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).

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

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.

C'mon guys, Apple is better/worse than Win in *some* circumstances. For HT/audio use, I think the Mac fits great--I bought a mini. Relevant decisional included:

1. Form Factor. Apple wins on this count hands down. I'm not ashamed to have it in my living room. Most Win boxes are ugly and, while there are some competitive SFF PCs, you are pretty much stuck with rolling your own guts for those. That gets costly and requires some technical savvy I'd rather apply somewhere else.

2. Ambient Noise. The mini is quieter, hands down, than any Win box I've run. Yeah, you can invest in heat pipe technology for a Win box or try to upgrade components, but why? The Apple is perfect for this kind of duty. Yes, you could also go with a quieter laptop, but I have to believe (unmitigated opinion based on use of desktops and laptops for 20 years) the reliability of the mini is better than any Win or Apple laptop in the long run.

3. Screen size. Tongue in cheek. I've got a 61" pioneer elite plasma on the wall behind the stereo. Why do I need a display, whether it be laptop or otherwise. (Ever see the visualizer in HD?). I think a lot of folks attaching a PC to a stereo are in the same boat. The Apple has a DVI out, which makes the connection pretty simple. None of the four Win XP boxes in my house have DVI out and, while you can get a new video card, its an upgrade. DVI on the Apple is standard. Yeah, you can lose the monitor while ordering a Dell, but the "refund" you get really isn't commensurate.

Bluetooth on the Mac was a bonus--I can sit on my couch, surf the web on a large screen with a keyboard and mouse that don't cause a walking hazard. Very cool. Now, if someone will only make a really good Bluetooth trackball, I'll be all set.

What didn't count was the lack of coax digital out. I'm heavily biased in favor of USB audio output devices, and that works great with either the Mac or the Win. In the case of the Win boxes, I feel like I'm paying for something I'm not using, since they always seem to want to sell you some fancy schmantzy audio card that is blown out of the water by my Waveterminal U24.

Downstairs, on the other hand, my workhorse is a Win box. Compatibility with work computers is a bigger issue for my home office. So, I've upgraded some bits to keep it quieter, and it works just fine serving up audio to the stereo down there even while I'm photoshopping something or surfing the web.

I will note that the Win box seems to require a lot more fiddling whenever I install something. Apple is much more plug-n-play. I spend 10x more time troubleshooting network and device driver issues with the Win box than I do the Apple.