[mr_bill]

I sure hear a lot about the Squeezebox 2 and 3.

Doesn't anyone use a Roku Soundbridge or very simply an Apple airport express?

You can run any of these into a reference DAC.

I don't hear any fuss over these other two alternatives - namely the Roku.

What's up?
bill

[JoshK]

Roku has made a decision to not pass through the original source but the resample it to its own standard, meaning it won't be as transparent.  You can look this up on SD's forums.  The airport express I haven't looked into at all, basically because it was a mac thing (I think), and I am a PC type guy, if I were looking for an alt to M$, I'd go linux.

Another thing with airport express is whether it has a nice remote interface??  I don't know.  The SB does, I think the Roku does.

[JohnnyLightOn]

Sean Adams, CEO of Squeezebox-maker SlimDevices, has paid attention to audiophiles and implemented several sound quality improvements in the unit starting with the Squeezebox 2 and continuing into the current SB3.  People have reported excellent results into outboard DACs, and results with internal and power supply mods by Bolder Cable and Red Wine Audio that rival the best transports period.

The Roku and Airport Express have made no specific changes geared to audiophiles.  The results into outboard DACs can definitely vary between the three units.  It's not like there's a basic digital transport design using S/PDIF and it's done.  How they're implemented affects the sound, even with a so-called jitter-free DAC like the Benchmark.

That said, everyone who owns the Airport Express seems to be happy with it.  If you're a Mac user, it might be worth checking out, especially for the low price.  But as JoshK said, there appears to be no remote control with it.  Whatever you do, rip to lossless and not MP3 or AAC.

[ScottMayo]

Roku has made a decision to not pass through the original source but the resample it to its own standard, meaning it won't be as transparent.

This is why I don't have a Roku yet. Unfortunately, none of the other players will work with an out of the box NAS device, which is why I don't yet own any of the other products.

I'm not sure where companies get this weird idea that I want to have my computer on to play music. I'll be happy to run a NAS in a closet somewhere, serving up SMB or NFS. An NAS is a zero maintence device - unlike my PC which is going to have to be fiddled every time Microsoft decides to "do something". My goal is to keep my music out of Microsoft's hands...

[brj]

The Apple Airport Express is not Mac specific.  Apple supplies Windows software for it as well.  There are several open source projects to use the AE in various ways for Linux as well, but I'm not sure just how mature they are at the moment.

In addition, Emperical Audio's WIFI Offramp is based on the AE, although I don't know if it has been officially released yet.

Control of the music server when using the AE must be done on the computer (although there are other ways to control a computer remotely over the network).

[Papajin]

I'm not sure where companies get this weird idea that I want to have my computer on to play music. I'll be happy to run a NAS in a closet somewhere, serving up SMB or NFS. An NAS is a zero maintence device - unlike my PC which is going to have to be fiddled every time Microsoft decides to "do something". My goal is to keep my music out of Microsoft's hands...

I kinda find this stance a bit odd.  What do you think a NAS is but a stripped down computer?  A barebones pc will do the job just as well, and there's no need to mess with the OS ever if you don't want to.  Heck run linux if you want.  A pc is usually cheaper as well, as you don't need a powerhouse of a pc if you're just serving music.

Anyway that being said, I believe the Buffalo Linkstation used to be able to run slimserver, but I couldn't tell from their web page if they still can or not.

[JohnR]

I don't get it either, a computer that is on all the time is often known as a "server"... what difference does it make if it only serves files or if it can stream media as well. Just don't use Windows if it means that much to you (Scott)...

[ScottMayo]

I kinda find this stance a bit odd.  What do you think a NAS is but a stripped down computer?  A barebones pc will do the job just as well, and there's no need to mess with the OS ever if you don't want to.

A NAS is an appliance. Yes, there's Linux in there, but it's a sealed standalone box, and being Linux, it's virusproof. And cheap, compared to a "real computer". And when it fails, it can be the manufacturer's problem, not mine. I like appliances - they come with warranties. I can pretend it's a toaster, if Ilike.

If you buy Windows, you don't ever "not mess with the OS". The box will be on a network, and behind a firewall or not, only the insane don't keep up with virus protection and patches, and the occasional new OS. No Windows box was ever zero maintenance: people who treat them that way, sooner or later get hurt. And forget warranties - every read a Microsoft EULA? If you have a problem, you have the soverign right to eat dirt until it fixes itself, which might be never. I've spent too many years in the computer industry to put something I really care about in the hands of Microsoft.

You're right, the middle ground is a really stripped down linux pc in a closet somewhere. I just don't want to administer another hardware solution - I already have 4 PCs in the house and I don't enjoy the IT role. I want to pay $399 and have someone make it really, really easy for me.

[PhilNYC]

Roku has made a decision to not pass through the original source but the resample it to its own standard, meaning it won't be as transparent.  You can look this up on SD's forums..

I think this is only true for one of the Roku models.

[BradJudy]

A NAS is an appliance. Yes, there's Linux in there ...

Not all NAS boxes are Linux, some are Windows (there is a NAS specific version of Windows).  All NAS boxes are vulnerable to security threats since they are network devices.  Unfortunately, they often go unpatched because either vendors don't put patches out or owners don't apply them (not to say all NAS vendors aren't good about security, but check before buying).  On the plus side, because there are fewer services, there are fewer patches.  

Your note on Linux being virus proof made me chuckle - a significant portion of worms and hacks are targetted at Linux systems.  

A Windows/Linux/Mac system with auto-updating OS and auto-updating anti-virus is pretty low maintenance.  

Both a NAS and a computer are very useful devices, but, as mentioned, a NAS is more limited in capability.

[ScottMayo]

Your note on Linux being virus proof made me chuckle - a significant portion of worms and hacks are targetted at Linux systems.

They can run all the worms they want - but if the only thing running is NFS and SMB support, and the most trivial of web interfaces with no tricky server-side active content, then there's just not a lot to attack.

(rant mode on)

That's sort of the point. I don't want another computer. If I want to serve out music, all I should need is something that spits up files on demand. I could probably build it out of a PC-on-a-chip, DOS and a big disk, and it would be perfect - it would consume about 20W, it would be small and quiet, it would be virus proof and it would never, ever put me in the upgrade-or-perish position. But it's too much work - and devices like the SB demand you have something that runs their software in addition. Which means another computer. Twice the cost, five times the power consumption, a fan, and half the convenience.

I think of my print server as an example. It's about 3"x3"x2", with a network jack on one side and and a USB port and power adapter on the other. Power consumption is maybe a couple watts. Noise is zero. Yes, there's a computer in there, but I never have to think of it as one. I don't update it. It can't (AFAICT) get viruses. Occasionally it gets confused and I have to power cycle it, which really yanks my chain because I shouldn't have to fuss about printing when I want to print, but other than that it's perfect.

That's what a music server should be like. I don't want to log in as root, ever. Or do installs. At most, I want to turn it on and off, and that would be rare. My toaster works that way. Why doesn't this?

[JoshK]

"and being Linux, it's virusproof"

well I see you qualified this in your last post, but to add a bit more, I just crashed my linux box from a nasty virus.  Virii written in java can be platform independent.  


Phil,

I think your right about it being just one of the Roku's that resamples.

[Mathew_M]

An interesting alternative is the new iMac.  It includes a program called Front Row which acts as a media server.  Also included in a remote control and optical audio out.  I'm thinking Apple will eventually update the Mac mini to have these features which will make for a much more affordable media server if you don't care for a built in screen.

[dwc]

That's sort of the point. I don't want another computer....

You don't need another computer.  Just use one of the 4 computers you already have.   Just buy two big hard drives and stick one in each of two boxes that has a spot for it.   Keep two copies of your music in case one drive croaks.

imo it's better to have one "server" i.e. one music service running on a single box.  That way the playback devices can be "dumb" and simple and thus cheaper.  This is the way the slimserver works.

You're asking for the devices themselves to be intelligent and pull the music from a dumb storage device.  A dumb storage device that just sits there passively containing files.  That requires each playback device to have complex pull-client s/w with authentication running on it, along with file to audio stream conversion code.  That drives up the cost & complexity of each playback device.   Now each playback device has to have sufficient memory and cpu power to convert files into audio.   Now average Joe cannot afford to have multiple devices in multiple rooms of his house because they cost too much.

I understand it's your desire and you have a right to it.  I just think it's a flawed model you're desiring.

-Dan

[thayerg]

I read a stereophile technical review of the Airport Express and it seemed like the only thing the matter with its onboard DACs was highish  IM distortion. I've got one feeding a DAC and another feeding analog to a tube integrated.

I'm quite impressed by just how good the analog can be given the right source material and ecoding. It's not quite up to the external 24 bit DAC in terms of low level resolution and it doesn't get quite as transparent but it acquits itself remarkably well. I'm intrigued by the idea of a Behringer DEQX as a cost-effective equalizer/DAC.

[rlsx]

This is why I don't have a Roku yet. Unfortunately, none of the other players will work with an out of the box NAS device, which is why I don't yet own any of the other products.

I'm not sure where companies get this weird idea that I want to have my computer on to play music. I'll be happy to run a NAS in a closet somewhere, serving up SMB or NFS. An NAS is a zero maintence device - unlike my PC which is going to have to be fiddled every time Microsoft decides to "do something". My goal is to keep my music out of Microsoft's hands...

Despite some of the comments, above, your point of view is quite defensible. The late, lamented, Audiotronic was doing precisely that.

This "appliance", QNAP TS-101, just appeared in the UK (and Europe?)
http://www.advancedmp3players.co.uk/shop/product_info.php?products_id=1039

It's a NAS with a minimal OS (which one?) It can run slimserver!

I don't know much about it, other than what's in the link above.

It is quite expensive (£300 including taxes, for a 300GB device. That's £255 before taxes, about $445.)
http://www.advancedmp3players.co.uk/shop/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=qnap

The manufacturer is QNAP Systems http://www.qnap.com.tw a NAS specialist, apparently.

Curiously, the device is not listed on their web pages.

[Rashiki]

The Linksys NSLU2 NAS is reported as being able to run SlimServer.

http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/Applications/SlimServer

The NSLU2 is a tiny little box with two USB ports for connecting external hard drives. I've got one set up to control the lights in my house, and I've been thinking about using it to also run SlimServer, but I'm using a Mac Mini as my SlimServer and it's been perfect, so there's not much incentive to change.

 -Rob

[rlsx]

The Linksys NSLU2 NAS is reported as being able to run SlimServer.

http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/Applications/SlimServer

Thanks for the info.
Looking at the steps needed to get that functionality: from reflashing the NAS to installing the slimserver through various Linux incantations, and the skills needed to maintain that system over time, it looks to me that the intended public is quite different from that of AC.

[dwc]

For the record, I'm planning to migrate my slimserver setup from the pc in my room to a slightly outdated laptop attached to an external USB2 HD enclosure running in the closet.  Not really that much different from a NAS appliance, but with a bit more horsepower.  

My argument was not against running the server on an appliance or convenient combo-device of some sort.  I think if someone wants to develop an applicance that has the right combo of storage and processing power to run a music server that's great.   I was arguing against the feasability of a design that requires each of the playback devices to have all the processing power required.   I think it is better to have the single server do as much work as possible, so that the multiple playback devices can be as simple as possible - not the other way around.

As stated, one can run slimserver on a NAS today, if that NAS has sufficient cpu and ram.  You just can not run it on a completely "dumb" storage device.

-Dan