Linux-Based Audiophile CD Archival System

cporter writes: "My disappointment with the quality of compressed digital music formats (MP3, Ogg, WMA, the list goes on ...) and playback hardware has so far forced me to stick with the good ol' aluminum coated plastic discs. However, Linn has created the Kivor Knekt multi-unit linux-based hard disk system for archiving CDs in uncompressed form for cataloging and playback (yes, it does support ripping to MP3). It includes the Tunboks storage system, the Linnk control interface, the Oktal D/A converter, and the PCI Musik Machine sound board. The system can support up to 11 hard drives for storing audio. Stereophile magazine has a review in their current dead-tree issue, not available online, during which the reviewer hooked up a keyboard, mouse, and monitor, and found an AMD Duron system running Linux. The price is a mere $20,000, plus installation. Guess I'm sticking to CDs for the moment." Looks amazing despite the price. They should send me a review model :)

Comments

Try FLAC

[redcliffe]

Try the Free Lossless Audio Codec. It isn't as compressive as MP3 or OGG, but will help.

http://flac.sf.net

David

Complicated, expensive, and stupid

[NineNine]

If you don't want any compression, why not go down to Circuit City and buy a 400-disk CD jukebox for $300? What's the point of spending a lot of time and money to transfer CD's (uncompressed, no less) to a computer?

Linn

[PoiBoy]

IMHO as an audiophile Linn products tend to be somewhat overpriced relative to similar products from other companies. I wouldn't be surprised if more high-end companies produce similar systems for under $7500 or so.

In the meantime, there is the Sutherland 12dax7 system which works with any type of music on your computer for $1699 IIRC. www.12dax7.com

Nevertheless, it is good to see high-end audio companies paying attention to newer recording technologies.

Bunch of crap

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

"My disappointment with the quality of compressed digital music formats [blah]"

That's classic snobbism from self-declared "audiophiles". The truth is, 99% of people won't be able to hear a difference between a well-encoded 128kbp MP3 and the original CD. Of the remaining 1%, 99% won't be able to tell the difference anymore if the MP3 is encoded at or above 256kbps. And that's even with top-of-the-line amplifiers and speakers. It's the same kind of people who claimed years ago that vinyls were so much better sounding than CDs, when the truth is that the dynamics and S/N ratio of a good vinyl will never match that of a bad CD, and the only difference between a vinyl and a CD is the audio on the vinyl is compressed.

Those who really can tell a difference whatever the encoding are golden ears used as sonar officers in nuclear submarines, and professional audio testers in their anechoic chambers working for Kenwood, Denon and the likes. Is the poster one of these people ? not bloody likely.

Re:Bunch of crap

[cporter]

Wow, I had a slashdot story accepted on my 2nd try. I was hoping this would be a "fun" story, and an opposite-side-of-the table from the recent stories about Rio MP3 appliances.

I've done quite a bit of listening and comparing CD source to compressed audio sources. It's quite apparent what's compressed and what's not. And it is more apparent on better equipment, despite what you say. The test rig I have setup is a CD player into a high-end 24/96 DAC and a sound card with digital optical out into that same DAC. Playing uncompressed music is basically indistinguishable from CD; playing compressed ogg at 220Kbps and MP3 at 320Kbps is definitely lower grade. At that bit rate, it's not the artifacts that are evident, but the complete lack of stereo separation. After all, correlations between the left and right channels is one of the means of eliminating "redundant" information and reducing file sizes.

I have also experimented with a bunch of the lossless compression formats. They sound fine, but I have concerns about software support for these formats, namely command-line players and cataloging software.

I am not a fan of vinyl, even on very high-end analog playback systems. Nor am I a fan of tubes. All digital and solide state for me. I agree with you on the dynamic range and S/N issue.

As a real audiophile, who's primary interest is music, not equipment, my advice is always: listen, listen, listen. For $20,000, I probably will be more interested in hiring a local string quartet to play private parties for me.

Re:Bunch of crap

[shaper]

That's classic snobbism from self-declared "audiophiles". The truth is, 99% of people won't be able to hear a difference between a well-encoded 128kbp MP3 and the original CD. Of the remaining 1%, 99% won't be able to tell the difference anymore if the MP3 is encoded at or above 256kbps. And that's even with top-of-the-line amplifiers and speakers.

That's funny, I have no trouble at all distinguishing differences among different MP3 bit rates and original CD's, even on fairly lousy computer speakers. On decent stereo equipment, the difference is pretty glaring. I have found that my personal minimum tolerable threshold for MP3 is 160-192 kbps for casual listening while I'm working or otherwise busy. For serious listening, I still go back to the original CD.

Maybe some people just hear better or at least differently. I know that I hear things that my wife and friends never notice, both in music and just ambient noises like monitor squeal and flourescent lights. Maybe I'm in your remaining 1%, but I'm no sonar officer or professional audio tester, "bloody likely" or otherwise. I just know what I can hear and what I like to listen to.

Re:Bunch of crap

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

"As a real audiophile, who's primary interest is music, not equipment, my advice is always: listen, listen, listen."

Point taken for the "real" audiophile ;-) The problem I have with the Joe Bob "audiophile" is that he doesn't really know jack about music.

I guess the question is, what are you trying to achieve ? if you try to obtain the purest, most accurate reproduction of a musical artwork, the best thing is to sit at the concert, then the next best thing is to have audio equipment like yours, then things go down from there. But is this really the point ?

My interest is the pleasure I derive from listening to music, not the fidelity of the reproduction. I personally have a huge collection of everything from vinyls to CDs, including tapes, 8-tracks and cassettes. When I play an 8-track, I enjoy the music, but I enjoy it less because the sound isn't as rich as with a CD. When I play a CD, I enjoy myself and no reproduction defect (usually) takes some of the pleasure away. Well, when I MP3d my entire collection of CDs (128kbs), I sometime could tell there was a slight sound reproduction difference, but it wasn't worse, just different, and I derive the exact same pleasure from listening to the MP3s than from listening to the original CDs. And believe me, I'm not talking about Shitty Street Boyz, I'm referring to complex works like Ligeti or Xenakis (stuff I'm into).

The question you should ask yourself is : does listening to 96KHz 24-bit music honestly enhance your listening *pleasure* that much compared to listening to the same artwork at the standard 44.1KHz 16 bits ? I'm sure the fidelity is enhanced with your equipment, but is your listening pleasure enhanced by the same factor ? I've never listened 96KHz 24-bit music myself, but I guess conceptually it's the same question of enhanced pleasure between my 44.1KHz CDs and my 128kbps MP3.

If you honestly think listening to music from your high-end audio equipment is better than from standard good equipment, not because you know it's 96Khz 24 bits but because you get more of that nondescript feeling if your guts when you listen to it, then you're one of the lucky few with a very above-average hearing, and I'll consider myself one of the lucky few music lovers who have frugal technical needs.

Re:Bunch of crap

[Nailer]

the truth is that the dynamics and S/N ratio of a good vinyl will never match that of a bad CD, and the only difference between a vinyl and a CD is the audio on the vinyl is compressed.

Er, no. The CD has a frequency: it beeps 44100 times a second. The record player on the other hand is atomically granular - it plays whatever the atoms below the head is. S/N is severely lessened if you're using modern unit, especially a laser vinyl player.

Yeah, you're right - the overwhelming amount of people can't hear the diff, but I think you might not be 100% accurate about some of technical stuff.

Re:uncompressed? hello?

[MarcoAtWork]

Oh, come on, and since when so called 'esoteric' audio component makers make meaningful decisions? It's just a matter of perceptions, if it's priced at $20,000, a lot of 'audiophiles' will think it's worth it.

It's the same rationale as people who think that a CD player that has a gold plated/rare woods case sounds better than a standard plasticky CD player regardless of what actually is inside.

Same goes for people who spend hundreds of dollars for gold-everything interconnects (cables) and other various snake oil products.

Music appreciation is by definition subjective, so if one spends several hundred bucks for a component which *might* produce a difference measurable in a lab with ultra-sensitive equipment, one mysteriously becomes able to hear this difference even while listening to the newly enhanced hi-fi kit from three rooms away and under the shower...

While it's obvious that there *is* quite a difference between a $300 hi-fi, and a $3000, most of the things above a, say, $5,000 threshold for a complete system (CD+pre+amp+speakers+interconnects) tend to cater more to your aesthetic senses than actually sound incrementally better. If the room you put this system in has not been modified in any way (i.e. if you stick the speakers in a wall mounted library 3" apart from each other etc.) cut the $5,000 by half at least. Same goes if you live in an apartment and you can't turn the knob on your 400W RMS amp higher than 1 without your neighbours threatening to evict you.

snobby audiophile types and physics

[Kludge]

I've grown tired of snobby audiophile types that claim there is a difference, that analog plastic LPs are much better than "digital".
The bottom line is, CDs encode the entire range of human hearing. The sampling is beyond the Nyquist frequency of human hearing.
The only way that a human could tell a digital recording is different from an analog is if it is done incorrectly, i.e. bad digitization (recording) or bad analog conversion (the result of a badly adjusted CD player).

Not Enough Storage

[elmegil]

11 80GB hard disks would only hold ~1100 800Mb CDs, assuming maximum capacity per CD. I've got 1500 CDs. Admittedly, the vast majority aren't max capacity, but still, I'd probably be pushing the capacity of the system very close; and that doesn't make any allowances for filesystem overhead or anything else....

Even if it were at a more reasonable cost, I don't see how it would be of use for anything but the moderate CD owner. Which doesn't make sense, given that the pricetag pretty much guarantees they're trying for the radio station market....

True, if a blow to the ego

[Goonie]

I tried those "blind listening tests" that were featured on /. a while ago (can't be bothered digging up URL) and I couldn't tell the difference using $150 Sennheiser headphones through an SBLive Value, nor my $1000 stereo setup (though my CD player isn't the greatest). I still maintain that badly encoded MP3s sound like crap, but from that test it seems to me that modern encoders are better than my ears, even at 128 kbps, and these days I count as a semi-professional musician (I get beer to play in a cafe :) ).

use 'shorten' - its lossless

[TheGratefulNet]

if you really care about total audio quality, here's what you have to do:

• encode your .wav's to shorten format.
  

• play them back (after expending them, on-the-fly) to an spdif card such as the c-media 8738 or midiman series of s/pdif cards. alsasound supports the 8738 just dandy - better than the latest linux kernel does (sadly to say).
  

• connect the s/pdif out on your sound card to a quality DAC (digital to analog converter) such as an audio alchemy DAC, as found used on ebay for cheap.
  

• connect that DAC to your home stereo and enjoy.
  

you'd be extremely hardpressed to tell the diff between a silver stamped cd going thru its audio chain and this setup as I described. in fact, my setup will be better, on average, since the audio alchemy (or even midiman) DAC will usually be better than the one built into your cd player.

Factual Myths

[Sara Chan]

It's interesting to see so much written by someone who has obviously never listened. Let's look at the "myths" on the page that you cite:

• Myth 1. Tube amplifiers are the best way to listen to music.
  
  Facts. Tube amplifiers tend to give a more realistic presentation of vocals and soundstaging--especially depth. If, due to your preferred music, that is what you most care about, then tube amps give great value for money.
  
• Myth 2. Vinyl records are the best because they are analog while digital sampling ruins the sound.
  
  Facts. Simply listen on a good turntable: use your ears, and you will prefer vinyl. I have never met anyone who disagreed after actually listening. There are various theories as to why. (A) Vinyl has a greater dynamic range (you can hear ~20 dB into the hiss, which is ignored). (B) Vinyl allows much faster transients (the human ear detects up to 30 kHz, even though pure tones are inaudible above about 20 kHz). (C) Things related to Shun Mook and PWB (which seem to work, though I don't understand why). (D) etc.
  
• Myth 3. CD doesn't have a low enough signal to noise ratio. The new DVD super audio is a huge improvement.
  
  Facts. This is really the same as above: CD has to throw away a lot of the information, especially getting rid of fast transients. The CD standard compresses music much more than DVD-A: so much so that the difference is audible (though "huge" might be exaggerated).
  
• Myth 4. Equalizers are bad.
  
  Facts. Anything in the signal path will cause some unwanted distortion, and so should generally be avoided. This is truly obvious.
  

In other words, the things claimed to be myths are largely true.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. There is something wrong with pretending you're not and promulgating untruths.

As the saying goes...

[mysta]

Audiophiles are people who listen to the sound system, not the music.

Re:Linn makes good stuff

[smatthew]

Well - not a $30 sound card - but you could get pretty good results with a $600 sound card and $1500 external DAC. But did you actually read the website? I'm assuming a significant part of the $20K is the fact that it's touch screen controlled and has the ability to serve up many different streams at once (5 i think) in addition to offering superb quality.

Don't forget - just because it's digital doesn't mean it's perfect. Things such as jitter dramatically affect the sound quality - and the only way to get rid of that is with a really really good source ($$$$$) and good cables ($$$$$) or by running the stream through a digital anti-jitter filter such as Genesis Digital Lens which only costs around $1,800.

You also have to realize this product is aimed at people that don't blink at paying $20,000 for just a cd player, like the Linn sondek 12 cd player