jp wrote:

I was looking into the power supply situation with my DAW and was wondering what viable options exist out there.  Currently, I am using an internal 600w pc power and cooling unit.  Apparently there arent many out there.  One I found was the xg magnum 600 external power supply but it looks like the company may be out of business...Anyone care to share their experience?

However, would I consider it as a good solution? Certainly not. The Magnum and any other PS for PC are essentially very cheap impulse power supply. The biggest question is if any better or other TYPE of power supply would be beneficial to drive DAW – that is THE question. Unfortunately I have no answer and I did not see anybody else seriously observe this subject. I have to admit that it is difficult subjects to observe as DAW in different hands do say many different thighs the it is very hard to say anything defiantly…

Still, I would be welcome to some kind of Aftermarket Company that would offer “sonically approved” computer powers supply – a great market for somebody and I am sure that soon or later we will see something like this available.

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Having said that, I notice no difference when switching to battery when using a laptop model to run the external drive of my music server setup, but this is possibly because power may be routed "through" the battery even with the transformer connected.

decoud wrote:

What is the reason for not building one's own? There is nothing special about computer power supplies, is there, one just has to provide DC with the correct parameters, no? You could run a motherboard off the Milq...

Generally, yes, it shell be very simple power supplies with no switching dirt insider and Hi-Fi people might use way better sounding stabilizers then people use in computers. The computer people use switching supplies just because it is cheaper, less space and less heat, no other reasons. You will not find a liner aftermarket PS for PC – I was looking it for a few years. It would not be difficult to build one but I do not plane to install my own DIY projects. I will tolerate the coming conversion of MF channel of Milq to DHT and it will be as far as I will go because no one else will be able to do it for me. To build a typical PS for PC is too generic task for me to make my hand dirty and other shall do it, the professionals – I would just buy it, try and see how it works.  Unfortunate no one look at that direction… Like in many other directions…

Lately the Music Servers got a lot of momentum and a lot of popularity but I am in contrary very disappointed with what going on with Music Servers and with the people who use them. But this is another subject…

coops wrote:

I heard a demonstration of the software ,versus standard itunes in Munich, I thought it a significant improvement, more texture to the sound, more space around individual components, and the auto sample rate sensing is useful.

scooter wrote:

* Regarding playback, I misspoke in my original post of an "Audiophile music server." Upon further reflection, this is an oxymoron, if not a moronic phrase. I think it is highly unlikely that a dedicated audiophile CD player will be beat by a home-brewed or commercially available music server: - The microcomputer used for a music server is unable to perform specialized application roles at top-tier levels. The microcomputer's operating system and hardware are too generalist, too buggy, too noisy and have too much stuff going on in the background - The apparently simple task of moving 1s and 0s from a hard drive to a DAC is still a challenge in 2008 (interference, jitter, data loss, etc.). Part of this is due to the limitations of a generalist computer system being utilized in a specialized application

manisandher wrote:

I am convinced that the soundcard/interface is the main cause of the inferior performance of HDD vs. CD.

alexd wrote:

As far as Music Server goes, the single board computer with linear power supply or battery supply is correct approach, I was talking about MAC or PC.

Telstar wrote:

I am convinced that the soundcard/interface is the main cause of the inferior performance of HDD vs. CD.

 I disagree. The main cause of the inferior performance of HDD vs. CD is not the soundcard/interface but the CD format itself and the fact that the CD are over-edited by deaf and semi-moronic people. If the CD be data CD and contain the raw 16/44 files than the qulety would be orders of magnetite more superior.

Also, yes, the music servers pop like mushrooms but it is meaningless. What those people put on their music servers? The copies from crappy CD? That is ridicules. The industry still holds control over music destitution and does not allow to have any row uncompressed files.  Without is anything else is garbage. If I did not have my FM source I would not even have and recognise not reasons in music servers.

Telstar wrote:

scooter wrote: * Regarding playback, I misspoke in my original post of an "Audiophile music server." Upon further reflection, this is an oxymoron, if not a moronic phrase. I think it is highly unlikely that a dedicated audiophile CD player will be beat by a home-brewed or commercially available music server: - The microcomputer used for a music server is unable to perform specialized application roles at top-tier levels. The microcomputer's operating system and hardware are too generalist, too buggy, too noisy and have too much stuff going on in the background - The apparently simple task of moving 1s and 0s from a hard drive to a DAC is still a challenge in 2008 (interference, jitter, data loss, etc.). Part of this is due to the limitations of a generalist computer system being utilized in a specialized application This is not true. Point one, "The microcomputer used for a music server is unable to perform specialized application roles at top-tier levels": what does this mean? A today cpu is hundreds of millions times more powerful than any microcontroller used in a cdp or dac. It can perform anything that a cdp/dac can and many things more, all in realtime and without introducing significant delays. Generalist is just a false statement. There are very specific pieces software. "too buggy": maybe Point two, the simple task of moving 1s and 0s is still a challenge with any transport used. With a separate transport and DAC, the very same interface issues apply. the best combos have proprietary interfaces (usually based on i2s or ST) with their jitter and interference problems. A single box cdp has an easier life on this. The issues are basically the same for the computer, as transport, namely (1)- interferences (RFI/EMI), more than within a cdp, also due to fans and other moving parts*, and (2)- jitter, which with some interfaces can be higher than from a SOTA transport, but from other sides can be lower because of no moving parts. it is surely very high using spdif, the worst digital interface ever created (TM by me). Anyway, it's always the DAC which accounts for the vast majority of the sound quality. This is why the guy above feels that his music server with Wavelenght dac sounds better. There is also the unknown rule that NOS sounds better with a computer (and nobody can explain why). * A computer transport without fans and moving parts can be done with today technlogy, and for a very low cost. The critical point is the interface, the connection to the D/A. I do not have first hand knowledge of the top pro units such as Lavry, Pacific microsonics and Meitner, but i have listened to very good consumer setups. My favourite digital surce is the naim cd555. Yep, extremely regulated psu, in a separate box. Power matters. Everything matters.