Music from hard drive better than CD?

I’m not quite sure how easy it would be to use a computer as a digital transport while using it to do other things. The main topic being discussed in this thread is that one would use an external DAC along with a computer as the transport (be it a Mac or a PC). If I were to go down this path and use a computer as the transport, I would want the computer to be an integrated part of the system. This means I would have the Mac Mini, or PC laptop, sitting on the stop shelf of an audio rack using a short, high quality digital cable to go from the computer to the DAC. I suppose you could have the computer located across the room on a desk, but then you would need a very long digital cable; this can get costly. I may have misinterpreted your meaning of a “dedicated” machine for streaming, but if I were to use my current laptop I certainly wouldn’t format the drive and reinstall everything just to have a clean install of the OS for streaming music. However, I would not use the laptop for other things during times when it is streaming music to the DAC just because it would require a longer digital cable; shorter cables always yield better sound quality, so I would not consider that option. Without this longer cable, it would be inconvenient to use the laptop as it’s sitting on top of the audio rack. So in my setup, laptops wouldn’t necessarily have to be “dedicated,” but a desktop system like a Mac Mini would be.

Rsbeck did make a good point on being connected to the Internet to get song names from the CDDB. I had not thought of this previously.

As for the chop-shop PCs—you don’t have to go to the cheapest manufacturer to get a good deal on a PC. You mentioned Dell, which you implied has higher quality standards than the chop-shop manufacturers. From Dell.com you can get an entry-level Inspiron 1200 laptop for $549. This gives you a Celeron M 1.3 GHz processor, 256 MB RAM, a 14.1 inch screen, 30 gig hard drive, and a CD burner—perfectly suitable for streaming digital music. Granted, the Celeron processor is not the greatest, but I would compare this with the processor in the cheapest iBook available—a 1.2 GHz G4. The hard drive and RAM are the same at 30 GB and 256 MB, respectively, but the screen is a measly 12 inches. The price for this iBook is $999. So for almost double the price, you a get a much smaller screen, same amount of ram, same size hard disk, and a slightly faster processor—and most importantly, the ability to run OS X. Is it worth it? Well that’s up to the user. As for custom built PCs, they’re they only type I’ve owned, except I built them myself. Luckily I’ve never had any problems with the hardware. For that reason I don’t think that custom built PCs are necessarily low quality; you just have to be careful where you shop, if you are looking for a “too good to be true” deal.

The PC will not suffer from all the faults mentioned in your previous post, as I already addressed those in my previous post. The only things you mentioned that hold any substance are the claims that OS X is more secure. I wouldn’t necessarily consider Windows XP to be “inferior” to OS X either.

Windows XP does allow you to quit individual applications if they do freeze, very similar to the force quit function in OS X. This function of the OS has been very effective since Windows 2000, although this version of the OS was run mostly by businesses. It’s quite possible that you were using Windows 98 or ME the last time you checked for this function. Both of those operating systems are laughable.

So my bottom line is that either platform will work flawlessly for the task mentioned in the initial post of this thread, and that is to send a digital stream to an external DAC for use in a hi quality stereo system. Jazzdax asked if a G5 would outperform a conventional transport/DAC setup. My purpose in posting my message was not to debate which platform is better for all tasks in general, but to state the fact that a PC will stream music as good as a Mac, and will cost less money. So there are two final scenarios: 1) the computer is not a dedicated part of the audio system, and 2) the system is a dedicated part of the audio system. In a dedicated setup, my opinion is that it would be impractical to spend more money on a Mac for the ability to run OS X when the computer will not even be used for other tasks. In a non-dedicated setup, a Mac could make more sense, if a user is willing to spend more money for the benefit of OS X (this includes lowered vulnerability to viruses, and a better user experience).

Planckscale:
”Best thread yet! I am planning to build my own Hard drive system. Does any body have a suggestion on which HD brand, speed (7200 or 10,000 rpm), and what size disk space to buy. Would a relative small size hard disk be better that a large one (i.e. using two 80 gig drives, as opposed to a single 160 gb)? “

A 7200 rpm drive would suffice for music playback. In my opinion a 7200 rpm drive will be good for most applications with the exception of those who demand a high level of performance from their computer (gaming, graphics, server, etc). As for the brand, that depends. A major concern would be the amount of noise the drive makes while reading the disk. I owned a Western Digital drive once and it was the loudest drive on earth. I’ve found Maxtor drives to be fairly quiet, but it would be good to do some research in this area. Also, if you buy the drive from Best Buy or a place that allows returns, you could take it home, install it, and listen to how loud it is; just take it back if it’s no good. A large drive will effectively work the same as a smaller one, as long as the disk doesn’t become too fragmented. The NTFS and FAT partition types (those used in Windows operating systems) suffer from high levels of fragmentation. Other partition types such as those used in UNIX (Mac OS X) or Linux suffer less from file fragmentation. Either way, you’ll end up with a bit-for-bit read of the music, but the level of file fragmentation can affect how active the drive must be while reading the disk. Basically what happens when files become fragmented is parts of the file are spread out among the entire disk, causing the disk to have to access several different parts to read the entire file. This again can affect the noise level of the drive and the read time of files, but for reading music files there would be no serious effect. As long as you perform regular defragments on the drive, this should not be an issue. So basically I would go for the larger drive; there’s a certain drive size where you can get the most for your money. I haven’t looked at prices lately, but I’m guessing it may be around the 160 GB size these days. Retail stores sometimes offer great deals (with mail in rebates). Otherwise you can look online to get a great deal (www.pricewatch.com).

I find it amusing that I can see a "split" forming within the digital community as once happened between the digital and analog people.

Compact discs will not be the digital storage media forever. Eventually music will be stored on ROM chips, once the cost of production drops enough to allow such an alternative to be feasible. This will not only reduce the size of albums to the size of a fingernail, but will also help in the recording industry's fight against piracy (unless they come out with ROM "burners"). I can see the majority of people more willing to switch to a more “convenient” storage form than one that sounds better (SACD) and maintains the same size as the conventional CD.

Either way, the computer transport/DAC model seems very interesting, and I am considering taking this route myself instead of upgrading my cd player. I have a laptop available that can be used, but I am concerned about noise from the fans. Some effective cooling method would be needed so that the fans don't kick into high gear while listening. Any ideas there?

Also, what about SACD? Are there any "SACD-ROM" drives for PCs that could read SACDs? And would the Apogee DAC be able to interpret this digital signal? Would a USB connection be able to offer the bandwidth necessary to transfer the SACD stream in real time? Perhaps a USB 2.0 connection, but USB 1 seems unlikely.

To those who have recommended an Apple computer for this setup: an Apple computer is not necessary for music playback. They cost more money, and PCs can read digital music exactly the same; not to mention that iTunes has been available for Windows for some time now. So if you're looking to build this type of system on a budget, stick with a PC...and use the money saved towards a better DAC.

P.S. I own an Apple--I'm not downing Macintosh computers in any way, I'm just making a suggestion for those who are on a budget.

Jax2: I can appreciate your argument, however several points in your argument are inaccurate. Having used PCs for years and always wanting a Mac, I recently purchased one about 6 months ago; this has given me sufficient time to gather an evaluation on the Apple platform.

Yes, there is absolutely no doubt that OS X provides a better user experience than Windows XP. It looks nicer yet seems to be equally intuitive. I can’t say that OS X is more intuitive than Windows XP, because this all depends on which type of interface a user is used to. There are other points of your argument I’d like to address:

“I suppose if you want to deal with an inferior operating system, vastly increased vulnerabiltiy to viruses (if you use the same computer to surf the Net), general instability, chop-shop reliability (should you choose that direction to save money), and worst of all the likes of Microsoft software, well then yes; you'd save a bit of coin with a PC.”

In my opinion, if you are going to use this computer as a dedicated music transport, it should not even be on the Internet. Regardless, OS X is more secure overall than Windows XP, mainly because of the OS design and the fact that Windows is a bigger target for hackers. However, your statement that Windows XP is unstable is not true. I’ve used Windows XP just about every day since it came out back in 2001 and consider its reliability to be far from “chop-shop.” If you were referring to an earlier version of Windows, I would have to agree; but Windows XP has proven to be extremely stable in my experience and the experiences of other computer users that I know.

“They certainly are capable of streaming music just as good as a Mac, and indeed do cost less money in general, though I find that, as in most things in life, you get just what you pay for. Fast PC's tend to cost just as much as fast Macs. Cheap computers indeed have limited capabilities, and streaming music does not take any sophisticated for ultra-fast processor, nor an abundance of RAM.”

These first two sentences appear to be contradicting in that you first say that PCs cost less in general, but that a fast PC will tend to cost just as much as a fast Mac. This also is untrue. Anyone who follows the prices of PCs and Macintosh computers will be able to tell you that Mac hardware costs more. Period. There have been dozens and dozens of arguments on Tech sites between Mac Zealots and PC owners, and one topic I see repeatedly is “I would buy a Mac, but I can get a PC that’s just as fast for much less.” Now, you won’t be getting the great experience that OS X can provide, but you will get an equally fast PC at a much lower cost.

“The Mac-Mini is a great suggestion by Rsbeck. At $599 with a free keyboard, all you really need is a small monitor and external drive. For a grand you'll have a dead reliable computer interface that's as easy as pie to use and will be more than useful at other applications, and not take up much room to boot.”

This is definitely a good idea. The Mac Mini is very affordable, and it will do fine for simply playing music. The unit should also run pretty quietly, and should integrate nicely into a system with its sleek look. Keep in mind that you will want to upgrade the RAM from 256, unless you don’t mind OS X running very sluggish.

“A used or factory refurbed Mac iBook will set you back about the same but you won't need to spring for the monitor. I work with an old 12 inch G3 iBook which typically go on eBay for around $400. It does everything I need it to, is very portable and streams music effortlessly through iTunes.”

A PC laptop purchased for around that same price will give you much better performance.

So yes, you are right in saying that you get what you pay for—but only to a certain extent. I believe that this is limited to the experience of using the operating system itself and the sleek look of Apple hardware. So if you aren’t going to be surfing the web, editing photos, or creating web pages on this machine, the user interface may not be as much of a factor when considering price.

Perhaps you missed the paragraph from my last post, so I will paraphrase:

“You mentioned Dell, which you implied has higher quality standards than the chop-shop manufacturers. From Dell.com you can get an entry-level Inspiron 1200 laptop for $549. This gives you a Celeron M 1.3 GHz processor, 256 MB RAM, a 14.1 inch screen, 30 gig hard drive, and a CD burner—perfectly suitable for streaming digital music. Granted, the Celeron processor is not the greatest, but I would compare this with the processor in the cheapest iBook available—a 1.2 GHz G4. The hard drive and RAM are the same at 30 GB and 256 MB, respectively, but the screen is a measly 12 inches. The price for this iBook is $999. So for almost double the price, you a get a much smaller screen, same amount of ram, same size hard disk, and a slightly faster processor—and most importantly, the ability to run OS X. Is it worth it? Well that’s up to the user.”

Now, I will not disregard the rebates as the person did in the article you posted, because they are a critical factor for the final price, and as the person incorrectly states, they do not always fall through. The laptops I compared in my last post are very comparable, the only difference being the size of the screen and the processor (in terms of hardware). This research I did myself instead of quoting another Internet source, as those may not always be the most reliable.

As for the desktop systems, I will make my own comparison once again so that the most recent prices are compared. For the Mac system, I will evaluate an eMac system at $799. This gives you a 1.42 GHz G4 processor, 256 MB DDR333 ram, 80 GB hard drive, a combo drive, and a 17 inch CRT display, all in one unit—with the standard 90 day warranty. In the other corner we have a Dell Dimension 3000 desktop. This system features a P4 2.8 GHz processor with 533 MHz front side bus, 512 MB DDR400 RAM, an 80 GB hard drive, a DVD-ROM drive and CD burner, 15 inch LCD display, a satellite/subwoofer speaker system, and an extended 2 year warranty—all for $696. The Dell system beats the Apple system in every way: more ram, better display, faster processor, faster ram, and two separate optical drives instead of a combo drive. Plus you have the ability to upgrade the system since it isn’t all in one unit like the eMac. If you’d like me to send you screen shots of the web page from Dell.com, I can do that; I have them saved on my PC. So this is the source that I can provide at your request.

Bluetooth would be a very good idea for a system like this. The range is about 10 meters, so you’d have to watch out for that. It should do just fine for most listening rooms. It’s true that the digital cable won’t cost as much as an analog run, but I would much rather use the longer monitor cable and Bluetooth input devices as you mentioned.

Also, in your last paragraph you say that you use your G4/400 to perform multiple tasks without a hiccup while listening to music. I never debated the fact that a Mac of that caliber would be unable to do so. I was simply stating my opinion that in a dedicated setup, a Mac that costs more (as I will continue to debate doing my own research) is less practical than a cheaper PC for the devoted task of playing music in a high quality audio system.