Music from hard drive better than CD?

If you are computer and tech savvy, prefer PC, and if you want to get really deep into using your computer for not only music, but an entire home entertainment hub, here is a forum that might interest you --

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=26

Jwglista - I think you may have misunderstood some of my points, or perhaps my communications skills are lacking here. Regardless I will try to clarify:

As Rsbeck indicates, the link to the Internet makes ripping CD's oh so much easier than manually inserting all the information. But I was not even suggesting that, though it is a very good point. I don't use any of my three computers as dedicated music streaming devices, and I'd hazzard to guess not many folks do. I do use a large, external hard drive as a dedicated storage device for my music. Would not think of storing them on the internal drive since I do listen in more than one location. I therefore don't agree with you on that point. Certainly with even a modest Mac you can stream music seamlessly and perform many other functions simultaneously. I see no particular reason to dedicate a computer to just streaming music. Perhaps it will compromise a PC, but I haven't had any problems on a Mac. I routinely do very RAM/Processor intensive image editing in Photoshop on the same computer that is streaming music without a single hiccup.

I was not referring to the Windows XP operating system when I said "chop-shop". I was referring to chop shop PC builders that assemble PC's at lower costs according to the users needs and budget. I'm not speaking of Dell, but of Cuss-Tum Computer in downtown Anywhere, U.S.A.

I don't think I was contradicting myself. If you outfit, for instance, a Dell computer with the same speed processor, same amount of RAM and same basic features as a Mac you will not be saving much money buying the PC. The fact is that Mac just doesn't make any real cheapy, bargain basement computers like those abundantly available in the PC platform. If you're only doing word processing and streaming music you can get a cheap PC and it will do the job fine, yes. But it will have it's faults as I indicated in my previous post. Even the low end MacMini, or the iBooks are faster and more capable than a 'cheap PC', and, as you suggested yourself, have a superior operating system which is very intuitive and will not ruin your afternoon if a program crashes or freezes up - you can just 'force quit' the specific program and the entire operating system and all other open programs remain stable and unaffected. Has Windows figured that one out yet? Last time I checked, which may have been over a year now, if your program crashes or freezes in Windows you are SOL as far as anything else that is running.

EXCELLENT point on the RAM suggestion with the MacMini: Definitely spring for at least double the stock 256mb as OSX is a glutten for RAM and will indeed slow down with only the minimum. Fortunately RAM is cheap.

I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum. Spent a few years on PC's and hated them. I've been on a Mac platform since 94 and much prefer their system overall. Customer support is excellent. FWIW if you look at Consumer Reports, Apple is consistently ranking at the top in customer satisfaction and overall performance. They just keep getting it right, and aren't much on compromise.

Now did I understand you correctly; did you imply that for $400 you can buy a PC laptop that will give you better overall performance than an iBook? Could you point me at that particular laptop? In what ways will it give you better performance? How reliable is it? I'm truly curious...I'm not challenging you, believe it or not. If that is true I'm just not aware of it. Most of the folks I know using computers are working professionals in one field or another and none tend to compromise much on their computers. All the PC laptops I've seen may be a bit cheaper than Mac overall, but certainly don't seem to be profoundly so if you compare apples to...er, that's a bad choice of words...oranges to oranges (same speed processor, same RAM, same features, same size).

The bottom line, in my view, is that streaming music is an effortless task for most modern computers. I would tend to choose the actual computer for the other factors you may use it for, and either way I'd still choose a Mac, if only for the stability and operating system. If I were a gamer I'd choose a PC only for the fact that more software and hardware exists to play games on PC's than on Macs.

Marco

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).

Thanks for the update on the current PC's and Windows OS. It has been a
while since I last played around on one, so that's all news to me indeed. Glad
to hear the OS has improved.

This
particular site puts a G4 Mac Laptop against a Dell Inspiron Powerbook.
The Mac is $288 cheaper, has a 1.33ghz g4 processor vs a 1.6ghz pentium M
processor, yet was "cheaper, faster and more powerful" in
comparison. I have read the same kinds of results in Consumer reports over
the years as well. The same URL pits a bargain priced eMac against a
similarly priced ($799) Dell desktop and once again the Mac wins. What your
telling me is this has changed since these reports. Can you point me over to
a resource that supports your claim?

Regarding the long digital connection; yep, I suppose that's true. Digital
cables, however, are not nearly as expensive as analog runs. You may
alternatively use a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and all you'd need then
would be a longer cord to your monitor. You can also use Airtunes if you
don't mind the optical Toslink connection which is arguably the weak link
there. Though technically it is, I wouldn't really call the MacMini a "
Desktop" except for it's umbilical cord to the AC. Granted, it ain't a
laptop either.

Finally, and once again, I routinely stream music from an old Mac G4/400 via
iTunes/Ethernet/AirportExpress/Toslink while the same computer is
processing very RAM/Processor intensive files and do not experience any
hiccups. So obviously I'd disagree with your conclusions.

Marco

Just to give you some idea of what is possible of just a modest computer in
terms of streaming music. As I write and send this I am simultaneously
listening to Mindy Smith streaming from my external hard drive to my
system, while a CD drive is ripping a Bright Eyes CD to the very same hard
drive that is streaming Mindy Smith. The buffer is set to "high" so
it is taking advantage of my abundant RAM on this machine. Not a single
hiccup in the stream of music. The full CD is burned as rather large .WAV
files in about 2-3 minutes. If I changed the iTunes preferences to rip Apple
Lossless files (smaller, but still lossless) the time it would take to rip the file
would be more than doubled on my machine, but it would save a lot of space
on the hard drive allowing me to save twice as many CD's on the drive.

Marco