OP expand furthur as to 1) how in theory this is better than the SQB 2) to illustrate that his device and the SQB are 2 entirely different things so a comparison is really apples and oranges.

That's all.

H9

AsSiMiLaTeD

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

am I the only one who reads exactly what was written? He says 'in theory it is better' he goes on to say that the SOUND QUALITY is better.... he did not say the interface is better, he did not say it has more features. He just said "in theory, the sound quality is better"

So, he didn't even say it is in fact better, he just says that it should be, due to the lack of all the things you went on and asked about.

For people who sit there with a damn record player or a CDP because of 'sound quality', this might be an option that will allow them to easily listen to their entire collection without sacrificing the quality of the sound (if, in fact, the theory is correct)

edit: not meaning to sound like an **** or anything, it's just that everyone is jumping on the guy about something he didn't say

OK, let see here, where to start...

First, nobody is jumping all over the post, in fact your post probably brings the most tension into this thread.

Just because someone say 'In theory' before making a statement doesn't mean you can't argue the point. I can't call someone a **** 'in theory' and not expect a response, sorry that argument doesn't hold water.

He said 'In theory its better than a squeezebox because a, b, and c'. Well, some of the reasons he listed are not accurate about the Squeezebox and therefore need to be corrected for the sake of the community so that people can make an informed decision about what they want.

Do you live under a rock or something, people argue about 'theory' all the time...

heiney9

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

am I the only one who reads exactly what was written? He says 'in theory it is better' he goes on to say that the SOUND QUALITY is better.... he did not say the interface is better, he did not say it has more features. He just said "in theory, the sound quality is better"

So he went from "in theory" to the SOUND QUALITY is better and never listened to a Squeezebox to compare. :rolleyes:

I think you need to go back and read what he wrote and stop trying to point out other's reading comprehension errors.

FWIW, HE never said the sound quality was better, how could he if he never compared the two units..........he said others thought it sounded better, but I don't put much weight on those statements since I didn't read the entire responses and they are out of context.

H9

cokewithvanilla

In theory, it is because the operating system, Voyage MPD, is stripped of EVERYTHING other than what is needed to send music out the USB. The Alix does not have any video processing, or hardware, to interfere with the signal.

I'm done after this post... that right there says in theory, the sound quality is better and gives reasons why this should be the case

AsSiMiLaTeD

Cool, see ya...

heiney9

To take some of the edge off of this thread, I'm glad the OP found something that works for him. Technology today is so cool and it's very dynamic. There are many ways to set-up a music server and I thinks it's cool people are moving in that direction. It really is the future and it's here now.

I'd still like to know more about how it functions and integrates into a rig. I'm not seeing the advantage, other than cost, over a wireless unit like the Squeezebox.

H9

P.s. My intention was never to be so accusatory, just interested in the how's and why's it's better than the Squeezebox in theory.

heiney9

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

I'm done after this post... that right there says in theory, the sound quality is better and gives reasons why this should be the case

Because of those few sentences he wrote now "the sound quality is better"? WTF. How did anyone come to that conclusion?

Again, the OP never, ever, stated he thought "the sound quality was better" You drew that conclusion on your own and projected it into this thread.

So again please show me in his posts where HE says "the sound quality is better".

H9

steveinaz

Very slick, slimline solution....

cokewithvanilla

heiney9 wrote: »

Because of those few sentences he wrote now "the sound quality is better"? WTF. How did anyone come to that conclusion?

Again, the OP never, ever, stated he thought "the sound quality was better" You drew that conclusion on your own and projected it into this thread.

So again please show me in his posts where HE says "the sound quality is better".

H9

H9... I am not trying to argue here... but it seems like you completely miss out when anyone mentions "IN THEORY". He says that there is nothing to interfere with the signal in this box (unlike the squeezebox).... when you guys talk about things interfering with the signal, what is your greater concern? Are you just downright concerned about the poor signal being messed with, or are you concerned about what that does to the quality of the sound that comes out of your speakers?

Yes, I connected 'nothing extra to interfere with the signal' with 'sound quality'. SORRY

edit: now, I am really done. I should let the OP speak for himself. He will probably chime in to clarify.

praedet

Man, people are all worked up. I am not at all, because here is the reason it is better for me...
1. It is MUCH CHEAPER

Here is why it should be better than say the Squeezebox Touch for music reproduction

1. The only hardware on board is totally fixed on feeding digital music files to a USB port

To expound on this, the Squeezebox Touch has a screen. It is a known improvement to turn off the screen in the software. The hardware to run said screen still exists and receives some amount of power, producing some amount of EMF. In this case there is none of that to turn off. There is no code to be rewritten or anything. Literally this box's only job is to buffer a digital music file into as clean an EM environment as possible, and feed it out the USB port.

The Alix does not have wireless capability. It would defeat the purpose of being as perfect a transmission scenario as possible. I have a cable running from the router that has my server on it, to this box.

The a-sync I-sync thing is on the DAC side, not the server side. Think of this as the equivalent of a transport in the CD world, except instead of sending out I2S or S/PDIF, it sends digital info out the USB. In my case I have a USB to S/PDIF box that is async.

For viewing what is playing/playlists etc, you use some other device. There are atleast 50 different flavors of interface software, depending on your taste and the hardware you will use. I have my laptop sitting near by. Using GMPC, my laptop takes a look at what the digital music transport (DMT ) is playing, and grabs the info about it from the internet. That way the DMT only has to focus on playing the song. I can edit playlists on my laptop as well...

It does not do Internet radio of any type. Again, the best comparison is to High-end CD transports. The Alix will play your digital music files, including high-res, with the best fidelity and with as little influencing the signal as possible. I apologize for comparing it to things that some folks like a lot

Oh yeah, Bryston and someone else use the board in the Alix for there digital transports

It is fun, and cheap, and seems to be quite good.

Ted

heiney9

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

H9... I am not trying to argue here... but it seems like you completely miss out when anyone mentions "IN THEORY". He says that there is nothing to interfere with the signal in this box (unlike the squeezebox).... when you guys talk about things interfering with the signal, what is your greater concern? Are you just downright concerned about the poor signal being messed with, or are you concerned about what that does to the quality of the sound that comes out of your speakers?

That's exactly why I was inquiring furthur because the so called stuff that interfere's with the signal I don't believe to be true as the SQB software doesn't do video, as far as I know.

So I was asking the OP to explain his theory furthur. Hopefully he will fill us in with more info that is much more detailed compared to what he's already stated, which is very broad.

H9

heiney9

praedet wrote: »

Man, people are all worked up. I am not at all, because here is the reason it is better for me...
1. It is MUCH CHEAPER

Here is why it should be better than say the Squeezebox Touch for music reproduction

1. The only hardware on board is totally fixed on feeding digital music files to a USB port

To expound on this, the Squeezebox Touch has a screen. It is a known improvement to turn off the screen in the software. The hardware to run said screen still exists and receives some amount of power, producing some amount of EMF. In this case there is none of that to turn off. There is no code to be rewritten or anything. Literally this box's only job is to buffer a digital music file into as clean an EM environment as possible, and feed it out the USB port.

The Alix does not have wireless capability. It would defeat the purpose of being as perfect a transmission scenario as possible. I have a cable running from the router that has my server on it, to this box.

The a-sync I-sync thing is on the DAC side, not the server side. Think of this as the equivalent of a transport in the CD world, except instead of sending out I2S or S/PDIF, it sends digital info out the USB. In my case I have a USB to S/PDIF box that is async.

For viewing what is playing/playlists etc, you use some other device. There are atleast 50 different flavors of interface software, depending on your taste and the hardware you will use. I have my laptop sitting near by. Using GMPC, my laptop takes a look at what the digital music transport (DMT ) is playing, and grabs the info about it from the internet. That way the DMT only has to focus on playing the song. I can edit playlists on my laptop as well...

It does not do Internet radio of any type. Again, the best comparison is to High-end CD transports. The Alix will play your digital music files, including high-res, with the best fidelity and with as little influencing the signal as possible. I apologize for comparing it to things that some folks like a lot

Oh yeah, Bryston and someone else use the board in the Alix for there digital transports

It is fun, and cheap, and seems to be quite good.

Ted

First of all, if it seems I'm worked up, sorry, that's not my intention. Second, thanks for taking the time to put up some more details. I still think the bolded sentence is a pretty far leap.

I also think this unit and the Squeezebox Touch are two completely different units so a comparison is hard; it's apples and oranges as far as purpose. Also you never said Squeezebox Touch in your original post you just said Squeezebox. There are 4 versions of the SQB so thanks for clarifying. I beleive if you are using the internal dac's and the stock power supply the LCD screen might add a little noise. Using an external dac and external PS, it shouldn't be an issue. It would be fun to compare a Touch with the screen disabled vs. one with the screen enabled with both power supplies.

Me personally, I'm not willing to to give up what the SQB offers vs. a server like you built. The wireless is a HUGE plus.

Enjoy

H9

praedet

^^^No worries, I didn't think you were worked up! The easy fix for wireless is a bridge. That would bump the price up by $50 or so dollars though...

I guess I thought there were folks using a SB Touch in their 2-Channel rooms. This is simply a trimmed down version

heiney9

praedet wrote: »

I guess I thought there were folks using a SB Touch in their 2-Channel rooms. This is simply a trimmed down version

I am, but my computer is in a completely different part of the house. I do all my ripping at the computer which, is in my office. My choice is not to have the computer out in the 2 channel room.

I still think it's cool there are many options to incorporate digital files on a music server, rather than being tied to physical media like cd's.

H9

praedet

My server is separate from the 2-Channel also, but I have both wired and wireless throughout the house for the benefit of both

I agree there are lots of ways of doing this. This is simply a inexpensive route that offers a one trick pony, for what it is worth, instead of a slightly more expensive swiss army knife as it were

davide256

I have been down the path praedet has been down, albeit with a windows 7 64 bit solution. Basically processing speed, fast hardware, stripping of caching/cycle stealing processes, minimal environment noise gets you to a very respectable level of performance.... however...

The bottleneck remains the digital IO from the server... on board analog output is unacceptable. I'm still looking for a DAC solution thats price reasonable for asynch USB and high performance... the Music Streamer II I had didn't cut it.

heiney9

Just so we are clear for all that read this, there is no issue with processing speed, hardware caching, cycle stealing processes, environment noise, etc, etc with the Squeezebox. None of that comes into play when using a Squeezebox.

And yes, the exact issue davide256 desrcibes as the bottleneck is also one of the strong reason's I went with the Squeezebox because that bottleneck is a non-issue.

H9

praedet

With the MPD set-up, 100% of the song is buffered for my set-up, so at most there is a pause between songs. I have yet to see that happen even with VERY large 24/96 Flac files...

polrbehr

praedet wrote: »

For viewing what is playing/playlists etc, you use some other device. There are atleast 50 different flavors of interface software, depending on your taste and the hardware you will use. I have my laptop sitting near by. Using GMPC, my laptop takes a look at what the digital music transport (DMT ) is playing, and grabs the info about it from the internet. That way the DMT only has to focus on playing the song. I can edit playlists on my laptop as well...

Having only just bought a Squeezebox Duet about three days ago, I can't really comment about my perceived improvement in SQ just yet (though I am amazed at how it sounds anyway), but as for ease of use? It seems hard to beat.


From what was posted above, I think that adding a laptop to the mix would be a significant addition to the overall cost of this method, no?
But hey, if you already have a laptop (like lots of folks do), you got a nice setup there for a C-note. Cool.:cool:
I am sure it's a good way of getting ones' music files from Point A to B.

praedet

I agree that the initial set-up of the Alix is MUCH harder than any SB.

I would think almost everyone on this forum has a laptop, iPhone, iPad, Touch, or some type of Android device...

Could be wrong though. I was throwing this out there as a way to get to what many folks are doing to their SBs (touch, duet, etc.) for SQ (Look for the threads on AudioCircle and even here), without paying for the SB

polrbehr

I for one do not think anything is wrong with it, as it seems like as good a way as any to get your "good sound" on ("such" was purposely left out, no copyright infringements here)

Hell, if you ever find yourself up on LI, bring it on over. I doubt I will ever again make the mistake of dismissing something audio-related without hearing it first. FYI, I once thought Monster Cable was a great product, and upgrading power cords was silly.

So honestly, I'd be curious to hear what it can do.

ysss

The Alix was designed and built as a programmable network router platform, mainly for wireless networking. You can add wireless capability to it just by plopping a wireless interface into it. Here's the manufacturer's page:

http://pcengines.ch

As for the music playing capabilities of these babies... streaming audio should take less than 5% of the (processing, data streaming) capabilities of the Alix. A regular linux distro (+kernel) should also be able to handle that just fine.

kappclark

I already have a squeezebox Duo being served by an Ubuntu laptop with plenty of HD space, so I don't think I will switch (but I think it is cool what he is doing)