My New Computer Audio Player

*epically massive facepalm*

RAID 1 is designed so that if one drive fails, you can easily swap in another one real quick so downtime is kept at a minimum. It's designed for systems that need to be up and running constantly. RAID 1 actually causes more wear on each drive than if you simply backed things up manually to an external drive. It's just much, much more practical for home users to back their data up to an external that is kept in a safe place, preferably off-site, than to splurge on a RAID array. In fact, if there is any issue with the RAID controller or box, it could cause damage to BOTH drives, and then you're SOL.

 

Raid1 is the first line of defense in any quality enterprise network. Backups are for catastrophic failure/disasters (physical loss, viruses, etc.) and can also provide snapshots (not much of a benefit to music servers though).

The benefit of Raid1 over backups is not just the prevention of downtime, but that the data is protected in real time. Very few people have static data and unless you enjoy the overhead and maintenance of frequent backups, your chance of losing new data, which is often the most critical, is significant.

Suggesting that the raid hdw will destroy the data of a Raid1 array is a possibility so remote as to not even worth mentioning. Raid1, unlike other arrays, is just a simple mirror and a stand alone disc can typically be read by another controller (I’ve personally done this many times). Moving HDD’s around in external enclosures for backups is far more likely to cause damage to a drive. Additionally, the wear on the 2 drives in Raid1 is less than that of a single drive.

It’s important to have both schemes, but to suggest someone shouldn’t use Raid1 is just nonsense.

 

I don't know much about wear on each scheme, but moving HDD's as GreenDrazi says is always likely to damage the drive on an accident.
Besides, once you have configured the raid, you just forget about backups. And i think simplicity is one of the things a person building a music server is looking for.
I know that moving from around $300 to $400 is a bit too much just to backup but in a music server the HDD is the most important part.

 

Well I guess there's no need of taking the backup drive out of the computer either (if you're using a regular HDD), just unplug it, leave it inside the computer enclosure, and that would prevent accidents

 

Maybe look at trimming down the services running in the background of XP?

http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

Less is more.

 

Thanks for the info about Raid. My plan was to just buy two more external hard drives and back them up every few weeks or so.

Thanks for the reminder of blackviper...I had been using his tweaks for years, but forgot about his site.

Talking about bit-perfect with the realtek ALC883, and I think we shouldn't just lump in all realtek codecs as they are all different.

I'm posting a few links that discuss the ALC-883 for reference purposes. I haven't had a chance to read through all of them, but I will.


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t62653-0.html

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/view_topic.php?id=48875&forum_id=34&jump_to=787572

http://realtek.info/pdf/alc883.pdf

 

Exactly, enterprise network, where any downtime means lost money. This is a music server. Assuming you get new CD's once a week, the absolute highest data loss you could have from a HD failure is a week's worth of ripping. If the drive fails, you're not really losing much. You just swap in a new one and then copy the files from the backup to the new drive. Or you could just take the backup drive and swap it for the failed one, depending on what kind of backup you've done.

Again, this is a music server we're talking about, not servers with vital, constantly-changing business data on them. The need for real-time protection is minimal at best.

I've personally dealt with raid arrays that caused the failure/corruption of data on multiple hard drives. It is rare, but so is a well-maintained hard drive failing in a basic consumer application. For the external, I'd just leave it in one place and then hook it to a computer when it is needed. I like to use a 3.5" drive in one of those Rosewill docks instead of an enclosure, though. If you wanted to go off-site, then yeah, you're going to be moving the drive around, but in that case you probably have an on-site backup as well, or at least that is what is recommended.

The simple fact of the matter is that RAID 1 is not practical for a consumer music server application. In fact, it's not really practical for most consumer applications. It's more expensive and more complicated than simply using an external. I don't even think the OP's music server has a second bay for another hard drive, so he really can't use RAID, anyway.

 

Enterprise utilize “best practices” and as easy as it is to implement Raid1 is today (basic feature on current chipsets), it’s a best practice for the consumer as well. Having an external HDD setting next to your computer as your only data protection is not a best practice.

It’s not just the new music, people are constantly modifying the data with metadata, artwork, playlists etc. and what’s most important is the amount of time invested. Additionally, most consumers will not keep the backups up-to-date. They don’t have IT departments to do this for them. They tend to do backups initially and then again only after a drive failure.

But we aren’t talking about an array. This is a simple mirrored pair where the data is not dependent on a fragile parity of other discs and/or the controller.

The data on an external HDD sitting next to you computer is just as much, if not more so, exposed to physical failure as an internal Raid1. And using a dock which leaves the HDD exposed is even more dangerous.

Complete BS. It’s both very practical and actually cheaper - all he needs to do is add an internal HDD instead of buying one with an enclosure. The case he purchased has a total of 4 bays (2 are still free) that can except a 3.5" HDD’s. And most current MB’s now offer hardware Raid1 or Raid0, just as this one does. Both nvidia and intel have incorporated Raid into their standard chipsets. It’s so practical and easy to do that some DVR’s now come with mirrored pairs. Again, you treat a simple mirrored pair as if it was fragile, expensive and difficult array, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

I am pleased to report that I am getting bit-perfect playback with the onboard realtek alc883 codec. I used the DTS encoded 44.1 khz file found at the link below...it is on the bottom of the page. From what I understand, if a dts capable reciever is fed this signal unaltered (bit-perfect), then sounds can be heard...in this case it is a foreign voice testing your speakers. A horrendous sound is heard if your receiver is not getting a bit-perfect signal, or if it is not a dts capable receiver so be careful if running this test.

I am unable to further test the 192Khz sample rate as my HT Receiver can only accept 96Khz over optical. BTW, I don't use my HT Receiver for music playback, but just for testing purposes as it can display sample rate information.

So...yes. Bit-Perfect output from onboard ALC883 and Kernel Streaming with Foobar!



http://www.sr.se/sida/default.aspx?programID=2445

 

Here is another link to some information about this DTS test being a valid test for bit-perfect.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/6/61877.html

 

Just thought I'd bump this instead of starting a new thread. Are there any current recommended motherboards with optical out? The OP did some researching and founded a "bit perfect" one. I really don't want to go with the internal sound card route and I'm not all that confident with USB.

Thanks!

 

What's wrong with bit-perfect playback over USB? It certainly works for me...

 

Actually a lot of people on this forum don't like USB. Barry Diament is one of them. That's not to say that you can't get good sound from it and I'm willing to give it a shot and test it out myself. But I like to keep my options open. I'm also thinking about a Squeezbox Touch.

 

USB can be nasty if not properly managed, this is true.
A very simple and cheap USB/SPDIF like this works beautifully: bitperfect and does pass correctly DTS streams. Jut install their ASIO drivers and lock the bitrate.

The chipset inside is a Tenor 7022 and IMHO works better than BB PCM2*02: i've tried several USB/SPDIF based on BB and never got a DTS stream to play correctly, no matter player, drivers, asio or not. With the Tenor 7022 and their Asio drivers not a hiccup since the first minute.

(btw, i'm not the seller of this device... just a very happy user of it)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HA-INFO-U2-...189?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a6ddb0ffd

 

I'm not sure what Barry or other think of it these days but quite honestly that is a very outdated viewpoint on things. I usually agree with almost any of Barry's opinions but in this case we would have to be a polar opposites if indeed that is his (and others') opinion. Maybe a couple of years ago USB might have been a compromise, but these days there is absolutely no reason to avoid it on the basis that sound quality may not be as good as other methods.

Indeed, if anything, the exact opposite is now the case these days and I would have no trouble designing a computer based USB playback system that would equal or exceed any other methods in sound quality for computer-based playback. Infact, if someone came to me and wanted to achieve the absolute highest sound quality from computer-based playback, I would design it all around USB.

For starters, scroll down this page for the SotM USB card:

http://www.sonore.us/SOtM.html

and then also employ the SOtM hard drive filter and fan filters, followed by using any number of superbly performing asyncronous USB DACs available these days. The "traditional" bugbears of USB based playback (jitter and noise) are no longer issues these days due to the availability of equipment such as that linked to above, dedicated USB audio cables, asynchronous USB transfer, better understanding of how power supplies effect things, etc.

A useful site covering / discussing computerised playback, especially USB is www.computeraudiophile.com.