Topic: Playback computer setup

[JasonSobel]

I've been thinking that I want to get a cheap computer, hook up a couple of large external HD's to it, and use it exclusively for playback.
Here are my requirements:
1) As cheap as possible.
2) able to accomodate a bit-berfect soundcard capable of 24/96
3) multiple USB jacks to accomodate more than one external drive.
4) as cheap as possible.

For the computer itself, after some searching, I came across this:
http://store.madtux.org/product_info.php?cPath=57&products_id=229
having them do the ubuntu install is an extra $25.  even so, $175 for a computer is a pretty good deal, I'm thinking.
and, I'm under the impression that pretty much any computer I buy these days will be plenty robust to play back 24/96 audio.  no processing nor editing (nor word processing, web browsing, nor anything else), just audio playback...

    * AMD Sempron M 3000+ Processor
    * 512MB DDR2 RAM included
    * 13.5GB Hard Disk
    * 100Mbps fast-ethernet port
    * 128-bit 3D/2D Graphics engine
    * Full-featured AGP v2.0 compliant 8x transfer mode AGP controller
    * 3 PCI slots
    * UltraDMA EIDE controller
    * Memory expandable to 2GB
    * Two 32-bit PCI slots
    * Two IDE connectors onboard
    * Realtek ALC655 6-channel AC'97 Audio CODEC
    * Two PS/2 ports for mouse and connector, one serial, one parallel ports, one VGA port, one LAN port, four USB 2.0 ports and audio jacks

before we start talking about all the other details of what I'll need, let's talk about linux.  I've never used it.  I'm not a super-computer techie kind of guy, but I know my way around Windows.  I've never used Linux.  Is there a good audio playback program?  something like foobar2000 that I use on XP?  I'm sure there has to be, but I'm just not sure what it is.

ok, back to the hardware.  the computer linked above has 3 PCI slots.  for a cheap soundcard, it seems like it is common knowledge that the Chaintech AV-710 is the best bang for the buck.  for about $25, I'll get a card that support bit-perfect S/PDIF output.  But, does it work well with Ubuntu?  I couldn't find too much info about linux drivers for this card out on the information super highway.  Anyone use this card with Ubuntu before?  Or any other suggestions for a soundcard that will work well with Ubuntu.

So that's really it.  I can take care of the basics on my own (keyboard, mouse, monitor, and external HD's).
Is that computer linked above a good starting point?  should I be considering something else?  other computers, other soundcards?  Is Ubuntu a good choice?  or should I stick with what I know (Windows)?  With everything I've read about Vista, it really makes me want to run in the other direction, so Ubuntu seems like a good way to go.

other thoughts?  anything I should think about that I haven't yet?

[pigiron]

First... a foobar like player... there's so many different audio playback programs available on linux that you'll get tired of trying them all... XMMS, VLC, xine, mplayer, and others come to mind.

Here's a concise link (that's getting out of date) that lists just some of the free audio linux programs:

    http://linux-sound.org/one-page.html

Next... the Chaintech AV-710... it looks like it's had Ubuntu support for a long time..

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=187920

...and since it looks like it's simply another card using the ice1724 device driver, I'm not surprised. Lot's of search hits confirm that it worked for others.

The system... the linux drivers have made unbelievable progress in this area. So most motherboards will be supported outright. But there's still two areas that you need to be careful about... graphics adapters and wireless LAN cards. This is only because the damn manufacturer's won't release the chip specs, so the linux developers have to perform the herculean task of trying to reverse engineer these complicated beasts.

What I'm trying to say is, while that looks like a fine system, I'm sure others could work just as well. So don't feel too locked into a "linux certified" system (but it definitely would take any worries out of the equation). I've built lot's of systems from component parts without a problem.... google is your friend here. I just find something that looks interesting and search for the item and the word "linux "... that should give you a good idea about any trouble you may have with it.

One of those systems I built is somewhat similar to where you're headed. A small Sempron, 512M RAM, quiet fan, audio card (Audiophile 2496), removable RAID, and SPDIF out to an external DAC... all sitting in the stereo rack. The gauges tell me that the CPU is damn near at idle, and still gobs of free RAM when playing FLAC files... so your idea of a small, cheap system is a good one.

I run my Linux audio jukebox headless (no keyboard, mouse, or monitor). Control is done either using a remote (http://www.lirc.org/) or remotely from another box (many options available here... moc  is one... works frigg'n great for the stuff we tape... http://moc.daper.net/). My non-geek friends are amazed when i tap a key on the laptop and the music changes in the other room

OK... now to linux sound. The first sound subsystem was called OSS. It worked well, but had some shortcomings (couldn't output sound from two applications at the same time, etc.). It's been phased out and all the distros have now gone to ALSA (http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Main_Page). It's powerful and extremely flexible (works very well with many, many sound cards that aren't even remotely similar)... but that also makes it extremely complicated... and like some other large open source projects that are expanding exponentially over a short time, the documentation isn't there yet... in fact it sucks.

So... unless your willing to roll up you sleeves and get some ALSA mud smeared on you, my advice is to make sure your audio card is a "popular" linux card... and any of the "ice1712" or "ice1724" cards should fit the bill here... check the list on their web page for others. But I'm thinking that your Chaintech card will probably work "out of the box" with Ubuntu.

So there's some good, bad, and ugly. Should you stick with windoze or go with linux? My vote is to give linux a try... it's free... Ubuntu is a good distro for a beginner... it's got great community support if you run into trouble... and if works for you, there's about a hundred bucks still in your pocket

[JasonSobel]

great reply.  and I'm not sure how I missed those ubuntu forums before, but it certainly seems like a wealth of knowledge out there.

First... a foobar like player... there's so many different audio playback programs available on linux that you'll get tired of trying them all... XMMS, VLC, xine, mplayer, and others come to mind.

Here's a concise link (that's getting out of date) that lists just some of the free audio linux programs:

    http://linux-sound.org/one-page.html

great, I figured that there would be lots of audio playback programs, honestly, I haven't really gotten that far yet, as most of my google research time has been focused more on hardware.

Next... the Chaintech AV-710... it looks like it's had Ubuntu support for a long time..

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=187920

...and since it looks like it's simply another card using the ice1724 device driver, I'm not surprised. Lot's of search hits confirm that it worked for others.

excellent, exactly what I needed to know.

The system... the linux drivers have made unbelievable progress in this area. So most motherboards will be supported outright. But there's still two areas that you need to be careful about... graphics adapters and wireless LAN cards. This is only because the damn manufacturer's won't release the chip specs, so the linux developers have to perform the herculean task of trying to reverse engineer these complicated beasts.

What I'm trying to say is, while that looks like a fine system, I'm sure others could work just as well. So don't feel too locked into a "linux certified" system (but it definitely would take any worries out of the equation). I've built lot's of systems from component parts without a problem.... google is your friend here. I just find something that looks interesting and search for the item and the word "linux "... that should give you a good idea about any trouble you may have with it.

well, as I said, this system would be just for playback.  so the wireless lan issue doesn't really concern me.  nor does the graphic adaptors, as long as I can hook up a monitor, I'll be good to go.

And thanks for the tip about not feeling locked in with that system I lined originally.  If I were to put a system together from scratcg, how much cheaper than $175 (excluding monitor, keyboard, mouse, and soundcard, so we're comparing apples to apples) do you think I could really get?  I'm leaning towards that system, simply because it is cheap, and it's all put together and ready to go.

thanks again for the great reply.

[Nick's Picks]

this is what I do...and we have basically the same deal here only i use a winblows based PC...at the moment.

for external drives, I recommend getting a network based external that doesn't require a PC ...just a router w/an open port.

[pigiron]

If I were to put a system together from scratcg, how much cheaper than $175 (excluding monitor, keyboard, mouse, and soundcard, so we're comparing apples to apples) do you think I could really get?  I'm leaning towards that system, simply because it is cheap, and it's all put together and ready to go.

I spent more than that just for my computer case

I agree that the "ready to go" thing is a big plus... and the price is outstanding... but they don't seem to spec the motherboard so I'm not sure what's "under the hood"...  so an apples vs apple is difficult.

Besides, I'm always hesitant to say "yes" or "no" on someone else's particular box/component since I really don't know their exact expectations... it'd kind of be like saying that you should ignore the Fords and get a Chevy.

[bgalizio]

Why not use a Squeezebox instead?

EDIT: yes, it does downsample 24/96 to 24/48, which could be a problem for some.

[pfife]

why not internal drives?  then do the acceptable redundancy that skalinder wrote up in order to back them up.

[pigiron]

Why not use a Squeezebox instead?

EDIT: yes, it does downsample 24/96 to 24/48, which could be a problem for some.

I won't speak for Jason... but in my case...

I've got a SB1 and I loved it... but then I got into the 24/96 world (like you mention). So it was fork over more bucks for an upgrade or sink it into a more flexible solution... besides, I was curious if I could pull it off.

Also... I would have to go wireless with either solution due to my configuration... I ran some overly simplistic sniff tests and found that my 802.11g was being saturated when pushing 24/96 WAV... and guessed that 24/96 FLACs would still be a load if I ever found a way to make use of it.

But as you're alluding to, there's multiple ways to skin this musical cat... that's what makes it so difficult to pick one.

[JasonSobel]

Why not use a Squeezebox instead?

EDIT: yes, it does downsample 24/96 to 24/48, which could be a problem for some.

exactly, I have too many 24/96 recordings.  and I don't care about wireless streaming or anything.  I've been burning DVD-Audio discs for a couple of years, but there's just no way that I'm going to be able to burn to disc my entire collection.  So this dedicated computer seemed to be the best/cheapest option available.

I agree that the "ready to go" thing is a big plus... and the price is outstanding... but they don't seem to spec the motherboard so I'm not sure what's "under the hood"...  so an apples vs apple is difficult.

point taken.  without knowing exactly what is in that computer, we can't do a direct comparison.  I might try to price out a super cheap linux system and build from scratch.  But I'm guessing I'll have a hard time coming in at less than $175.  we'll see though.

for external drives, I recommend getting a network based external that doesn't require a PC ...just a router w/an open port.

good point, Nick.  I've already got a router with a few extra ports.  with a network drive, I'd be able to access it from my windows machine to add new shows as I tape/download/transfer them, and access it from the new dedicated linux box for playback...

but in the meantime, I think I need to focus on the computer and worry about the storage later.

thanks for all the tips everyone...

[JasonSobel]

why not internal drives?  then do the acceptable redundancy that skalinder wrote up in order to back them up.

I meant to respond to this last night, but missed it, I guess.  anyway, I'm sure that over the life of this playback computer, I'll be spending a lot more on HD storage than on the actual computer itself.  my collection as it stands now is probably over a TB.  As I won't be purchasing all the needed HD space at once, it seems like external drives are the way to go to make things easily scaleable.  I'd rather not have to open up the computer each time I upgrade/add more storoage space.

[cheshirecat]

Why not use a Squeezebox instead?

EDIT: yes, it does downsample 24/96 to 24/48, which could be a problem for some.

I won't speak for Jason... but in my case...

I've got a SB1 and I loved it... but then I got into the 24/96 world (like you mention). So it was fork over more bucks for an upgrade or sink it into a more flexible solution... besides, I was curious if I could pull it off.

Also... I would have to go wireless with either solution due to my configuration... I ran some overly simplistic sniff tests and found that my 802.11g was being saturated when pushing 24/96 WAV... and guessed that 24/96 FLACs would still be a load if I ever found a way to make use of it.

But as you're alluding to, there's multiple ways to skin this musical cat... that's what makes it so difficult to pick one.

The SB1 won't decode flac within the device, it is decoded in software on the server and streamed as WAV to your SB1, this changed with the SB2 which receives a flac stream and decodes within the device.  That should save you some bandwidth.  I don't have a ton of 24/96 stuff, but I know I tried it over and 802.11g network and that worked (NAS via Wired ethernet > 802.11g router > SB2).  If that doesn't work because of signal quality, APs are so cheap now that throwing another one in to be dedicated to the SB for playback shouldn't be a huge concern if it gets you a viable 24/96 playback option... well, even though the SB will drop every other sample to give you 24/48 output with a 24/96 source.  The transporter will output 24/96 apparently.

[pfife]

why not internal drives?  then do the acceptable redundancy that skalinder wrote up in order to back them up.

I meant to respond to this last night, but missed it, I guess.  anyway, I'm sure that over the life of this playback computer, I'll be spending a lot more on HD storage than on the actual computer itself.  my collection as it stands now is probably over a TB.  As I won't be purchasing all the needed HD space at once, it seems like external drives are the way to go to make things easily scaleable.  I'd rather not have to open up the computer each time I upgrade/add more storoage space.

I can't really say you're wrong, and you don't want to do what you don't want to do, but installing internal hard drives is pretty easy - unless you're putting the computer where you can't get to it easily, or something like that, it is my opinion that you're overrating the burden of internals, but again, just my $.02;  I think the sata drives will be faster and cheaper than externals, and if you buy large ones, you won't need to upgrade them really very often.  Further, its self contained, eliminated wires (each ext will have a wall wart and a usb cable) and takes less space.

Two suggestions I would give you then about externals is to not use them as your primary storage, and make sure you get ones that are cooled.  I'm very fond of using my external hard drive to share music with friends, but I find that most of them don't know about flacs, so I only share mp3s.   Its great for acquiring music too! I'm assuming you're going mp3-free here...  that is my primary use of mine, and to have an additional copy of all of my music in another location for redundancy.

I see you don't want to have the computer as a web browsing machine - are you still going to have it connected to a network?   If not, then internal hard drives wouldn't work, as you wouldn't be able to get music on the drives without putting htem in another computer and copying, and then putting thme in the playback machine.

If you're not planning to put it on a network, I highly recommend doing so.

[cheshirecat]

why not internal drives?  then do the acceptable redundancy that skalinder wrote up in order to back them up.

I meant to respond to this last night, but missed it, I guess.  anyway, I'm sure that over the life of this playback computer, I'll be spending a lot more on HD storage than on the actual computer itself.  my collection as it stands now is probably over a TB.  As I won't be purchasing all the needed HD space at once, it seems like external drives are the way to go to make things easily scaleable.  I'd rather not have to open up the computer each time I upgrade/add more storoage space.

I can't really say you're wrong, and you don't want to do what you don't want to do, but installing internal hard drives is pretty easy - unless you're putting the computer where you can't get to it easily, or something like that, it is my opinion that you're overrating the burden of internals, but again, just my $.02;  I think the sata drives will be faster and cheaper than externals, and if you buy large ones, you won't need to upgrade them really very often.  Further, its self contained, eliminated wires (each ext will have a wall wart and a usb cable) and takes less space.

Two suggestions I would give you then about externals is to not use them as your primary storage, and make sure you get ones that are cooled. 

I see you don't want to have the computer as a web browsing machine - are you still going to have it connected to a network?   If not, then internal hard drives wouldn't work, as you wouldn't be able to get music on the drives without putting htem in another computer and copying, and then putting thme in the playback machine.

If you're not planning to put it on a network, I highly recommend doing so.

I would agree that internal sata is the way to go... note that there is no on board sata controller, so you'd have to get a PCI one.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

It seems more of the externals are including firmware which automatically spins the drive down if inactive for several minutes.   Drives have a finite number of spin-up/down cycles... if your playlists or server software access patterns result in frequent cycling, it could be bad for drive life. Maybe not a big deal in the first month but after a year it could be significant.

On the plus side, well timed spindowns could extend the life of the drives. Not definite, but maybe. You should be able to do that via power mgmt in your OS, regardless of whether you are using externals.

I've always felt good cases are essential to keep drive temps down. Especially as many drives are added to a system.  I really like having my server in the basement where it is cool and I don't have to worry about fan noise, etc.

SATA or ATA, the performance difference is completely moot. You can get low profile ATA cables if airflow is really a concern or just roll up the ribbon.

I like the silicon image sil 3114 based sata controllers. $21.50 for 4 ports (newegg, ymmv). Best $$ per port.

[Nick's Picks]

the "wake up" time of my NAS drives is a minor annoyance, I must admit.  but i live with it.

given my setup...., an SB3 still makes a perfect match for getting at HDD based music.