Slashdot Mirror


Simple, Cost-Effective, Multiroom Audio?

jimicus writes "I'd like a multiroom audio system but I'm thoroughly confused by the options available — and the difference in prices is huge. For instance, Philips have a wireless system which starts at around £280 — and Russound have a product which comes in around £1,000. I've already got all my music as MP3s and it lives on a NAS box — I don't really want to repeat that process. I also have a perfectly capable amp and speakers in my living room, so I don't really need anything else there. Whatever I go for has to pass the wife test — so something which requires a separate amp, speakers and PC in each room and requires a keyboard to control is right out. I don't mind spending a little money but I don't really want to find that every little extra thing adds up to £thousands. Has anyone else dealt with a similar problem? How did you solve it?"

438 comments

  1. The obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just set numrooms = 1 (or even better, 0). Makes the problem much easier.

    1. Re:The obvious solution by biryokumaru · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Would it be possible to send the audio signal through the mains in the house? I guess that would only send it to every room on the same circuit... And would likely be a terrible idea. Why don't you just wire your house for audio?

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    2. Re:The obvious solution by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Would it be possible to send the audio signal through the mains in the house?

      Assuming it were possible to do so without being left with that nice 50Hz buzz, you would still need an amplifier in every room, thus failing the OP's WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) problem.

    3. Re:The obvious solution by vtcodger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes ... but ... At least two problems. First, the AC power frequency -- 50 or 60Hz in most countries is in the audio range. Second, the US (and Canada?) wire houses with a sort of split 220 volt system where the house has two sets of circuits with the hot wire on one circuit set at 220 volts wrt the hot wire on the other set and ground half way in between. That allows stoves, driers, heaters to operate at 220 volts while most appliances and devices see 110 volts. The problem is that without some sort of coupling between the two hot wires, signals on one circuit set don't get to the other circuit set.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    4. Re:The obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      && rm wife

    5. Re:The obvious solution by BattleApple · · Score: 1

      || rm -f wife

    6. Re:The obvious solution by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Huh... I thought the obvious solution was just setting up amping + speakers in each room and carrying around the source. Why set up a streaming source or whatever when you can just move your MP3 player/laptop/netbook/phone from one room to another and plug in a single cable? Streaming from the NAS via WiFi is still possible with the latter three options...

      Studio monitors with a decent amp on my office/music room desk, 5.1 surround setup in the living room, 2.1 setup in the bedroom, cheap 2.0 setup in the kitchen... all with either a 3.5mm jack or XLR ins and the appropriate adapters.

      What do you need a centralized solution for? Is it about playing the same music in more than one room at the same time? Can't really see a use for that, unless you use your home (including the kitchen, bedroom, office, den and living room) as a cocktail lounge and don't want guests to have a moment of awkward silence (hint: if that's necessary, find more interesting people to have over!)...

    7. Re:The obvious solution by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Nope, no answer here that is cost effective but it may be of interest to someone.

      Yes, there is an ethernet solution that runs over the house electrical wiring. It should be trivial to stream audio or download and play MP3s over it. http://www.homeplug.org/products You would have to pick a setup that falls under your budget and actually works. I see some at 40 each which at 5 rooms is $200. There are some pitfalls to it IIRC there may be some information on /. or Google about fixing wiring problems but my search foo is lacking.

      Once you have that running you want to be able to FIND the songs. This may help but I've not used it. It looks slick and useful. http://www.nealosis.com/mp3collector/Forms/Default.aspx Since the requester does not want a PC in each room this is not the answer but I am going to try it as it looks cool.

      With networking available in each room
      http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/01/nicts-ethernet-speakers/
      http://www.aaavoip.com/cyberdata-10882.html

      Based on prices this is not an optimal solution but the cyberdata would sound so retro some may like it. ;)

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    8. Re:The obvious solution by SausageOfDoom · · Score: 1

      I'd have thought because of noise and attenuation? Having said that I did used to run an audio cable from one side of my home to the other, never noticed any problems - but then I'm no audiophile.

      Perhaps look at a bifferboard? http://bifferos.bizhat.com/

      £29 for a tiny low-voltage machine that can play a wav that's being streamed over the network. Someone wrote a howto here: http://sites.google.com/site/bifferboard/Home/howto/use-bifferboard-as-network-audio-player

      You'd still need to sort out speakers, and figure out a way to control it, but I'd have thought it would be fairly straight-forward to set up an IR controller or start/stop/next buttons to play a pre-defined playlist.

    9. Re:The obvious solution by jimicus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unfortunately, from man(1) wife:

      NOTES:

      While you can execute rm -f wife, it can take a very long time to complete and an inevitable side effect of this is that the wife process, prior to termination, will execute mv money wife and this cannot be avoided.

    10. Re:The obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For 230V, digital and analog audio transmitters are available e.g. from devolo. There are coupling devices that go into your breaker closet that transmit the signal between circuits/phases.

    11. Re:The obvious solution by vivian · · Score: 1

      I had a similar problem of how to get sound from my PC to everywhere in the house.
      Simplest Solution: an FM Stereo transmitter.

      Here's one place you can get an FM transmitter kit.
      http://www.electronickits.com/kit/complete/radi/ck301.htm/

      I made my FM transmitter from a kit (not this one - unfortunately the kit I used isn't sold from the place I bought it any more) because I just like doing that sort of thing, but you can buy them pre-made too.
      Total cost: About $40
      Range of the device: About 30 meters.

      That way any stereo in your house can pick it up, no wires needed.
      If your amp doesnt have an FM receiver you can of course pick one up pretty cheaply - even a cheapo FM receiver which sounds terrible will sound good once you have it playing through proper speakers instead of the litte 4" speaker in the receiver.

      Sound wont be as perfect as it would be connected directly to your stereo, with just the one stereo playing, but if you have multiple sound sources playing the same thing from different parts of your house they are going to be interfering with each other and distorting the sound anyway due to reflections and different levels of attenuation of the treble or bass cause by walls between ajacent rooms etc.

      The FM transmitters you get for your iPod is much weaker and only has a range of a few feet, but the kit form transmitters seem to have about a 30 foot range.
      I can pretty much receive the signal anywhere in my house, but not much further than my boundary, so there is little problem with causing interference. Of course you tune the transmitter into a blank spot in the FM band too.

      Best of all - you can have a "silent disco" house party or whatever - everyone just brings their own FM receiver/ipod or whatever and can crank the music as loud as they want, with just low level sound playing over the house system. If you use Linux, you can even hack an old broken USB headset, (I have a couple of broken USB headsets from where I have stood up and walked away from my PC with the things still on my head) and basically create a USB interface for your FM transmitter - just snip off the broken headphones, and connect the wires that were for the headphones to the input of the FM transmitter. That way you can route just the sound from your media player to the radio (mabey have a bit of script or somethign to start the player with the appropriate parameters), and leave all other system sounds playing through the PC speakers.

      Use one of the many remote PC music player programs to enable you to switch selection - eg. there's a program to control winamp from a PDA. I am sure if you are halfway technically competent you should be able to easily put something together to control what your PC is playing - through a program you write for your phone, to mabey an IR receiver and a bit of script and an old remote control or something like that.

    12. Re:The obvious solution by sr180 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Im using ReiserFS. Do I have to remove a seat from my car for 'rm -f wife' to work?

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    13. Re:The obvious solution by vivian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry got the above link slightly wrong - I accidentally added a trailing slash.
      here it is again:
      http://www.electronickits.com/kit/complete/radi/ck301.htm

    14. Re:The obvious solution by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      Do you REALLY need to have wireless/wired access to a cetral server? Think about it... just to play your music. you would need some form of reciever, and interface... etc... may be a bit overkill...

      What I have in my apartment, is a two prong system...

      One side.... I have a iPod Touch, and my wife has a Nano... our hifi, has a universal dock attached to the Line in (with remote).. our bedroom has a radio/clock with an iPod dock..... and our Panasonic surround system has an Ipod/ Dock (as well as a usb port for general HDs)... my TV has USB, and so does my PS3.

      Syncing the ipods and the USB devices is simple, and only takes a few seconds to update any changes. but in efect we are able to play any songs in any room. The ipod interface is easy to use... and the playlists are also kept sync.if my wife wants to listed to some songs in the bedroom, she just takes her ipod.... if i want to listen to my songs in the living room through the surround.. I take my ipod and just plug it in... its pretty simple..

      If i truely want wireless access to my server, my TV, PS3, and surround sound system have DNLA support. (this is the other 'prong' in my setup and allows audio/video/photos)

      --
      Have a nice day!
    15. Re:The obvious solution by vivian · · Score: 1

      Wow now I know exactly what I want for Christmas. I have been looking for a low cost network & linux enabled micro controller for ages! Thanks for the link.

      Perhaps I am tone deaf or something but I never really got the whole audiophile thing anyway - unless you are in a perfectly shaped room with all the right speakers and amps and the exact right seating position, with accoustic foam to suck up unwanted reflections (ie. basically an audio studio) I cant see how the losses from running over some nice chunky copper cable are going to make that much difference compared to all the other environmental factors - and as soon as you are playing the same music from another pair of speakers it's all going to get thrown about of whack anyway because of interference patterns caused by the second pair of sound sources. Besides, once you start really cranking the volume the human ear's ability to pick up subtle nuances goes right out the window.

    16. Re:The obvious solution by Exception+Duck · · Score: 1

      "&"$#%"#4

    17. Re:The obvious solution by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Bifferboard type devices are quite common in Taiwan. I picked up a SD201BT for 1590 TWD, i.e. GB£29 or US$49. It's advertised as having a 150 MHz x86 compatible chip, i.e. pretty much the same as a Bifferboard.

      Mind you that came with a case and AC adapter.

      Actually I was seriously considering buying some of these and selling them online, perhaps with a pre done Linux port. Anyone got any suggestions?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  2. Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You have a wife?

    1. Re:Uhhh... by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

      I do. She loves the multi-room audio and video setup.

      --
      Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
    2. Re:Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      What are some other things that she loves?

    3. Re:Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and you're on /. what has this world come to?

    4. Re:Uhhh... by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

      Since you asked... Playing tennis on the Wii - she's really competitive :) Using XBMC with a Wiimote The fact that she can browse the net/watch movies over the home wi-fi network ...I've saved the best for last... The KDE desktop - she loves the big over sized clock widget on the second monitor and has not found one that does the same on Windows. Why? because she can still see the time from 20 feet away and she actually uses it from the kitchen, even though the stove has two built in timers :)

      --
      Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  3. Sonos by eggman9713 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I haven't tried it myself, but this looks like a very interesting product. http://sonos.com/

    1. Re:Sonos by parishboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have installed many of these systems, and I second Sonos - could not be easier to set up and use. No need for separate amp/speakers/PC in every room, as they now have a product that is an all-in-one player/speaker. Many of the solutions mentioned here are great ways to go, but I can't think of one that's got a better/easier interface for your wife or similarly tech-challenged household members. Only real caveat is that it won't play DRM-protected audio files - but all the unprotected file formats and internet radio that you can shake a stick at. This beats most of the other solutions because there really is no need for separate audio equipment, including amplifiers.

    2. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine using anything but Sonos. I have a 19-zone setup at my college's music department. It works flawlessly.

    3. Re:Sonos by Annymouse+Cowherd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't get why all you people are suggesting computer-based solutions.
      Running wires to each room in the house would be both cheaper and have sound quality independent of network quality.

    4. Re:Sonos by whitedonkey · · Score: 1

      I cannot recommend this more. I have had one for a few years now and it's great. Easy setup, will work with your NAS, it hooks into lots of streaming services if that's your thing (may vary by location though, I'm in the US). You don't have to be a geek to use it either so it's easy for people regardless of their technical prowess to use. They have 3 types of "zones" 1 is totally independent with a speaker built in, 1 is a zone that plugs into an existing sound system, and 1 has an amp built in so you just attach speakers.

    5. Re:Sonos by enilnomi · · Score: 1

      Another vote for Sonos. It's the wife-friendliest, kid-friendliest, overnight-visitor-friendliest, drunk-out-of-your-mind-friendliest system out there. Install and setup is a breeze -- truly as easy as the diagram portrays. The mesh network is excellent, or you can run it wired. You can source music from your computer/CD player/iPod, or let Sonos grab internet radio streams or services like last.fm, Sirius, Rhapsody, etc. Use Sonos to feed your own amplifier(s), or buy amplified Sonos nodes.

      Slashdot covered 'em when they were new; many favorable comments. They were kick-ass at launch; these days they're miles better. Totally modular, so the system can grow as budget/desire dictates. The secure mesh network is excellent, or you can run 'em wired with CAT5. The new handheld controllers are great, or use an iPhone, iPod touch, or computer. (I've never hooked one up for a linux user, but Wine should do the job just fine.)

      --
      education is no substitute for intelligence
    6. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Then you've never experienced Sonos.

    7. Re:Sonos by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      To me the big advantage of Squeezebox over Sonus is that I already have a computer that is running 24x7. Since it is a generic PC hardware I don't have to buy into the closed and expensive to expand Sonus server stuff.

      So there is no booting or anything like that for my Squeezebox setup - it is leveraging stuff that I (and I would guess a lot of other Slashdot readers) readers already have, and the cost is far lower because of that.

    8. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have Sonos, and I couldn't have imagined how it has changed the way we listen to music. Yes, it's a bit expensive, but I assure you that a Sonos system is entire worth it. If you have an iPhone and want to save some cash by not buying the controller, Sonos has a controller in the App store.

    9. Re:Sonos by cbreaker · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm sure the Sonos system is nice, and from the enthusiasm here it sounds like it works. However, it's also very expensive. The starter bundle with speakers (one controller, one zone) is $1200.

      The original poster was looking for something low cost.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    10. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a Sonos system myself and really like it. It not only can use NAS and any file server on your network, but also stream content from either radios or music services like Pandora and Rhapsody.
      Since you have speakers, one of their players (the ZP120) comes with a built-in amp, or you can grab one of the non-amped players for a bit less.

      You can also control it with your iPhone or iPod touch if you have one, as well as with a desktop application.
      It's not cheap, but it's well worth it.

      Oh, did I mention it runs linux?

    11. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, because most home theater receiver/amps that I've seen (in the non-specialist, consumer space, anyway) only provide two separate sets of speaker outputs (usually labeled A/B). Most of those units won't let you actually pipe sound to both speaker sets at once, and you need to be in the same room as your receiver to swap between them. That's not exactly the pinnacle of usability or expandability.

    12. Re:Sonos by nahdude812 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, this is pretty pricy. You could put an AppleTV in every room for much less money; they don't need a TV attached to them, you can control it from iTunes or an iPhone with the Remote application. Or you can use an Apple AirPort for each room, and control it in a similar fashion.

    13. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I support a client that has a Sonos setup with three zones. Each zone can have a unique playlist or joined together as one. The wifi remote is nice and now there's an iPhone app. I like the system but I don't think its cheap.

    14. Re:Sonos by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Running wires to each room in the house would be both cheaper and have sound quality independent of network quality.

      Yep, and with a handful of these $35 impedeance matching volume-controls, he can use a regular old stereo receiver to drive multiple rooms - note that you have to buy at least two (and do two rooms) with this model.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    15. Re:Sonos by koick · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agreed. I have a Sonos system, it is nice and works, but really is really overpriced for what you get. It was revealed to me how stingy they were when I bought one of their controller units for $300 (which they now have upgraded) and it didn't even come with a docking station, no that was another $40. Just greedy bastards. I would instead look at a squeezebox or look into these.

    16. Re:Sonos by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      The two solutions have completely different goals.

      Any Sonos node is controllable by a touchscreen wireless remote (or your Iphone!) which will show you your music library and playlists and such, and let you select what to play in any room with a Sonos receiver. Your music is shared over ethernet, if you have wiring to every node location, or wireless if you plug the wireless base station ("Zone Bridge") into your network somewhere. It's a luxury system which works wonderfully and is simple to setup and use. A wireless setup bundle with speakers will run you $1150....

      Running wires to every room in the house is much cheaper, but it means that if you want to start music playing you need to walk back to whatever room your computer is and change it. It's not as easy to set up and it's not easy to use. Plus you'll still need a splitter and receivers at every speaker set, unless you only plan on running one set up speakers at once.

    17. Re:Sonos by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that by putting a Sonos in each room, you avoid putting an amplifier and speakers in each room? Please clarify.

    18. Re:Sonos by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you'd suggest a hard-wired solution in this day and age.

      Buying a slightly-used iPod for each room that needs sound, plus a docking station with speaker jacks, would likely cost no more than $60-$80 per room.

      Plus each room can have its own music playing from its own playlists controlled from the room itself, something that hard wires running from a central computer with multiple sound cards couldn't support without putting a dreaded computer (or iPod) in every room any way.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    19. Re:Sonos by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I've installed plenty of these volume controls. Next, the customer starts playing with it and says, "These only seem to turn the volume down. How do I turn the volume UP?" And we say, "You can't." The customer says, "Oh," and we walk out of the house.

      Back to what some guy said about putting amplifiers in every room?

      I mean, it's not like amplifiers are expensive. $100 for the amp and $100 for bookshelf speakers? We would charge more than that for the install, actually.

    20. Re:Sonos by femtoguy · · Score: 1

      It looks good, but at $1000 for one room, it is a bit pricey. It seems to me that a linux sound driver that pushes .wav (or maybe .mp3) onto the network, and a really dumb computer to convert it to analog should only be $20 or $30 per room, which is much more reasonable, but I don't know if such a thing exists.

      Alternately, I have wondered if one could use a jail-broken iPod touch, which has built in wireless, built in sound decoding, and a touch screen, connected to an amplifier and speakers. I haven't found an app that would let it function like an airport express, but it should be too hard, right?

    21. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Modded to cancel off topic, the apple airport is not a bad idea for something like this on the surface. It has wireless/ethernet, it is small and compact, not too pricey, and an audio out. I've never tried it, so there very well might be something I'm missing, but certainly not "off topic".

      http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB321LL/A/AirPort-Express-AirTunes?fnode=MTY1NDA0Mg&mco=Nzk3ODUyOQ

    22. Re:Sonos by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why this was modded as off-topic. I personally don't own any Apple hardware myself, but if there is one thing I understand about Apple is that, whether you like it or not, they wire all their appliances for sound and music streaming especially.

    23. Re:Sonos by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you do a netbook-based setup for half the price? Find a cheap low-end computer with a touchscreen and you can probably set it up to be much, much better.

      As I understand it, though, the question asked merely wants to have the remote control work in all rooms as he doesn't even want separate speakers in the rooms. Surely that can be achieved using a universal remote with RF and a RF reciever on a PC?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    24. Re:Sonos by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      So, why's the forty some-odd responses to this post feel like viral marketing? Am I wrong, or did every slashdotter with a significant other (and who doesn't live in their parents' basement) choose to both buy a Sonos *and* post about it?

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    25. Re:Sonos by physburn · · Score: 1
      Its quite cheap to buy wireless headphones, its much harder to find a good long range remte control. Of course there always the teenages favourite "turn it up to really f***ing loud" for long range audio. Since your only in one room at a time, not sure why you'd want a multiroom hifi system. Mp3 are so great for on the move, and don't annoy the whole street.

      ---

      Hi-Fi Feed @ Feed Distiller

    26. Re:Sonos by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Because iPods (all of them) have very mediocre sound quality. Send that to a large speaker and it is going to sound like absolute CRAP!

    27. Re:Sonos by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      You charge more then $200 to install $200 worth of amping and speakers? Where do you live that people are dumb enough to pay for this? :O

    28. Re:Sonos by ebbe11 · · Score: 1

      Joel Spolsky likes it well enough to write about it.

      --

      My opinion? See above.
    29. Re:Sonos by IgePanda · · Score: 1

      I don't get why all you people are suggesting computer-based solutions.
      Running wires to each room in the house would be both cheaper and have sound quality independent of network quality.

      Seconded. Stack of amps, either different brands or with the ability to set a remote channel, IR repeater, cross connected via tape outs, and your usual CL2 speaker wire, 14 or 12 gauge. Digital is nice, but unless you're running the same gear everywhere you're going to get something lagging behind.

      Alternatively you can go with low power FM over coax, and just have a receiver in each room.

      Either way, we're talking surplus yet functional gear

    30. Re:Sonos by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Every modern sound card gives you stereo sound for 3 or 4 rooms; you can buy 5.1 USB sound cards for a couple dozen bucks. You can remote control the computer, as well. You can use a simple RF remote to control the volumes, depending on how customizable it is per-room; it would also let you skip forward etc. Or if you're running Linux, you can use Remuco on your cell phone to control everything either via Wifi or Bluetooth. Remuco is particularly cool because on supported player applications, it displays your music libraries, much like the Sonos, I guess. Extending it is pretty easy, well.

      It's a nice hack to do over a weekend. Running all those cables is probably a bitch, though. You could use audio-enabled (e.g. Apple) wireless APs as output devices and use a Linux/Remuco/Pulseaudio stack to stream to them.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    31. Re:Sonos by dissy · · Score: 1

      I don't get why all you people are suggesting computer-based solutions.
      Running wires to each room in the house would be both cheaper and have sound quality independent of network quality.

      Because all those wires have to plug into something on the other end. Normal IR remote controls will not work through walls, so one needs some other form of control over the back end.

      The computer is one of the most customizable pieces of hardware one can place on the back end for this project, and be controlled through numerous methods, any one of you find the best, or even multiple options at once.

      No existing hardware device has the ability to match the posters (unstated) needs, however a computer can be, almost no matter what those needs are.
      To get the computer to do this however, requires software. Thus why everyone is suggesting various computer based options.

      Just limiting yourself to wires that don't plug into anything as you suggest, is not even a working solution.

    32. Re:Sonos by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      The advantage of using a headless AppleTV is that you can synchronize your music to it and your main computer doesn't have to be online to interact with it (in fact the AppleTV can be the only thing powered on in the whole house, other than the network which you use to control it). It would still be less expensive than the Sonos which wouldn't do this. AirPort Express would require iTunes to be running on your main computer, though this is a more than adequate solution for most folks.

    33. Re:Sonos by markov23 · · Score: 1

      because they just work and it fits the requirements. If you dont want to pull wire through your walls -- this is the way to go. If you are willing to pull wire and put speakers in the walls -- there are a couple of other options -- but the install then becomes more expensive than the gear -- and this is slashdot where the next post after a sonos post is 400 for an wireless device with a built in amplifier and an incredibly good interface that can be controlled with a touch screen or an iphone -- why dont we put a noisy linux box there, download some codec -- write an interface all by ourselves that our wife wont use and forget that we needed an amplifier - that would be cheaper.

    34. Re:Sonos by markov23 · · Score: 1

      thats why we sell more expensive amps -- makes the install seem cheaper. but seriously -- in the custom av business -- a typical project is 60% gear and 40% installation.

    35. Re:Sonos by markov23 · · Score: 1

      dont buy that bundle -- the zone player is the main part you need here -- its 400 bucks. dont buy speakers from them -- there is no way they will be anything worth listening too. if money is tight -- dont get their remote -- they have an iphone interface that is actually very nice and free.

    36. Re:Sonos by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      Ohh sure, don't buy the $350 remote, Just buy an iPhone for $100 + $70/mo..

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    37. Re:Sonos by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      I recently bought a docking station with speaker jack, £35 . I also would need a mains psu and cable at around £25. The used iPods will have to be pretty freaking cheap for me to keep under $60-80.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    38. Re:Sonos by k2r · · Score: 1

      Sources? I think they have quite a decent sound quality.

    39. Re:Sonos by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Now that I understand - I'm just wondering why a "custom AV" vendor would install a $100 speaker or, god forbid, a $100 amp in the first place :P

    40. Re:Sonos by parishboy · · Score: 1

      The Sonos S5 is a speaker/amp/zone player all built into one unit. This technically is a speaker and amplifier, but my post said "separate audio equipment."

    41. Re:Sonos by parishboy · · Score: 1

      Many of the posters here are ignoring that someone with less knowledge than yourself will have to operate this system. "Running wires" everywhere does nothing for control, especially if you only have volume knobs on the walls, and maybe an IR repeater. And of course, re-wiring a house is not an option for most people. Any proper multiroom audio system in a place with more than two adjacent rooms really requires one or more 2-way panels for control.

      This is another beef I have with Sonos, their only control interfaces are wireless, so if you misplace it or kill the battery, you have to run to a computer to control it, instead of a conveniently locaed in-wall touchpanel/keypad (inconvenient if your doorbell of phone rings and you can't pause or tweak the volume).

      You can certainly hack something together, but always remember that your momma (or her technical equivalent) should be able to use it.

    42. Re:Sonos by parishboy · · Score: 1

      Sonos CC200 docking station

      From the link: "it’s so useful we included it with every Sonos Controller, complete with an AC Adapter for power. Of course, if you want another Cradle for another room, we’ve made it easy to get an extra."

      I believe the first-gen controllers required you to purchase the dock separately (though both controllers can just plug into a wall outlet with the included adapter).

    43. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur, I have out of pc to equalizer in the basement with RCA's running to PC speaker systems all over my house.

    44. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTR, the $1200 package comes with one set of speakers, two zones (one with a built-in amp and one with line out). You can get a one-controller two-zone bundle with no speakers for $1000. And you can get one all-in-one zone (with built-in speakers) for $400. You'll need an iPhone or iPod Touch (or a Sonos controller -- phisical or computer-based) to control it.

      I've been using Sonos for a few years now, and love it. I got one for my parents a year ago, and it's working out great for them too. They are a bit pricey, but they are totally painless to use. And they work with European music services as well as US services, which is probably useful since the OP mentioned prices in pounds.

    45. Re:Sonos by e4g4 · · Score: 1

      I haven't found an app that would let it function like an airport express

      I have. Airfoil and it's affiliated speaker programs are great software and work fantastically well for me - anyone with airfoil installed on their computer can stream to my audio system. Quite reasonably priced, too.

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    46. Re:Sonos by jimicus · · Score: 1

      The original poster was looking for something low cost.

      Not strictly true, though I could perhaps have phrased it better.

      I was looking for something at a fair price. By fair, I don't mean expensive, I mean "is reasonable considering what you get for your money". Logitech, for example, charge a lot less for their Squeezebox products - is this because they're terrible? Or because Sonos are aiming at a market with more money than sense?

    47. Re:Sonos by jimicus · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, though, the question asked merely wants to have the remote control work in all rooms as he doesn't even want separate speakers in the rooms. Surely that can be achieved using a universal remote with RF and a RF reciever on a PC?

      I don't want audio separates - ie. separate speakers, wiring and amp in each room. A portable device containing speaker and amp is fine.

      I'm still at a point where I may be moving house every couple of years, so wireless is a big plus point - particularly in the UK where 100+ year houses with brick walls throughout and rooms all odd shapes are by no means unusual.

      To be honest, if I'd expected my question to make it to the front page I probably would have worded it a bit more carefully.

    48. Re:Sonos by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      Running wires around the house is seldom "wife-friendly"

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    49. Re:Sonos by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Go buy a good quality Creative player and some inner-ear headphones and decent bit-rate music. Anyone who hasn't burst their eardrum will hear the difference.

    50. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get why all you people are suggesting computer-based solutions.
      Running wires to each room in the house would be both cheaper and have sound quality independent of network quality.

      My network is wired, you insensitive clod.

    51. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent product. Especially this. http://is.gd/4QwcO

    52. Re:Sonos by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      That's all they buy. They buy crap.

      I've installed many a $6000 television with a $250 surround-sound amplifier. What do you want me to charge? Less than $250?

      If the customer wants me to pick out equipment, great. But many times you just show up at the house and they are like, "This is the crap we bought at Best Buy today." For example, Bose speakers, pre-packaged 5.1 systems, generic in-wall speakers. I remember one house putting the crappy speakers in the main room, and the better speakers in the second room, because the main speakers had a better brand-name.

      These customers are flying by the seat of their pants. As to "where?" Average home value $400k. Anywhere in suburbia.

      I say "$100 amp" because I am putting my best foot forward. I know ultimately they will pay $200 to install a $200 amp and it will sound terrible the way they want it to be done. "Go buy a Bose system for $2700." Dude, a $100 amp would be a breath of fresh air. It's all that is necessary, why would I ask more?

    53. Re:Sonos by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      Wow ty. Gotta love when sarcasm is trumped by fact. Not that I'm itching to get a Sonos but still..

    54. Re:Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love Sonos, it is expensive but worth every penny.

      However, your $1200 is inaccurate. There are a multitude of entry points. You can have an amplified zone that needs speakers, you can have a box that runs into an existing amp, and with the S5 you can have just one box with built in speaker for about $400. You don't need a dedicated controller... I use my iphone and the PC software.

      I can't prove I'm not a shill, but everything I've written is true anyways. SONOS rulz.

    55. Re:Sonos by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      You seem like you've been in the trenches - I'm also looking for a whole-house audio solution. I have 11 pairs of speakers around the house, and I'd like to have a centralized bank of amps and controls in each room (or some other way) to choose what's playing in that room. I love the Sonos model, but would rather not have a stack of Sonos players in the basement. I can add IR repeaters if necessary, and have wifi access all rooms.

      Any ideas?

      Thanks!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    56. Re:Sonos by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      The HT Guys have covered this recently (and in the past, so you may want to look in the archives).

      On the recent 397 podcast, they covered the Logitech Squeezebox, and on 386, they covered Airport Express & iTunes.
      http://www.htguys.com/

    57. Re:Sonos by NerdMachine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sonos just launched a new product that helps keep things affordable - the $399 ZP S5. It's really all you need to get started (assuming you have a home network) -- you don't even need an iPhone/iPod Touch. You can use the free Windows or OSX controllers. Once you get hooked, though, you're going to expand to every room in your house.

      It's priced to compete with Bose, but frankly, it's better sound quality, easier to user, and more versatile.

      --
      --NerdMachine
  4. squeezebox family by rolfpal · · Score: 5, Informative

    The squeezebox family from Logitec (used to be slim devices) rocks. It will read all of your music + internet radio stations plus more, available as inexpensive component audio, boom boxes and even high end audio components

    --
    nothing is real
    1. Re:squeezebox family by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Correct. Here is a link. You don't get much simpler than this. One nice feature that a presume has not been removed in newer models is that they can be synced with each other. So, not only can you have separate music in each room, but you can also have the same music in each room.

    2. Re:squeezebox family by dschuetz · · Score: 5, Informative

      I second this. I'm using squeeze server on a linux box with all my mp3s on it, slaved to a bunch of old Dell Rio Receivers that aren't fantastic, but work good enough for squeeze. They're all in the basement (I've actually got in-ceiling speakers throughout the house wired to the server room) and controlled through browsers and an iPhone app.

      In most cases, though, just stick those in different rooms (find 'em on eBay, maybe) or a bunch of Squeezebox players (slimp3, etc.), hook them up with ethernet, and you're good. Use the browser, or an iPhone or iPod touch for controlling them, or you can even buy a fairly cool gui controller from Logitech that works with the whole thing. (though I'd probably recommend the iPod Touch route, 'cause you can do a lot more with it and it costs about the same as the controller does).

      Anyway, it's cool, and reasonably open too (their hardware information is even available on a wiki, with block diagrams and software source code).

    3. Re:squeezebox family by bem · · Score: 1

      I'll third this.

      I have SB2's in the living room and bedroom, a Boom that gets moved around, a Duet in the Office and Radio at work.

      All sharing from the same library. Great WAF.

      One of the best purchases in my life was my initial SB2, which is why I keep expanding the player count.

      And, yes, they can sync.. or not: each player is capable of playing its own stream so if you want one thing in the living room and another in the bedroom that's fine.

    4. Re:squeezebox family by cpinetree · · Score: 1
      I'll fourth this. I have an older SB2 hooked to ceiling speakers inside and outside the house, the bathroom has a single stereo speaker. Slimserver runs on a Debian server hooked to a nas.
      I used the sirius plugin until sirius went to a pay extra for internet radio model.

      The slimserver also handles most all codecs.

    5. Re:squeezebox family by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fifthed.

      I've been running a multi-zone audio system using various Squeezeboxes for years, off a linux server. If the Squeezebox Server software will run on your NAS (and it will run on a bunch of them) then install it and you're done. A couple of the newer models have inbuilt speakers, saving the need for separate amp+speakers, but you may want to consider some standalone powered speakers if you want to bump the sound quality up a notch.

    6. Re:squeezebox family by markus_baertschi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yup, the Squeezebox family of products is your best bet. It integrates fine with your existing setup (you just need a free aux input on your amp) and can be standalone (Standalone boom box). All of them support WiFi or Ethernet. You can operate each station completely independently or you can synchronize them (same music everywhere). If you have your musick already ripped to mp3 and your tags are clean then most of the work is done. The product family is about a decade old, so it has some history and the bugs are gone.

      In addition the server software is open source and quite portable (Windows, Linux, even some NAS boxes are supported). There are plenty of plugins and extensions. Internet Radio is well integrated too.

      It is not cheap, but none of the alternatives are cheaper or better either.

      Markus

    7. Re:squeezebox family by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Listen, I was about to ask the same question. I am glad this guy beat me to it. But of all the solutions posted, yours actually seems to be the best option.

      My second, but more important, question: When can I move in to your place? Basement's fine; and I promise not to bogart the nachos.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    8. Re:squeezebox family by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Totally agree with this, as well. I have a squeezebox in the living room, and control it (most of the time) via the browser.

      The one caveat: There's no IR blaster output on it so that I can control my receiver. That being said, none of the other cheap options have this capability, either.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    9. Re:squeezebox family by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Actually the Squeezebox Classic and Transporter do have IR blaster output.

      http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/IRBlaster

    10. Re:squeezebox family by ellbee · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more - I've had three Squeezeboxes around the house for six or seven years and they've been great. Others at work also rave about them. There are now several ways to control them to suit taste and need.

      I drove to their office to buy the first two and they're just good people.

      --

      You can't fight in here - this is the war room!

    11. Re:squeezebox family by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 for squeezebox - get a couple of squeezebox booms, they're cheap, sound *great* and you can get an iphone app to control them all (very handy).

      just make sure your NAS has enough grunt to run the server app.

    12. Re:squeezebox family by PensivePeter · · Score: 1

      I agree
      I have the Squeezeboox software installed on a Windows Home Server that is dedicated to managing all household media files (music, photos, video, etc) and run several squeezebox units in different rooms(either just the base unit linked to high quality and more powerful external compotents - amp and speakers; or the larger squeezebox unit with built in amp and speakers for smaller rooms). One good function is the possibility to have different units stream the same music or channel to different units simultaneously.

    13. Re:squeezebox family by Tetard · · Score: 1

      I'll second/third/XXth this. It just rocks. Will be buying more stuff from them over the coming year. Not dirt cheap, but not insanely priced either. That and a SUMOH digital amplifier or the Squeezebox Boom, presto!

    14. Re:squeezebox family by monquixote · · Score: 1

      I totally agree For the money you can't beat the squeezebox. You can buy stand alone devices, receivers to fit to your hi-fi and even the audiophile transporter. It works really well with a NAS box as there are builds of the server app which can be used on some Linux NAS devices. It is also very well supported with plug ins and helper apps for example I can control my set up from my Android phone. The other great thing about the SB3 is that it has a 24bit Burr Brown DAC. You would have to shell out a serious (£1K ish) amount to get a CD player with that sort of audio quality.

    15. Re:squeezebox family by whistler1 · · Score: 1

      Another vote for squeezebox, I tried the roku system earlier but squeezebox is simpler to set up and use. I now have two classic squeezeboxes and about to buy a third. My music (in flac) is mirrored on two hard drives hanging off an old laptop running linux. I use existing amplifiers and speakers. I can access either by the remote control or squeezecenter - again running under linux.

    16. Re:squeezebox family by maiden_taiwan · · Score: 1

      Squeezeboxes are AMAZING. I have 7 of them in my home, and with a few button-presses, they can all be synchronized for whole-house audio. Also the server is open-source (Perl) and you can create your own plug-ins. I'm using plug-ins for faster search, logging of all tracks played, and creation of sync groups (so with one press, you can, say, set all your upstairs squeezeboxes to play one tune and all the downstairs ones another tune). Some squeezeboxes have built-in speakers (the Boom) and others require a stereo system. I have never regretted buying them. For the ultimate in space-efficiency, you can connect a speakerless squeezebox (e.g., the Classic) to a tiny in-wall amplifier (www.wireless-experts.com) that fits into a lightswitch box, connected to wall-mounted speakers. All people see is the squeezebox, the speakers, and a volume knob on the wall. Nice.

    17. Re:squeezebox family by shark72 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for pointing this out. While the Sonos stuff is nice, it's expensive, and the interface is slow. The Squeezebox products are much more cost-effective, and have an open architecture (one can download the server software).

      The Squeezebox Controller is actually a mini Linux system, making it a good hacking platform -- imagine the stuff you can do with a portable Linux system that has wifi, an accelerometer, audio output, and audio codec support.

      For a while, Sonos was a bit easier to use, but Logitech recently dropped a major software update that's pretty much a clean-sheet interface design.

      Like the Sonos gear, the Squeezebox family is available in a number of options -- headless, stereo boombox, and high-quality mono (think Tivoli). But, of course, it's much more affordable and, due to its open architecture, more flexible than the Sonos -- and can certainly do a whole lot more than the Apple solution.

      I have a Squeezebox Receiver connected to my living room audio system, and two Squeezebox Booms in rooms where I haven't run speakers. Everything is controlled with the aforementioned Controller. Between my music collection (sitting on a NAS), Pandora, Rhapsody, and various Internet radio stations, I never want for entertainment.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    18. Re:squeezebox family by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Squeezes are all well and good, but they have some major stability problems. Just check online user reviews of their recent SB radio release. It is better to get something that is rocksolid.

    19. Re:squeezebox family by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What firmware are you using on the Rios? The original factory or something else? Also, would you mind posting some links to the wiki, etc., for the google-lazy -- please . . .

    20. Re:squeezebox family by Engeekneer · · Score: 1

      I, eh.. seventh this? eight this? Anyway, get one.

    21. Re:squeezebox family by cjb110 · · Score: 1

      Easily the best cost ratio for a multiroom. Esp now that you've got more client devices to pick from. So your main room can have a high end Transporter, your bedroom can have the new radio, the kitchen the boombox, or you can get the touch if you've already got speakers in the room. The Duet also provides a housewide wifi remote for easy browsing.

      All devices can sync to each other, or in any combination of devices. Software is powerful and can be run from a large number of NAS devices, so you don't even need your main PC on.

      --
      ----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
  5. Ebay for old Netbooks by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    I would get a bunch of old netbooks on Ebay. That would work with either Linux or Windows (shudder;).

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Ebay for old Netbooks by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      That would work well with Squeezebox server and the squeezeslave client. The audio quality and sync wouldn't be that great but depend on the setup it could be good enough.

  6. Squeezebox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Squeezebox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezebox_%28network_music_player%29
    Have some, they work great.

    I don't understand the part about not wanting separate "separate amp, speakers and PC in each room". I understand not wanting computers everywhere. But you pretty much need speakers in every room that you want sound (unless you are OK playing it louder in an adjacent room). Get some decent powered speakers if yo don't want a separate amp box. (Don't skimp on the speakers, btw. The squeezeboxes have exceptional sound quality.)

    1. Re:Squeezebox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, no kidding. Without amps and speakers in each room, you might as well just get a stereo bluetooth headset and pretend that is actually music as you wander around the house. Or use the FM transmitter approach and some tinny "transistor radio" units in each room. I am utterly amazed that someone would go through the trouble of getting "sound in every room" only to have it sound like a supermarket's PA system.

      Decent music will require several hundred dollars (minimum) in speakers per room, and perhaps one decent A/V receiver per pair of rooms if you reconfigure some of its 5.1 or 7.1 outputs for multi-zone stereo instead.

      On a related note, can someone tell me how I can have dining in all my rooms without those pesky chairs, tables, plates, and flatware?

    2. Re:Squeezebox by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Set up some pillows and a nice rug, pass around bowls of the food... without some sort of set of plates Im not sure how to do it without a mess though. Maybe put a big towel below each pillow for people to wipe their hands on or spill onto then wash these after each meal.

    3. Re:Squeezebox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've adopted a menu of carnival food like snow-cones, corn-dogs, cotton-candy, and massive waxed-paper cups for fountain drinks. It has revolutionised dining throughout our home, and we never use our chairs, tables, or plates anymore.

      But can someone tell me how we can have health in all our rooms without those pesky tooth-brushes, gym clothes, and momentary distractions from our carnival food and tinny digital audio toys?

    4. Re:Squeezebox by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      With a Bose 3-2-1 system, you can have fine dining for 5 people, but only 3 sets of chairs, flatware, etc. Nobody can tell the difference. It's advanced technology.

  7. Logitech Squeezebox by TuballoyThunder · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have the Boom and it works great. It also comes up with server software that runs on Linux or Windows so you can serve your music. You can read more details on the Logitech website.

    1. Re:Logitech Squeezebox by tot · · Score: 1
      I do also recommend SqueezeBoxes, I have three. You have a variety of them for different purposes and the server is open source written in perl.

      Each device can be controlled with their own remote, or by using the web interface or by bying a dedicated controller (running linux and you can ssh into it if you wish). iPhone/Android have controlling software available on their markets if that's what you use.

      Very convenient.

    2. Re:Logitech Squeezebox by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      The Squeezebox Server software is also open source. Many people have written plugins for it. From simple things like IR Blaster for doing remote amplifier control to Inguz room correction DSP software.

    3. Re:Logitech Squeezebox by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I have two Squeezebox Classic units. They are extremely well thought out devices with great software. With your music on a NAS server and wifi you can have distributed access to your music collection throughout your house. These things support streaming of FLAC files so lossless reproduction to very high quality levels is supported.

      You can use a device like the Boom, or attach a Squeezebox to an existing setup equally easily.

      These support playing back streaming audio from the internet as well.

  8. Good and cheap don't come hand in hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you want good class-a amps, you'll have to pay for them. If you want good electrostatic speakers, you need pay for them and sample your CDs at 400kb otherwise what's the point?

    'Good' relative to a high end system is about 'good enough.' Nothing is simpler to configure and operate than physical cable connecting your consumer-grade speakers to your class b or class d amp.

    After that, it really doesn't matter what your source is 128 vbr is effectively indistinguishable from higher on consumer grade sound gear.

  9. Memory by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just replay the music in my head. This helps avoid copyright infringement suits.
    Be sure not to get carried away, and hum or whistle because that's a performance not covered by Section 117.

    1. Re:Memory by Cidolfas · · Score: 5, Funny

      From: RIAA Dear sir, Recently you have admitted that you replicate performances in your memory. This admission has saved us the trouble of proving this in court, and makes you in violation of performance law. An internal performance is still a performance, at least until you give more to Senators than we do. Our lawyers and collection vans have been sent to your location, nevermind how many laws we broke to get that information. We thank you for your cooperation.

      --
      I am become /dev/null, destroyer of data.
    2. Re:Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Keep Lars Ulrich out of my head. At any cost.

    3. Re:Memory by NoYob · · Score: 1

      I just replay the music in my head. This helps avoid copyright infringement suits. Be sure not to get carried away, and hum or whistle because that's a performance not covered by Section 117.

      My idea doesn't either: crank up the amps so you can hear it through out the house.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    4. Re:Memory by abhikhurana · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dear Sir GIven that we have precedent of Apple claiming that booting the OS creates an illegal copy of the OS in the RAM, we are sure that using the same logic, creating a copy of music in your head constitutes illegal copying. See you in court.

  10. Deliver the audio via FM-radio by Woodmeister · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A serious solution that is neither expensive nor foolishly complex? Try connecting an FM-band microtransmitter to your server's audio output and using a remote control system via an HTTP-based system.

    Any internet connected machine will control the audio programming, and any old FM-radio will do the trick of receiving the signal. Simple. Effective. _AND_ Wife-Friendly(TM) (at least, according to my wife ;)

    Because of FM-modulation, this technique is not hi-fi. But a decent transmitter does an admirable job in retaining audio quality.

    --

    Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
    -Possum Lodge Motto
    1. Re:Deliver the audio via FM-radio by catchy_handle · · Score: 1

      Those look interesting, know if any 'auto level' the input? I am using two transmitters from CC.Crane http://www.ccrane.com/radios/fm-transmitters/fm-transmitter.aspx and they work well, but I am always having to adjust the input level pot on the side. Note, you can boost the RF output a bit by turning the trimpot hiding under the sticker on the bottom.

      It might be tricky to find a clear frequency if you live in a metropolitan area. But you can set odd an odd spacing like 95.35 Mhz (assuming your receiver will tune that).

    2. Re:Deliver the audio via FM-radio by Woodmeister · · Score: 1
      I doubt any of these will auto-level like you suggest, but often the computer will do that anyways (see ReplayGain and the like). So set up your audio library to normalize to the same audio level.

      As for finding a clear frequency, yeah, I never thought of that one ;P Rural areas should have no problems; high density metro areas might be... and your idea of odd spacing is a good one, but many 'digital' radio these days are designed to frequency step at 200kHz. Remember, YMMV :)

      --

      Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
      -Possum Lodge Motto
    3. Re:Deliver the audio via FM-radio by catchy_handle · · Score: 1

      Will look into ReplayGain, never stumbled across it. Can tell you I have trouble with Pandora in this regard. A 'classical guitar' station always needs a boost for the xmitr to modulate well. It's also fairly common to play a CD through the thing so I can listen in another room and it just doesn't sound good. Either clips or sounds like mush, not enough incoming signal to drive the xmitr. This from cd's I wouldn't think are overly compressed.

      Have a Squeezebox Classic which is I prefer. It will even scroll RSS feeds (like /.) in its display. You only get the headline and have to manually scroll through the story, but neat anyway.

    4. Re:Deliver the audio via FM-radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sigh, I read wiFi friendly the first time...

    5. Re:Deliver the audio via FM-radio by BarlowBrad · · Score: 1

      Any suggestions on a decent transmitter? All the ones I have tried can barely get across a room, let alone through a wall.

    6. Re:Deliver the audio via FM-radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did the same, with a hot-rodded MPX-96 from north country in the closet with my Eee 701 music server. Not only do I get crystal-clear music on a couple pairs of retired computer speakers as well as my stereo, I can use a pocket radio, including my Sansa or N800, and soon my N900, not only through my entire flat, but also out to the carpark and dumper.

      Control-wise, I use mpd on the server, and I can VNC in to use Gimmix on the server, or use any mpd client directly over the network.

      The one thing that bothers me is not the slight, but discernable, loss of separation, or the background noise in quiet sections, but the inability to use the same distribution system for watching TV or movies -- I'm hoping to set up pulseaudio to fix that at some point.

    7. Re:Deliver the audio via FM-radio by aolsheepdog · · Score: 1

      I've been using the Ramsey Electronics 1 watt FM transmitter (FM35BWT) for about 5 years continuously in my my house. Although it goes up to a watt, I only output about 1/2 a watt.

      I also have used the C.Crane FM transmitters (Item # FMT) that have the easy mod to boost the output. This should cover a normal stick construction house. (I had to get the Ramsey transmitter when I moved into big concrete and rebar homes overseas).

      There are also lots of options on eBay but I had trouble getting the antenna impedance to match up correctly on the one I bought.

    8. Re:Deliver the audio via FM-radio by justhatched · · Score: 1

      Perfect way to have your own music server turned radio station, when there is no ethernet and lotsa wifi interference or range problems, can be a great way for getting your own music to the shed down the back of the yard.

      The main downside is in only being able to control playlists etc from one central location - if you have some means of doing this(ie a netbook,computer or other device, you have enough network to setup something like the squeezebox. Still, setup a big playlist and just tune in to your own station.

      You could also use this as a way of extending your squeezebox based music network as well, you can setup your own stream. I needed to put the output from an eeepc through an amplifier before putting the signal into the fm transmitter, but it worked very well.

      For whole of house music it actually works better than software based syncronisation of the music servers, which can be be annoyingly a little out of sync due to network and cpu performance.

      Just be careful of the amount of gain vs fm transmission laws, fines can be large for what could be taken as running a pirate radio station.

      It actually works best in lower population density areas, as in the big cities there may not be a clear enough area available in the FM band for a reliable signal.

      Something like this is great for getting the signal to the studio out the back tho....

      http://www.fordray.com.au/Products/fmt_lp/fmt_lp.html

    9. Re:Deliver the audio via FM-radio by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Because of FM-modulation, this technique is not hi-fi. But a decent transmitter does an admirable job in retaining audio quality.

      Which transmitter do you consider to be "decent" and/or "admirable"?

      I ask, because I have a Motorokr T505 for my car, and while it's incredibly convenient, I'd rate the audio quality somewhere between "blows goats" and "licks monkey balls".

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  11. iTunes + Airport Express by bmfs · · Score: 5, Informative

    I like the combination of iTunes and Airport Express - http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/ - devices. Each Airport Express can join a wireless or wired network and has an optical digital and analogue audio output which you can connect to a hifi / radio with aux input etc. Each Airport Express appears as a remote speaker in iTunes and you can tell iTunes to play to any / all remote speakers. And you can control everything with Apple's free Remote app - http://www.apple.com/itunes/remote/ - on an iPod Touch / iPhone. It all works rather well.

    1. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by gte619n · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I second this. If you're already using iTunes, it's a no brainer. They're cheap ($100 new, ~$60 on eBay), contains all the networking stuff inside the box. I connect them to small powered speakers in the remote rooms (Klipsch ProMedia 2.1) and it just works. I've had Crestron and Control4 stuff before for TONS of money, and it just always seemed like overkill for my needs.

    2. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by showmeshowyoukikoman · · Score: 1

      I'll third it, especially if you have the remote. Never fails to impress people at parties when you can skip a crappy song that accidentally slipped into the mix by hitting a button on your phone...

    3. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by penalba · · Score: 1

      Third; I have the same setup as you (NAS box, MP3s, wife...) and iTunes + Airport Express + iPhone/iPod Touch Remote works great. I have one hooked up to the main stereo in the living room, and another one to a bookshelf system in the kitchen.

    4. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by microcars · · Score: 1

      I third this. The powered speakers is a nice simple idea.
      plus you can also label each Airport express if you want, Bedroom, Livingroom, Basement, etc etc...
      This is what I do in our house, my wife loves picking music from her laptop and then hearing it upstairs and downstairs.
      It's pretty no-brainy and cheap. Especially if you just have one central computer controlling the music and you never want to have separate streams, then you just set it and forget it.

      --
      I like microcars
    5. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by Bob-o-Matic! · · Score: 1

      iTunes, Airport Express, and iPod Touch with (free) Remote app here. Works great, not particularly expensive. I'm not really contributing anything other than giving one more bit of anecdotal evidence that Apple delivers on usability.

    6. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by timothy · · Score: 1

      Curious (bmfs, or anyone else with knowledge pertaining), any experience / knowledge / anecdotes / suspicions of the airport express streaming being possible w/ a Linux backend rather than Mac+iTunes?

      I like the Airport express hardware / concept, but not a fan of OS X -- or rather, I prefer Linux, and to quote the original Michael Bolton, "No way! Why should I change? He's the one who sucks!"

      Yep, it's an Apple product, and yep, it's made to work w/ iTunes, just curious about alternative uses :)

      Cheers,

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    7. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by starless · · Score: 1

      I also find airtunes to be wonderful. It does also cope with playing different music in different places providing you use different computers to drive the separate streams.

    8. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's even more impressive when everyone comes over and they can request songs from their own iPhones (or yours, if you pass it around).

    9. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by makisupa · · Score: 1

      I can second this - I have three Apple TV's and four Airport Expresses in the house and can easily mix & match speakers across the whole property from the back yard to the garage, bedrooms and bathrooms. Controllable from any computer, iPhone, iPod Touch or Apple TV in the house (including guests' iPhones).

      --
      "A matter of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor" - Jean Luc Picard
    10. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, DVD Jon has broken it for you:

      http://nanocrew.net/software/justeport/

    11. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by Amarantine · · Score: 1

      I have a similar setup, with a Mac Mini somewhere on the attic, streaming its music to several Airport Expresses through the house. I use the Airport Expresses only for the music, and have them connected through ethernet, not wireless. I also wrote an XML app for my Cisco IP phones, and can select the music from every phone in the house. With the birth of our son, i expanded it further and figured out that by running iTunes under different user accounts on the same box, i can play different music on different Airport Expresses, so our son can fall asleep on children's music, while i enjoy other music elsewhere in the house.

    12. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due to encryption you can not emulate the Airport Express hardware to make your Linux system appear as a set of speakers to iTunes. Apple has protected this with the DMCA.

      You can output audio to airport hardware from Linux, however I haven't seen a good implementation of it. iTunes sucks, but I haven't found anything that duplicates this functionality as well as iTunes does.

    13. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by slackoff · · Score: 1

      It is simple and elegant enough that my elderly parents use one and love one. They bought Airfoil and enjoy tons of content from the CBC, NPR, and other online music sources with it.

    14. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by Tom · · Score: 1

      seconded and third. I've got the same setup, and friends have copied me and are also happy with it. Also, you can speak to the same speakers from different sources, basically anything that runs iTunes can connect to them (if you let it on your network, and I think you can password-protect each Airport Express, if you want).

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    15. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by bmfs · · Score: 2, Informative

      it can be done, just a bit more complicated: http://www.jroller.com/nwinkler/entry/amarok_and_the_airport_express

    16. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by v1 · · Score: 1

      I see lots of "me too" for airport express. I have one myself but I rarely use it for audio. It's my "make the ethernet jack wireless" tool in my laptop bag.

      I tried to use it for halloween to play spooky music to outdoor speakers. It worked perfectly until I power cycled it 5 minutes before rounds started. It failed five attempts scattered through the evening to fix it. When I took it back inside after the night was done, it worked perfectly. Wouldn't be half as annoying if it hadn't done the exact same thing last year. So I think there are still some bugs to be worked out.

      SECOND issue, possibly more important for OP, unless I am mistaken, you can only stream to one airport at a time? and must be at the source computer to change which express you are streaming to? is this going to be an issue? No way to say, send the music to all four sets of speakers scattered around the house at the same time is there?

      But if you just want it to go to one or two other sets, and never at the same time, it looks like a very cheap and easy way to do it. But you would have to have an amp in each room, whereas if you ran wiring from say an amp in the basement you could save some expense, and maybe integrate a volume pad on the wall near the light switch for each room with speakers...

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    17. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by bmfs · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, there seems to be a pulseaudio module for Airport Express: http://www.shivaneck.com/?p=119

    18. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      There is one glaring issue with this setup: it requires iTunes. I love this combination and it is what I use to play music in my living room. The ease of control afforder by using an iPod touch or iPhone as a remote offers is one that is unparalleled by any other solution I've seen on the market.

      But... it requires iTunes, which means I have to run my noisy and power-hungry computer. My NAS on the other hand draws as much as a single lightbulb when active, is quiet, and for those reasons it's always on. I'd love to be able to have a similar solution running on Linux alone (which is what the NAS runs on). Is there a solution for this?

      Next best thing would be to snap up an old Mac Mini and stick iTunes on that, I suppose...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    19. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by klashn · · Score: 0

      I did this like 6 years ago with my Sony Ericcson T610 and a laptop with bluetooth. Definitely impresses. It was much cooler when everyone didn't have an iPhone or an iPod touch.

    20. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by timothy · · Score: 1

      Thanks to you who replied -- excellent. bmfs, that's perfect; might make me break down and buy one!

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    21. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by nessus42 · · Score: 1

      But... it requires iTunes, which means I have to run my noisy and power-hungry computer. Next best thing would be to snap up an old Mac Mini and stick iTunes on that, I suppose...

      That's what I do, but my only computer at home is a Mac mini, so that was an easy decision! The mini draws very little power.

      One could also buy an Apple TV and hack it to run a full version of OS X, if you want a a really cheap, small, quiet Mac (~$200). This is not for the feint of heart though.

      Also, I assume that iTunes under Windoze can talk to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (Apple TVs can also act as iTunes remote speakers), which means that your "power-hungry computer" could be a netbook running XP.

      |>ouglas

    22. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by slarrg · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can't answer what issues you created by using the Airport Express outside in you Halloween scenario maybe you had a weak signal or other obstacles. It's not really an outdoor device. However, your other assertions are completely wrong. You can stream to as many AirTunes devices (Airport Express or Apple TV) as you like with no problem. In addition, you can stream to them while also playing the same source on the computer's local speakers.

      In my household, we have multiple Airport Expresses and Apple TVs and we have a central server with several terabytes of music, movies and TV shows and we love being able to stream our content to wherever we like. It's very simple and allows you to reconfigure how you use everything with ease. For example, you can have internet radio streaming to my desktop computer and two other rooms while my wife is listening to her playlists in two other rooms and someone else is watching a ripped DVD in yet another room. In addition, we can select music from our laptops and a shared library or from our iPhones and iPod Touch devices.

      As for the Halloween party you were speaking about, I also enjoy throwing Halloween parties and have found this setup ideal for my needs. I usually have creepy music playlists playing in the front yard graveyard while I have other music streaming throughout the house and a theme specific playlist playing in the backyard, too. (I tend to keep the devices inside the house and run cables to the external speakers, though.) As the night progresses, I usually clear out a dance floor area and begin playing dance music in that area while the other streams continue. Now that Apple has added video playlists, I can also keep sufficiently spooky video going on the TVs all night. Also, with the Apple Remote App, I can turn on the DJ services and allow users to vote from their own iPhones on what songs will play on the dance floor. It's really fun and everyone really enjoys it.

      I've been using this setup for years and each year Apple keeps adding new, well-considered features that keep making the system better. To me, that's one of the coolest features; I sit back and do nothing new while Apple keeps creating new features that enhance my entire system and make my friends think I keep adding new stuff. What could be better?

    23. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by Winckle · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken, you can stream the same audio, synchronised to multiple airports, and you can remote control it using an iPod touch or an iPhone. Moreover you can remote control which aiports are streaming the audio from the remote.

    24. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by slarrg · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess it all depends on how you have your home set up. I have an office upstairs and my media server is there and always running. In other rooms there are no noisy computers because the Apple TVs and Airport Expresses are driving the attached devices silently.

    25. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by Egdiroh · · Score: 1

      But... it requires iTunes, which means I have to run my noisy and power-hungry computer.

      Well, not actually. An AppleTv can play to Airport Express speakers and and is controllable from the ipod touch/iphone, you just need to make sure it has a copy of your music. It's also great if you are running iTunes to add an additional point of control to such a system and keep synchronized libraries.

    26. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      You could probably ebay an older Mac Mini for this purpose too.

      Unfortunately iTunes doesn't automatically pick up added/removed/moved files in its music directory, so this means that if you're constantly adding to your collection, you have to babysit it a lot; so it doesn't do well as a headless option.

      You can get clever with an Automator script to add new files automatically for you on some interval (not too hard to set up or figure out), but it's a bit error prone (tends to beach ball indefinitely sometimes; particularly when reading from a network share such as a NAS) and certainly a bit annoying to have such a delay. Not sure there's a way to have it pick up on deleted / moved files though (it'd show up as new

    27. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by konu · · Score: 1

      I started using JustePort for a couple of years ago and it does the job, but given that my primary computing environment is Linux, an Airport Express with JustePort isn't optimal. For example, in order to configure the Airport Express, I have to use Windows.

      In my view, a setup such as the one described here is appealing, though without first-hand experience, it's hard to judge.

    28. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by slarrg · · Score: 1

      Moderators, please read more than the first line before moderating. This is in no way flamebait.

    29. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by fucket · · Score: 1

      I run an Ampache server streaming my music from my NAS over the ether to Ampache Mobile on a Palm Pre. I've got a Touchstone dock and A2DP bluetooth receiver at each place I want to listen to music in my house (and in my truck, and at work). Put the Pre on the stone, flip to what you want to listen to, boom, there it is.Also, I can listen to all of my music from any internet connected computer in the world. The Touchstones are $35 each, the bt receivers about $20 each and the Pre is $150 (after rebate, w/ two years of indentured servitude).

    30. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by dimension6 · · Score: 1
      I've been doing this at home for a couple years, and it works quite well (the audio stream is also lossless, I believe). I want to mention a couple things.

      I know the OP wanted to avoid buying separate amps for each room. I use a pair of compact Fostex powered studio monitors in the bedroom that sound great and plug directly into the Airport Express. This might be an option (although each speaker needs to be individually switched on).

      One other consideration relates to interference in the 2.4Ghz wireless band. If you have things like cordless phones and microwave ovens operating, the sound can and will cut out occasionally. Therefore, you may want to look into using the 5.0Ghz A/N band for streaming audio to get the most reliability. However, the 5Ghz band doesn't offer the same range as the 2.4Ghz band, so you'll have to make a decision there.

    31. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you using self powered outdoor speakers or going into an amp then to the outdoor speakers? I'm currently struggling with this piece of the architecture before I pull the trigger on a similar setup.

    32. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by jsbellin · · Score: 1

      I've owned 2 Airport Expresses and they have both died after the warranty period.

      Before they died they were unreliable and required frequent reconfiguration. Reconfiguration takes 15 minutes and requires pressing and holding the reset button, using a computer to join the standalone wireles network they create by default, and using the Apple configuration utilty. AEs do not provide a web-based configuration utility.

      Finding updated versions of the firmware or apple config utility on the Apple website is painful.

      I could never determine why the AEs lost their configuration details so often: my router has required reboots, but has never lost its settings.

      I've given up on AEs and won't replace it.

    33. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I tackled this problem, Airport Express was the way I ended up going, simply from a cost/simplicity basis. One or any PC on the network can access them as speakers. The drawback, of course, is having to use iTunes which might not suit everyone. I've used Airfoil to get around this, so any PC audio can be used. (Airfoil is an app for connecting to airport express. There's a related product that emulates speakers on any PC/Mac). Remember the airport express uses lossless, but prioprietary compression. One final thing to bear in mind is that the fuse inside is hardwired to the unreachable motherboard and can be easily blown: this bricked both of my expresses.

    34. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

      iTunes can stream the same music to multiple AirPort Express Base Stations. A single copy of iTunes can't stream different music to different APEx units, but you can select multiple base stations in the one copy of iTunes.

      In iTunes, click on the speakers popup button and there's a menu option for Multiple Speakers which brings up a dialog box asking which speakers (including the computer you're running iTunes on) you want to stream to.

      As for an amp - there are lots of cheap (less than $100) TA2020 and TA2024 amps on eBay - they use a well-respected Tripath digital amp. Very efficient (most of the power in to them comes out of the speakers, not out as heat) and you can hook up an amazing variety of speakers without the amp getting too fussed (ie, they don't really care too much about low impedances) and they sound amazingly good for the money spent on them...

    35. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by wish+bot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Check out the T-Class amplifiers. Cheep, but with audio quality almost unmatched.

      --
      lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
    36. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also second this. Airport express/s plus iphone as a remote control. Nothing could be simpler. And you can use the DJ function if you have a party and anyone on your wifi network with an ipod touch or iphone can request songs. It all makes you look like the King of the Nerds.

    37. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by ChiRaven · · Score: 1

      Elegant, as one might expect from Apple. But at $99 plus speakers/audio system per room wired, it's not exactly a low-end solution.

    38. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by piper5ul · · Score: 1

      This passes the wife test - 3 years and counting so far :)

      We both have iPhones so she even uses the remote to turn on specific speakers when she walks into a particular room.

      Unbelievably simple (though a tad pricey) setup. Always works.

    39. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by yanos · · Score: 1

      I'm considering using a similar setup, but there is one little thing I never was able to setup properly: how do you get iTunes not to suck when your music collection is on a remote server? I tried putting all my music on my linux box and then mount the partition on my macbook through nfs or sshfs, but it always ends up beign a pain to use because of iTunes. It would take forever to start playing a song, or sometimes it will insist to rescan all my music to do its 'gapless playback' calculation (witch will take nearly 8 hours, for 60Gb of music).

    40. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by microcars · · Score: 3, Informative

      did you know that if you have AppleCare on any of the computers you own that those Airport Expresses are covered under the main computer's Applecare plan?
      does not matter if the AE is out of warranty or not.
      (note: above link is a PDF)

      --
      I like microcars
    41. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by slarrg · · Score: 1

      In my case, the media server is another Mac running iTunes. You could do the same with a Windows machine running iTunes if you'd prefer. Sadly, iTunes does not behave well with network shares as it really expects to have local drives. Also, remember that if you allow the drives to sleep when inactive it will create significant delays when you begin streaming while they spin up. iTunes is still very much a single user application and I would really like to see Apple create a true client/server solution in the future but at this point you have to work within iTunes limitations. This means having iTunes running on your server then sharing the library so you can access it from iTunes on your other household computers.

      Hopefully Apple will eventually embrace the idea of a home media server with a true server version of iTunes running on the server and allowing the clients to share that library in a multi-user fashion. Currently, there are a few inconsistencies when using a shared library instead of a local library; you can't assign a star rating to a song on the remote server, for example, but overall the the interface is so elegant, convenient and worry-free that it justifies accepting the bastardized server arrangement to implement the solution.

    42. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck, i must be a loser if I only know a couple people with iphones and everyone at your party has one.

    43. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by yanos · · Score: 1

      Ok, so it's only usable when you shared the library. I don't want to replace my current box though, so I'm tempted to try a solution like this.

    44. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by slarrg · · Score: 1

      You can do that but it always seems to be behind the feature curve of the latest Apple interfaces which means the coolest feares will not be available. For example, the iPhone DJ services will not be available. Likewise, since its only a shared library and you cannot access the music library through a local copy of iTunes, it makes it's more cumbersome to do routine maintenance like rating songs, adding artwork, changing genres, etc. which can only be done in iTunes with a local library and not through a shared library.

      Obviously, since iTunes is still a single user app that shares to other computers running iTunes, the application is designed to not allow the "clients" to change the information in the library which is assumed to be shared by a different user. For example, if each computer really represented a different person, it's very likely that the person sharing their library does not want those users to be able to reorganize his library.

    45. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by kwerle · · Score: 1

      I've been looking for the reverse of this for some time:
      The ability to stream itunes to another computer as if it were an airport express. So it would be Airport Express server software.

      I can't find anything like that (yes, I've googled). But I didn't even come across JustePort. Do you know of such a thing?

    46. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, no:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Audio_Output_Protocol

      Basically, Apple uses asymmetric encryption to verify that the sender is iTunes and the receiver is an Airport Express. DVD Jon found the iTunes key so JustePort can pretend it's iTunes, but so far it looks like nobody has found the Airport Express's key so you can't fool iTunes into thinking you're an Airport Express.

    47. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by mfnickster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've been looking for the reverse of this for some time:
      The ability to stream itunes to another computer as if it were an airport express.

      If you're using a Mac, you could send the output of iTunes through Soundflower to a streaming server, and connect to it from other machines.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    48. Re:iTunes + Airport Express by nessus42 · · Score: 1

      It turns out that you can use Apple TVs to drive AirPort Expresses, so you don't need to leave your computer on all the time.

      Also an iPhone or an iPod Touch can act as a remote control for an Apple TV. The interface is the same as it is for an iPod Touch's or iPhone's iPod interface. I.e., excellent.

      |>ouglas

  12. FM Broadcaster - simple, cheap, expandable, in syn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    C Crane sells an FM broadcaster which has a variable potentiometer which can be easily adjusted to boost the range beyond what the FCC allows.

    If you attach this to your NAS as an audio output or your main stereo, you can relay what you're listening to in nice FM stereo throughout most of a large size house (goes well through my 3-story house and even our detached garage).

    FM broadcast is cheap, it's easy to add new devices that are easy to use, and the music is perfectly in sync.

    If you're broadcasting from a NAS, add a usb sound card to broadcast the music, and control it with MPD, which will allow you to change music via a lot of clients, including an iphone.

  13. My preferred solution by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hired a band of six-piece midget mariachi band to follow me around. I had to buy a mini-bus, but it's by far the best solution.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:My preferred solution by oever · · Score: 1

      I have a midget on each shoulder, much easier and they live on the food in my beard.

      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
    2. Re:My preferred solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I have a midget on each shoulder, much easier and they live on the food in my beard.

      Wait...Santa Claus is that you!?

    3. Re:My preferred solution by d'fim · · Score: 1

      Nyet! Is Soviet Russia.....so Santa Claus is YOU!

      --
      Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
  14. Squeezebox Duet by rudib · · Score: 1

    Check out Squeezebox Duet combo which consists of a Controller (Wifi remote control) and a Receiver (small black player box that can also connect via Wifi). The central library can be installed on a Windows/Linux box and the software is written in Perl and open source - heck, everything is Linux powered, remote control included.

    I think that you can use a single remote to control multiple players and it might even be able to auto connect to the nearest player automatically (not sure, I only have one).

    It isn't very sophisticated or slick (the remote doesn't have a nice feel, the wheel isn't very smooth), but it's cheap.

  15. Airport Express Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a couple Airport Express routers which do audio, each room has one Airport Express plugged into a stereo in the room. Through iTunes I can play something in one room or 2 rooms or all rooms at the same time. I control that via the iphone which can do with the ipod touch too. The main system us plugged in with a digital optical cable. If you have 2 itunes running you can have totally different music playing in different rooms using the same library.

  16. Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SONOS

    Could not be simpler to set up and use, I won't go into all of it here as the site lays it out pretty well. Plays many non-DRM formats (MP3, FLAC, WMA, etc) but WILL NOT play anything with any DRM of any kind. Rhapsody, Pandora and a bunch of others are available for streaming.

    All of the zone players (including the recently released all-in-one player/speaker) can be hooked up via ethernet or use their proprietary zigbee mesh network, and are all controlled with their own wireless (zigbee) controller, your iPhone/Touch, or a computer running the Sonos software.

    One zone player/bridge has to be hooked up to your network, the rest can be wireless.

    For your living room system, or anywhere that features other components, be aware that Sonos is an entirely closed platform - you can't control it except as mentioned above, and it will not send any feedback to a 3rd party system (you'll need one remote to control your receiver/dvd/etc, and another for Sonos).

  17. Squeezebox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duet, Touch or Classic in the living room - Boom or active speakers and one of the aforementioned in the other rooms.

  18. linux boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a couple of small computers like a alix1d (has audio)/sheeva plug(usb audio)/beagleboard install and configure (ssh) debian, pulseaudio and lirc.
    If you buy a Zotac ION ITX A Series 330 or similiar and install a xbmc you have a nice HTPC as well.
    Now you can send your audio around the place.

    Now if only someone could make it easy to use rfidiot with pam (unlock the screensaver)and someway to track movement where I walk, I would chip my self. :3

  19. Philips product info is lame by mfearby · · Score: 0

    I've often wondered about this, too. Looking at Philips's product information though, I'm not sure I'll be handing them my cash. All I see are tiny product images and meaningless slogans all over their page. I want details, damnit! Like, does it also have built-in FM radio? What's the remote look like? Can I have multiple remotes in each room and does each thing receive commands from the remote? Does it have to be connected to the internet or can it operate stand-alone? Some companies' marketing departments are really so clueless these days.

  20. As simple, cheap as it gets by sayfawa · · Score: 1

    I have a 5.1 speaker system in the living room. Another in my bedroom. Usually they are connected to the same source (my bedroom computer), but if I want them playing different music, I have my older laptop next to the one in the living room, so I can easily use it as a source.

    When they are both on, they easily cover the apartment. If your house is bigger, just get more speaker systems. I never gave wireless any serious consideration. The wires are barely noticeable. I don't understand your wife test; she doesn't want more speakers?

    Anyway, I don't see why it would have to get much more complicated than that. The only thing I could wish for is the ability to turn either of the speaker systems on/off from other places in the house. Sometimes I forget to turn off the living room set while playing the type of thing that should really only be heard in the bedroom, if you know what I mean.

    --
    Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
    1. Re:As simple, cheap as it gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most music recorded in recent history was engineered for stereo, not 5.1.

      5.1 is good for games maybe, some movies I'm sure, and not so much for music.

      I know others disagree, and since everyone listens to music in their own way, that's fine.

  21. Use your phone lines by lcampagn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you have stopped using your landline like most people I know, you can attach your amp to the phone lines and small speakers anywhere in your house that's near a phone jack. You need a reasonably sturdy amplifier if you want to drive more than 6 speakers or so, and the sound quality won't be dazzling, but it's real cheap and easy. You can also attach a cheap potentiometer to each speaker for volume control.

    1. Re:Use your phone lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further to this:

      If you use the phone lines at line-level, and have an amplifier for each stereo you want to drive, you'll have better luck than trying to drive a bunch of stereos from a single amp.

    2. Re:Use your phone lines by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      Since the wires in a local loop are gauge 20-22, It would have to be really low power. But the biggest problem is the output impedance. Most good amps are rated 4-16 ohms. Each set of speaker you add to the circuit will lower the impedance (they would have to be wired in parallel to have their own volume control). so let's say 4 sets of speakers (8 ohms), we are now down to 1 ohm, much to low for most amps to handle. Besides, that's assuming the local loop has 4 wires, since a phone usually only requires two (tip + ring)

      Squeezebox would be my choice

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    3. Re:Use your phone lines by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, do NOT do that.

      The result is going to be a bunch of speakers wired in parallel, reducing the load across the amp down to less than an ohm, just go ahead and short your amp output now and save yourself the time of getting it all hooked up before you burn it up.

      The reason the sound quality won't be good is because you're amp will be overdriven, carrying far more current than it expects to carry for a given output voltage. The result will be an amp that overheats and fails. You'll have to turn the volume up to 15 to hear it, really over driving the amp. If you're lucky and the amp is smart, it'll clamp itself down to an acceptable current level, resulting in it turning a nice audio signal into a clipped, distorted mess. You're more likely to just end up with a burnt out amp since obviously neither of you are aware of how this stuff works.

      This is modded interesting, but ignorant is more appropriate, dangerous would be better yet.

      Amps are designed for a specific load, generally 8 or 4 ohms per channel although you can find others, and some allow bridging of channels for different loads and output levels but you obviously have no clue.

      Please don't ever give anyone advice on wiring ever again, it is clear you don't understand the basics of electricity. While unlikely in this case, this sort of ignorance results in houses getting burned down and people dying on a regular basis.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:Use your phone lines by DevConcepts · · Score: 1

      Correct! But what if the phone lines were used for line level output and then had amp'd speakers in the rooms?

    5. Re:Use your phone lines by Woodmeister · · Score: 1
      No, no, and no.
      Unless you _want_ to eventually toast your amp (or in rare cases, your entire house) you do not want to use long lengths of 20/22 ga. unsheilded pairs (that have been daisy-chained God knows how many times) for audio power. Nevermind the likely impedance mis-match. You _also_ do not want unbalanced line level signals going over unsheilded wire, lest you love hearing 60 Hz hum, AM/CB/HAM radio, and AC switching 'pops' over your music. And the pot idea may work well for line level, but definitely not on power signals.

      Telephone cables work well for telephones/RS-422/etc... For any other uses they are generally garbage.
      Just say no to 'recycled' phone lines.

      --

      Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
      -Possum Lodge Motto
    6. Re:Use your phone lines by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He is not going to get down to 1 ohm with telephone wire, 24 gauge (typical phone) wire has a resistance of .03 ohm/foot so as long as these rooms are at least 50 feet of wiring away, it would be 1.5 ohms to the first speaker + 1.5 ohms back. so even if all 6 of his proposed max were at this distance (4 wires, 2 for each loop) it would still be 8/3+3 thus roughly 5.5 ohms to the amplifier. Amplifier efficiency will suck, but I doubt you could come up with a very damaging configuration using phone wire and 6 speakers or less (unless it was hooked up in parallel with existing speakers that used decent speaker wire.)
      Using the suggestion of amplified speakers seams like a reasonable solution.

    7. Re:Use your phone lines by mcohrs · · Score: 1

      Darn, but you are so full of your self. My 20 year old system powering 5 sets of parallel speakers must not be working, maybe I am just hearing echos from days gone by. Seriously, it may not be the best idea, but it can and does work for me. You could also run the speakers in series/parallel (like 2 parallel pair of 2 series speakers) or use matching transformers from a master 70 v line output transformer or any number of other ways. Or you could just be a smart *** and nominate the poster for a Darwin award, much easier, and evidently more fulfilling than being constructive. Marlin

    8. Re:Use your phone lines by lcampagn · · Score: 1

      The line-level solution would be great if our phone lines were shielded. I suspect this would just end up producing unbearable noise..

    9. Re:Use your phone lines by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      The speakers themselves have a nominal impedance of 8 ohms (standard for residential audio), so the amp could see a too-low impedance at its outputs if too many speaker sets are hooked up in parallel. Unless audio is routed using coax TV cable (shielded) using RCA to coax adapters garbage will be picked up on line-level signals if it's not shielded

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    10. Re:Use your phone lines by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      A proper amp will clamp itself and won't really be unsafe, but the reality of it is, you still are going outside the specifications and it is unsafe. You have no idea what quality of equipment he is working with.

      Yes, you could run a combination of series and parallel, but then you still need to overdrive the speakers to get the same volume level.

      No matter what you want to say, the suggestion is wrong and was by someone who doesn't actually understand whats going on, which you, to me, seem to fall into the same category. You looked at it from a purely electrical perspective and still be wrong from an audio perspective.

      I'm not concerned with being a smartass or being friendly. I'm more concerned with people telling others how to wiring things in their home incorrectly and unsafely. As I said, wiring your audio wrong is unlikely to cause any serious problems, but its still a risk. The original author doesn't know what he's doing, which is why he is asking, the guy responding to him doesn't know either, now we have two people who don't know what they are getting into, one of which thinks he does, the other at least is bothering to ask. This is rapidly turning into a cluster fuck in someones home.

      You go be nice, I'll focus on not having some idiot talk some guy into wiring his house up to substandard equipment and die in his sleep from smoke inhalation because some cheap ass amp from China burnt up. You don't tell someone how to do something with electricity when you have no idea yourself, people die this way.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    11. Re:Use your phone lines by lcampagn · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the lesson in basic electricity, I must have slept through that one. As noted below, the resistance of most phone lines is enough to prevent most amps from setting your children on fire. Obviously some caution should be applied when overloading your very expensive amp, but most amps will just distort or at worst blow a fuse if you drive them too hard. In my own experience, a $30/50W amp was able to drive two speakers directly plus 4 more distributed throughout the house without distortion, destruction, or death of any kind (impedance came out to ~3Ohm, IIRC). Yes, I had to turn the volume down on the amp to prevent distortion, but the output was plenty loud enough to fill the house.

    12. Re:Use your phone lines by slifox · · Score: 1

      Long runs of RCA will definitely act as giant antennas, and the noise picked-up will be amplified (as opposed to sending an already-amplified, powerful signal that's much larger than the received noise).

      Unfortunately coaxial cable is sometimes not enough... the shield conductor in the coaxial wire is part of the signal transmitting system; any power that is sent on the signal wire will be returned through the shield. Therefore, noise that is received by the shield will end up affecting the signal.

      The best simple solution is to use differential signalling (balanced audio), wherein you add a second signal wire that carries the inverse of the first signal wire. The two signal wires are coupled tightly (e.g. twisted), so any noise will be picked up on both. At the receiver, the balun subtracts the two signal wires, resulting in just the original signal remaining and the noise cancelling out. The twisted pair of signal wires should also be shielded with ground, so there is still some possibility for noise, but it's much better than just coaxial.

      Balanced audio is standard for professional grade audio, microphones, etc... particularly for long runs

    13. Re:Use your phone lines by lcampagn · · Score: 1

      Squeezebox would be my choice too.. There's just something cool about hijacking all that unused copper for good use (plus it's dirt cheap).

    14. Re:Use your phone lines by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      For long runs, something balanced (like XLR) is better, but I wasn't talking about standard RCA patch cords. Standard RG-6 TV coax with RCA to F81(??) adapters is what I use here for line-level, and it doesn't pick up any kind of interference.

      RG-6 has the center conductor,foam insulator (or plastic sometimes), a foil outer conductor along with the shield at the outer part of the cable.

      That's what my Cableco uses for drops,in fact that's where I got it from :)

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    15. Re:Use your phone lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > While unlikely in this case, this sort of ignorance results in houses getting burned down
      > and people dying on a regular basis.

      As a matter of fact, and like my friend's uncle wisely points out, it's very alarming that there have been people dying nowadays who never died before.

    16. Re:Use your phone lines by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

      He won't blow his amp with phone wire... over the distances he's talking they probably won't deliver more than an amp or two before melting/burning. He might lose his amp to a fire, but I highly doubt he'd cook his output stage regardless of the speaker load. :)

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    17. Re:Use your phone lines by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The result is going to be a bunch of speakers wired in parallel, reducing the load across the amp down to less than an ohm, just go ahead and short your amp output now and save yourself the time of getting it all hooked up before you burn it up.

      As I posted in another part of this discussion - use these $35 impedance matching volume controls to handle the problem of running a bunch of speakers in parallel from one source. They will s support up to 16 or 32 pairs of speakers depending on if the amp does 8 or 4 ohms.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    18. Re:Use your phone lines by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Since no one else has mentioned it, if you are going to try this, it might be a good idea to seek out the telco's Network Interface Connector and disconnect your household phone wires from the outside world. I'm not sure what can go wrong if the phone company left the wires connected when they discontinued your service, but I'll bet that if anything does happen, it will not be something good.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    19. Re:Use your phone lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where you use a 70v amp and speaker transformers, anyway. The higher impedance signal will lose less power to the wire resistance, and the transformers are designed to be operated in parallel, and have appropriate impedances.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_voltage_speaker_system

      Enjoy!

    20. Re:Use your phone lines by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      He could do a combination of series and parallel, and keep the impedance in check.
      2 - 8 ohm speakers in parallel are a 4 ohm load, in series they'd be 16 ohms.

    21. Re:Use your phone lines by okmijnuhb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Might be a little noisy, since the phone lines are not shielded.

    22. Re:Use your phone lines by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      Hey, no one was ever stripped of their Darwin Award for posting the question on Slashdot.

    23. Re:Use your phone lines by homesteader · · Score: 1

      I think you might be right. I tried running speaker over cat5 as a temp solution when I started building my house, it sounded horrible. I didn't recognize it at the time, but you nailed it. It was the sound of an overdriven amp, breaking up. It just didn't make sense because it wasn't loud.

    24. Re:Use your phone lines by Bob-o-Matic! · · Score: 1

      Check out 70V systems: hook up loads of speakers, no problem. Think drive-in movie theater, Navy 1MC, etc.

    25. Re:Use your phone lines by Bob-o-Matic! · · Score: 1

      Maybe not many are familiar with the 70V audio systems. Don't mod parent down or freak out about using 24AWG speaker line (phone, Cat 5, etc) without doing some research.

    26. Re:Use your phone lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the impedance of the wire, it's the combined impedance of the speakers that are wired in parallel. Two 8 ohm speakers wired in parallel give a resulting impedance to the amplifire of 4 ohms - IF the response is flat. Most speakers rated at a specific ohm tend to wander a bit through the frequency range, too, so your 8ohm speaker is probably 10 or 12ohms at the top of it's response curve, and maybe 5 or 6 at the bottom.

  22. C.C.Crane by doctechniqal · · Score: 4, Informative

    My S.O. and I are KCRW.com freaks. We also have FM radios throughout the house, along with the living room stereo system - where my S.O.'s PC also lives. I split the audio line from her PC: one line goes to the living room stereo, the other goes to a cheap C.C.Crane FM transmitter. This is the absolute cheapest way to get a single source of audio (CDs, MP3 library, streaming audio) into every room of the house. Note: the FM signal strength from the Crane transmitter sucked at first - then I found a web page that showed how you can open up the Crane transmitter and tweak the signal strength to maximum. Works great now.

  23. Obligatory audiophile post by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you want decent audio you need oxygen free speaker cables. Hand made valves for the amps are a given.
    Oh sure, if your gear is CONSUMER GRADE then you could hook it up with a coat-hanger wire.
    I personally avoid anything digital, because I inherited superior hearing, and those 70 kHz frequencies are conspicuously missing from digital compressed audio made for mere mortals.

    Enjoy your 44.1 KHz on your CONSUMER GRADE gear you PEASANT.

    1. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All joking aside, MP3's are going to sound horrible on any decent system. My girlfriend likes them, but I think she is half deaf. All the talk on Slashdot should be about an open format like flac, anyway. Flac sounds so fantastic that the only reason not to use it is if you do not want to spend a few hundred dollars on enough disc space (with as cheap as it has gotten) to hold the Smithsonian's archive of digital cultural artifacts.

    2. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yes, and as the GP pointed out, you have inherited superior hearing. When she leaves you, and tells you 'its not you, its me', she'll be right.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Informative

      All joking aside, MP3's are going to sound horrible on any decent system.

      At what bitrate? As far as I know, a double-blind study has never shown that anyone can hear the difference between 256kbit MP3s and the uncompressed original.

      FLAC is useful for a different reason: it allows you to re-encode the original into a different format without experiencing quality degradation. It's useful to keep FLAC files archived somewhere, but for listening, using lossy compression at a decent bitrate is fine.

    4. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1, Informative

      At what bitrate? As far as I know, a double-blind study has never shown that anyone can hear the difference between 256kbit MP3s and the uncompressed original.

      Citation requested.

      The only such "studies" I've read of were not in the neighborhood of rigorous, detailing neither the program content, range of listeners, nor sample sizes.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    5. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Enjoy your 44.1 KHz on your CONSUMER GRADE gear you PEASANT.

      So much is bandied about regarding time and frequency domains, but so little of it is valid.

      An impulse is not band-limited - it contains an infinite number of frequency components.

      Any digital sampling of even a simple sine wave - absolutely regardless of sampling rate - is going to present to the electronics as nothing less than a series of impulses. Regardless of the optical illusion that the sampled points look like the sine wave sampled (dots on an x-y graph) - that's not how it's going to work out.

      An impulse is not band-limited; a series of them certainly won't be. The resulting frequency components in error (aliased frequencies - not solved by any amount of oversampling) can - and do - have measurable deleterious effects.

      This is the basis for some people preferring higher sampled digital signals and for some people to prefer analog to digital.

      It's not there are expected to be frequencies above 16 kHz - the second harmonic of a struck triangle - in most music sources. And it's not that any harmonic distortion of signals above 10 kHz even matter - because those second and higher harmonics are above 20 kHz, the accepted upper limit for the norm of hearing.

      The point is therefore not frequencies at 44.1 kHz, it's to acquire the signal at 44,100 samples / second. For an 11 kHz signal - not at all unreasonable for violins, harpsichords, or synthesizers - you're getting only 4 sample points per wavelength. Chances of getting reduced sampling error - to even hit the peaks and zero crossings in time of that frequency or higher is absolutely laughable. That's 8 points at 5 to 6 kHz, and 16 sampled data points in the critical voice range.

      Given the reality of the math, it's a wonder that CDs - uncompressed from their 44.1 kHz standard - manage to sound as good as they do.

      (Wikipedia laughably multiplies this by 16 bits / sample in an insane misunderstanding of digital signal processing and pulse-code modulation, so I'm foregoing that as a reference.)

      The tighter spaced in time the sampling, the less chance of a high delta V per sample, and therefore, the less chance for overshoot on the drive electronics being given a piecewise continuous function to deal with.

      But sampling error is like the infinite energy requirement when trying to get to the speed of light - it's just a fact.

      By the way - I'm one of those peasants that owns electrostatics and a class A amp. Missed the hand-made valves, though.

      Hope this helps.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    6. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you misunderstood my post, which I might have phrased differently. I said:

      As far as I know, a double-blind study has never shown that anyone can hear the difference between 256kbit MP3s and the uncompressed original.

      The positive claim here is that there is an audible difference. The lack of evidence for this claim, coupled with numerous studies, would be evidence of absence.

    7. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry - my bad. Guilty as charged.

      And there is also the issue - was the hypothetical 256 kilosample/second MP3 made from the analog original or resampling the sampled source.

      If interested, my other post in this thread may be useful - http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1435342&cid=30018812

      I tried a number of sampling schemes with a number of program sources on my system. Then had the sources switched for me (electronics are in another room from my speakers, so it was blind). On some material, I could hear significant differences from the original - where the original was an audio CD - sampled in the first place.

      That's not scientifically acceptable - but perhaps it's a probative anecdote.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    8. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the reality of the math, it's a wonder that CDs - uncompressed from their 44.1 kHz standard - manage to sound as good as they do.

      (Wikipedia laughably multiplies this by 16 bits / sample in an insane misunderstanding of digital signal processing and pulse-code modulation, so I'm foregoing that as a reference.)

      Um, that's from the Red Book, dude.

      I'd be interested to know what wizardly secrets you have about PCM and DSP that make it more complicated than 16 bits per sample per channel times the sampling rate!

    9. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware that's from the Red Book.

      No wizardry is required. Each sample is 16 bits - that's vertical resolution. The 44.1 kHz is horizontal resolution. It does indeed take (16 bits / sample) * (441000 samples / second) * 2 channels to get 1411.2 kbps for stereo.

      As wikipedia says, that's the bit rate.

      Maybe I'm just having a bad day. Bit rate is a significant parameter. And perhaps the fact that sampling is a signed 16 bit integer is a significant parameter.

      But the wikipedia article, I personally found lacking - it's just a raw data dump, leaving the uninitiated susceptible to confusion. I found the decomposition of terms - rather than learnable references for DSP and PCM - laughable. So, I derided it as I did. Maybe I could have done better in my criticism of the article.

      If you find me harsh or wrong, that's your right.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(audio_CD_standard)

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    10. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off?page=0,0
      " With the possible exception of the USB Key that survived a washing and drying cycle, no other Maximum PC Challenge has ever surprised us as much as this one. It’s downright humiliating, in fact, that in many cases, we were unable to tell the difference between an uncompressed track and one encoded at 160Kb/s, the bit rate most of us considered the absolute minimum acceptable for even portable players. "

    11. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm just wondering how multiplying 44.1 kHz by 16 bits/sample is "an insane misunderstanding of digital signal processing and pulse-code modulation."

      I mean, you get a piece of graph paper with 65,535 blocks vertically and 41,100 blocks horizontally, and plot the samples, and you literally have a picture of the waveform. It doesn't get much simpler than that, so where's the misunderstanding?

    12. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, to faithfully plot one second of CD audio at HDTV 1080p resolution, you'd need a display 22 units across by 61 units high.

      Or, if you plot the waveform at 600 dpi, that's a sheet 68.5 inches across by 109 inches tall, or about 93 sheets of letter-size paper (more if you include margins).

    13. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      IIRC MP3 cuts off at about 15 kHz, so anything that is only content above 15 kHz will be silence through MP3 and not silence uncompressed. That's a substantial difference.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    14. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      The point is therefore not frequencies at 44.1 kHz, it's to acquire the signal at 44,100 samples / second. For an 11 kHz signal - not at all unreasonable for violins, harpsichords, or synthesizers - you're getting only 4 sample points per wavelength.

      W O W . . .

      That's a triangle wave. Right in the middle of the vocal spectrum.

      As for 16 bits vertical, I've asked whether any electronics can accurately measure line voltage divided by 65535. That's like, serious millivolts. Lot of bits are being thrown away in both directions. Don't believe me? Stand back, and turn up the volume.

    15. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      It makes no sense to plot one second of audio on a sheet of paper, because you are taking 45 million samples per second and converting them to instantaneous. Try comparing HD video bandwidth to RedBook bandwidth instead.

    16. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It makes no sense to plot one second of audio on a sheet of paper, because you are taking
      > 45 million samples per second and converting them to instantaneous

      It's not 45 million, it's 41,100 for CD audio. And ALL samples are instantaneous...

      Anyway, I only suggested it as a way to visualize how straightforward PCM audio is on CDs. earlymon just wants to sound like he's smarter than the average Wikipedia editor.

    17. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, the cutoff depends on the encoder and settings but 20 kHz is the limit for 320 kbps.

    18. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      I'm half broke. A few hundred is a couple months of saving for me. FLAC is huge for my portable media player.

      Yes, 128kit MP3's encoded by moron teenagers uploaded to Limewire sound like shit. MP3's done by someone with a clue and a good encoder at 320kbit VBR really aren't bad. On a high end system it does sound like "something is missing" but sounds far from awful. I've never had any complaints about it and I'm fairly picky. Older encoders back in the 90's had a tendency to MURDER cymbals and other high frequency noises though. Not so bad these days.

      FLAC sounds great but unless you're ripping the CD yourself, not too many people throw around their libraries in FLAC format. And unless you like transcoding all of your music, good luck using FLAC on your iPod.

      Now my life can tolerate old Napster-era 128kit MP3's all day long and can't tell the difference from a CD. Must be a woman thing, I can't f**king stand listening to it. I'll listen to old worn cassettes before I do that.

      Just because it's a lossy algorithm doesn't mean it sucks when in the right hands.

    19. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by RichM · · Score: 1

      Don't forget your 1.5M ethernet cable for $499!
      http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp

    20. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Of course MP3 compression loses information! That's the point! The trick is sacrificing only the information we don't actually hear. Most adults can't hear above 15-16k, and none of our important sounds are in that range anyway. (If they were, they'd be extremely annoying.)

      In short, cutting off information about 15k makes no difference in how we experience the audio, much like a camera not recording ultraviolet doesn't affect a photograph.

    21. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Meh. Most people have trouble distinguishing 10-year-old 128kbps CBR MP3s from the CD... I was surprised that I actually had trouble with a blind test (albeit with a modern encoder... latest LAME version, probably - they didn't tell me) a few months ago - looks like MP3 encoders are getting better as quickly as my hearing's getting worse.

      Funnily enough, the thing that gave it away was the lack of bass response on the 128kbps version - the mids and highs were incredibly detailed... nothing like 128kbps MP3s back in the day, when they were still used for... well, everything. I still have a few of those, and they sound horrible.

    22. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by rob13572468 · · Score: 1

      aliasing doesnt have anything to do with sampling (e.g. quantization errors) either in frequency or amplitude). aliasing is simply an unwanted side effect of not having enough sampling resolution. That being said yes there is always going to be quantization errors but that is irrelevant: what is important is what level of difference the human ear can hear and while red book audio is not perfect is comes pretty close. At 24 bits the differences are exceedingly small. Finally the one thing that i never hear the analog audiophile types talk about (keep in mind i have nothing against it: if you prefer analog good for you) is that the same quantization errors that apply to digital audio also apply to analog: e.g. if you consider a 5 volt audio signal found in any audio setup (even the really nice ones) and look at any signal based on the same quantization as cd audio: 16 bits is 5/65536 or 76 microvolts. Now look at any piece of high end audiophile equipment with a scope that can resolve to microvolts and you will see noise in the signal at the same amplitudes typically introduced by the environment but also simply as a result of the environmental changes on the various circuits... Analog noise eixsts to and it is typically on the same order of amplitude as digital. With the move to 24 bit audio the quantization noise for 1 bit is 5.9 nV which is insanely low.. AFAIK there is no high end analog equipment that is even close in mitigating noise at those levels.

    23. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not 45 million, it's 41,100 for CD audio. And ALL samples are instantaneous...

      No, the sampling is not instantaneous - by definition.

      Anyway, I only suggested it as a way to visualize how straightforward PCM audio is on CDs. earlymon just wants to sound like he's smarter than the average Wikipedia editor.

      Close, but no cigar. In this case, I may be better at attempting to explain what's going on than was done for that particular article.

      Smart does not equal an ability to explain. But given that I've lectured on digital signal processing at the post-graduate level, I'm not without some qualification in the area.

      As I said earlier, if you find me wrong or harsh, that's your right.

      But my bottom line stands - it's a wonder that CDs work.

      From an earlier post - perhaps yours, it's impossible to tell with an AC -

      mean, you get a piece of graph paper with 65,535 blocks vertically and 41,100 blocks horizontally, and plot the samples, and you literally have a picture of the waveform. It doesn't get much simpler than that, so where's the misunderstanding?

      The expanded form for the Fourier transform of a single impulse is a circle scaled to voltage in the S plane. Phase response - the angular progression from point to point is constant - so we describe that as having minimum phase. Plotted as phase vs. frequency, it's a straight line with a nonzero slope. Magnitude however, is that constant distance from the origin. Plotted as magnitude vs. frequency, it's a straight line with a slope of 0 - it's literally a flat line from DC to infinity.

      That particular point is called the Dirac delta function - after the physicist of whom you may have heard.

      And if one point cannot be band-limited, then no number of additional points can be band-limited.

      A sine wave - ok, I'm being specific and sine waves are, in fact, imaginary - so a cosine wave, then, analytically, has but one frequency. The very fact of sampling that one wave - and then calculating it's frequency components - leads to an unlimited number of frequency components out to infinity - not just one. And only by the most ideal case possible will one particular frequency ever be sampled such that it appears as a single frequency point within the Nyquist criteria - 1/2 of the delta-time sampling rate. Under that condition, it will appear at (K*Nyquist_criteria) + actual_frequency - and in our case, the next occurrence won't happen until past 22.05 kHz.

      Under ideal circumstances - controlled by fate, totally uncontrollable by electronics or design. And for any given sampling - it's incredibly rare. In the real world what really happens is that any given frequency component - any single frequency, in other words - is smeared to a peak at or only near that frequency, with additional frequencies at plus or minus a (hopefully small) margin about that frequency.

      Engineers have poorly chosen the word aliasing for this - the frequency aliases as other frequencies. And they window it, they anti-alias filter it - but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, so it's a battle that cannot be won.

      Again - what could be simpler than that picture of a waveform on your graph paper?

      Well - steps are much simpler than curves.

      So for each quantization value of the signal, the voltage is held constant for 1/44100 second, then changed to the next step level for the next 1/44100 second and so on. However - amplifier circuits have something called a slew rate - the rated ability to change voltage over time. If a circuit can slew quickly, it may have a tendency for overshoot - partial solutions for that exist, but again - TANSTAAFL.

      Both of those critical points, I covered in my original post - but evidently, I didn't explain them there any better than laughably, because you were left with the impression that you can get a picture of a waveform by sampling it - and you simply cannot.

      It's entirely possible that the only reason that CDs can work in first place is all of the slop in transitioning voltages in the amplifiers in the first place.

      Again - hope this helps.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    24. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by rob13572468 · · Score: 1

      aliasing doesnt have anything to do with sampling (e.g. quantization errors) either in frequency or amplitude). aliasing is simply an unwanted side effect of not having enough sampling resolution. That being said yes there is always going to be quantization errors but that is irrelevant: what is important is what level of difference the human ear can hear and while red book audio is not perfect is comes pretty close. At 24 bits the differences are exceedingly small. Finally the one thing that i never hear the analog audiophile types talk about (keep in mind i have nothing against it: if you prefer analog good for you) is that the same quantization errors that apply to digital audio also apply to analog: e.g. if you consider a 5 volt audio signal found in any audio setup (even the really nice ones) and look at any signal based on the same quantization as cd audio: 16 bits is 5/65536 or 76 microvolts. Now look at any piece of high end audiophile equipment with a scope that can resolve to microvolts and you will see noise in the signal at the same amplitudes typically introduced by the environment but also simply as a result of the environmental changes on the various circuits... Analog noise eixsts to and it is typically on the same order of amplitude as digital. With the move to 24 bit audio the quantization noise for 1 bit is 5.9 nV which is insanely low.. AFAIK there is no high end analog audio equipment that is even close in mitigating noise at those levels.

    25. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's a triangle wave.

      You wish. :-)

      That's the first point at 0 volts for 1/44100 sec, the peak held for 1/44100 sec, 0 volts for 1/44100 of a second, and then the negative peak at 1/44100 second - it looks like a triangle if you connect the dots like in school - but that's a control function for electronics, so it ends up as 4 steps representing that particular frequency.

      So, you see - it only gets worse, the better you understand what's going on.

      As for 16 bits vertical, I've asked whether any electronics can accurately measure line voltage divided by 65535. That's like, serious millivolts. Lot of bits are being thrown away in both directions. Don't believe me? Stand back, and turn up the volume.

      16 analog-to-digital converters are well within our tech. If we model amplitude vertically and time horizontally, it's cool that they've attempted to mitigate vertical error with such high sampling - and then counterpointing that with amplifier response time for each quantization level - pretty cool, actually. But the time sampling, well - as I keep repeating, it's a wonder than CDs work as well as they do.

      I think you'll be interested in my parallel response, so in case you've missed it - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1435342&cid=30020106

      Now, while I've railed a bit against the Red Book wikipedia entry - perhaps too harshly - I find this one particularly delicious:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

      The authors make no bones about it - the entire MP3 approach is to exploit psychoacoustics. The algorithms for this, and other codes, are quite fascinating - and all in all, they do a pretty good job.

      But the bottom line for MP3 audio - 1) psychoacoustics, 2) not all MP3 encoder algorithms are equal, irrespective of bit rates, 3) the algorithms are adaptive to the input waveform because they know that it's lossy and they try to limit that.

      Why do I call that delicious? Because that's what Vincent Price would call this insanely scary reality:

      All you have to do in any of these articles to be modded as 5, funny, or 5, insightful, is to bray like a jackass that MP3 after a certain point is just so good that humans simply can't hear any better - and anyone who thinks differently is some kind of audiophile - you know - a psycho .

      The irony can't get much thicker than that.

      But psychoacoutics may be a perfect science - ask Bose. Those products are perfect too, aren't they?

      Oh - and not any mods are paying attention - but just in case - Bose radios wired with Airport Express using AirTunes is one way to go for the guy that started this thread with his question. Now I can laugh some more if I'm modded off-topic - which I am. :-P

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    26. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      aliasing doesnt have anything to do with sampling (e.g. quantization errors) either in frequency or amplitude). aliasing is simply an unwanted side effect of not having enough sampling resolution

      Correct that it has nothing to do with quantization errors - but absolutely incorrect that aliasing can be cured with higher sampling rates. It simply cannot - discretization error is unavoidable unless you get to Plank time.

      I've attempted to explain further here - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1435342&cid=30020106

      It's a fantasy that increased sampling rates gets rid of aliasing. Only dumb luck in sampling does that - and that will self-limit to occasional frequencies in time.

      Have a friend give you some exponentially damped cosine waves at audio frequencies and then the same with a few raised cosine pulses summed in and have them give you that as the analytical function - as a blind experiment, let someone else choose that. Run the function, sample at 44.1 kHz, transform it, and compare to analytic results. Next - using the same functions - sample at 317 kHz and compare to 44.1 kHz and to analytic results.

      You may be surprised.

      Finally the one thing that i never hear the analog audiophile types talk about (keep in mind i have nothing against it: if you prefer analog good for you) is that the same quantization errors that apply to digital audio also apply to analog...

      Right on, and I'm glad you mentioned it. Only, to be canonically correct, I'd state it mo' more better as "...noise errors that apply to digital audio also apply to analog..." But FWIW, I think you covered the point admirably in your follow-on statements.

      So. What is noise?

      It's uncertainty in the signal. There's a reason in the maths that probability functions and LaPlacian equations have similarities. And uncertainty tends to increase as we go up in frequency.

      Now, considering the playback medium - what are the choices? Hysteresis phenomena with tape playback or lateral acceleration problems with a stylus in a groove.

      For all of its woes, I'm terribly happy with CD audio. It's good enough to really enjoy decent performances on an intimate performance - even with an inverted mike (or something in that feed) on the sax - (Dave Brubeck Quartet, Take the A Train).

      And I'd be even happier at twice the sampling rate - not to eliminate aliasing - but to further reduce sampling error - because, no, I'm not happy with a 4 stairstep equivalent at 11 kHz.

      But I am happier with that than the work of dealing with a head amp, moving coil cartridges and a multiple tonearm turntable mounted on a massive plinth, a ritual of pre-play cleaning - and no repeat playback on rare vinyl or at least a half-hour for cooling, because the stylus contact pressure does soften the vinyl - and before CDs came along, I did just that.

      All I can say is - don't knock it 'til you've tried it. Then knock it. :)

      I know a lot of people who insist that analog sounds better - and I've known them for decades - and many of them haven't heard live acoustic music in decades and I know for a fact have never in their lives heard a record played with even a clean stylus.

      But some people do know what decent analog sounds like compared to live acoustic sources, and they prefer it to digital music. To each their own.

      My intention was not to denigrate the fine work done by Red Book. I was just overly frustrated at having to once again explain this sort of thing, and I'm too lazy - or something - to contribute to wikipedia to improve things. (Or, I just don't believe in a voting process for knowledge - there's no democracy in physics, right?)

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    27. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly have little idea how digital audio is actually implemented and only a vague notion of the theory. Have fun with your little staircase graphs.

    28. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      You clearly have little idea how digital audio is actually implemented and only a vague notion of the theory.

      That's what my friends coworkers in the audio industry used to tell me - after they got very drunk. I'll be sure to turn in my patents.

      Have fun with your little staircase graphs.

      The wikipedia gods love me - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio

      Like most grads, they still have aliasing completely wrong, but the top of the page is simply hilarious.

      Quit while you're ahead - those words just aren't in your vocabulary, are they?

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    29. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      In short, cutting off information about 15k makes no difference in how we experience the audio, much like a camera not recording ultraviolet doesn't affect a photograph.

      True, but only trivially so - very few sources have significant content above 16 kHz anyway. Except for triangles, some violins, some harpsichords and some synthesizers.

      MP3 encoding is pointed at reduced sampling - and then betting on psychoacoustics. You can get close that way - that's why it was accepted by people in the first place. Add in that a great many people listen through low fidelity equipment, and the margin for MP3 improves.

      But sampling in any form introduces error - and given the right program content and decent equipment in a decent environment - one can hear differences.

      Close enough for rock and roll? Probably.

      But why bother with MP3 in the first place? They're patented and out of date. If you're going to accept a lossy format, why not AAC, at the very least?

      But in all of the arguments for or against audibility of lossy formats, such as MP3, one other factor is left out - using which encoder? More than one exists for MP3, so you can't really characterize MP3 by bit rate alone unless we can jointly agree on which encoder will be used in the first place.

      I, for one, am in no position to do that.

      And another point you raise about the ultraviolet - we all seem to agree that we don't see at that wavelength. But if you're calling for any double-blind tests, how about an ear check for all participants and sorting the hypothetical results further with that criteria.

      People get their knickers in a bunch about physical criticisms - but how many people working next to jet engines, operating construction equipment, firing guns regularly, or lovers of loud head-banging music actually can hear anything above 8 kHz?

      If 99% of your test subjects don't hear above 8 kHz - and 1% do - would that study prove that MP3 is inaudible compared to non-lossy digital - or would it prove it only for the hearing-imparied?

      What are the ranges of hearing for the adult population? At one time, Bell Labs used to publish that - and it varied by age, gender and environment. I haven't seen such study results for many years.

      So, until you qualify the MP3 encoders and until you specify music program content and specify the test subjects' hearing range - I'm not sure that you'll make solid points with your MP3 argument.

      And you're going to need several double-blind tests to really prove anything - because there are more variables than you seem to be counting.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    30. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that you are missing some filters! Filters are the reason that PCM audio can work. One filter to band-limit the analog input signal and try and avoid aliasing during sampling, one filter on the output of D/A to remove frequency images. If these filters are *perfect* then everything works hunky-dory - at least in the sense that the filtered input signal can in theory be reconstructed. Trouble is that *perfect* filters are not available to us - higher sample rates take the strain of these two filters making them easier to design, there are fewer compromises between among other things:
      - preringing
      - in-band response and phase deviations
      - delay

    31. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't quit now. I still have more ego to stroke by pointing out you are wrong!

    32. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Ah. You're under the impression that I care about you.

      And I do. I really, really do.

      Because I think of the children.

      Especially when they're so cute.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    33. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Under that condition, it will appear at (K*Nyquist_criteria) + actual_frequency - and in our case, the next occurrence won't happen until past 22.05 kHz.

      It was late when I wrote that, so this correction is offered - the above equation holds true for even K. For odd, it's ((K+1)*Nyquist_criteria) - actual_frequency.

      Obviously.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    34. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      I think that you are missing some filters!

      Not really.

      Filters are the reason that PCM audio can work.

      Nope.

      One filter to band-limit the analog input signal and try and avoid aliasing during sampling...

      The idea that you can avoid aliasing during sampling is the most often quoted, and most completely wrong, statement by undergraduates. Some never get past that C and yet find work writing that stuff in later life.

      Go to the graduate library, and begin by reading anything you can find by Cornelius Lanczos.

      ...one filter on the output of D/A to remove frequency images.

      And do that lookup for Lanczos' work right after you've taken any elementary classes in physics, calculus and electrical engineering.

      If these filters are *perfect* then everything works hunky-dory - at least in the sense that the filtered input signal can in theory be reconstructed.

      You can't even plagiarize at all close to well.

      That pokey feeling is the fork I just stuck in you - you're completely done now.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    35. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      By the way - the ability to reconstruct filtered signals perfectly - that's from one of my seminal papers in a peer-reviewed journal.

      trouble is that *perfect* filters are not available to us...

      Unless you'd like a digital one, for specific applications - that's the topic of the follow-on paper I did.

      ...higher sample rates take the strain of these two filters making them easier to design...

      That's a bastardization and I did not write that.

      Too bad you only found derivatives of my work - and too bad you didn't even understand that much.

      If you ever decide to stop being an AC, you can call yourself Polly The Parrot.

      cheers!

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    36. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, to faithfully plot one second of CD audio at HDTV 1080p resolution, you'd need a display 22 units across by 61 units high.

      Absinthe is illegal here in the US.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    37. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by jackocleebrown · · Score: 1
      You are assuming that there is one AC, perhaps some of us are not just here to wind you up.

      You can't even plagiarize at all close to well.

      I believe that to plagarise I would have to be passing it off as my own work.

      By the way - the ability to reconstruct filtered signals perfectly - that's from one of my seminal papers in a peer-reviewed journal.

      Reference please, AES?

      That's a bastardization and I did not write that.

      who said you did?

      BR, Polly the Parrot.

    38. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by k2r · · Score: 1

      > And unless you like transcoding all of your music, good luck using FLAC on your iPod.

      You can transcode FLAC to Apple Lossless using libavcodec.

    39. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that there is one AC, perhaps some of us are not just here to wind you up.

      OK. Despite the fact that I earlier stated that I couldn't tell if there was more than one AC I was talking to... I'll just take that one lying down.

      I believe that to plagarise I would have to be passing it off as my own work.

      Agreed - I choose the wrong word. Kindly correct me - were you copying that from somewhere, or trying to phrase something that you believe that you know?

      Reference please, AES?

      No, you'd find it in the IEEE Journal of Radiation Effects, and then a related work published by the Applied Computational Electromagnetics Society.

      Digital signal processing existed long before the AES got seriously into it.

      At least one of my algorithms was implemented in one of the earlier HP digital oscilloscopes - and that model was used to get results in more than a few AES papers, AFAIR. As was the Nyquist criteria tech note that I'd re-written for HP. And I'm proud to say that I never got a nickel for that (and no, I never worked for HP) - that was just free and open before that was popularly known.

      If you're a practitioner in the field, I will kindly and sincerely apologize - when you correct your post with discipline.

      BR, Patchy the Pirate

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    40. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's entirely possible that the only reason that CDs can work in first place is all of the slop in transitioning voltages in the amplifiers in the first place."

      Man, if you do lectures in this stuff, I'd hate to be one of your students.

      The slew rate of amplifiers has NOTHING to do with this. Apart from that, any cheap opamp nowadays is fine over the MHz range without significant slew. Way more than is needed for CD quality audio.

      Go learn about reconstruction filters, and brush up on sampling theory.

      "In the real world what really happens is that any given frequency component - any single frequency, in other words - is smeared to a peak at or only near that frequency, with additional frequencies at plus or minus a (hopefully small) margin about that frequency."

      The signal is band limited to 1/2 fs BEFORE it is quantised, and so the aliasing frequencies are not "at plus or minus a (hopefully small) margin about that frequency.", but instead ALWAYS above 1/2 fs. So these can be filtered off in the reconstruction filter. (And this is trivial nowadays with oversampling DACs).

      I agree that samples are not signals. The "waveform" you see when looking at a collection of samples in a wave editor has little to do with the analog waveform that leaves a DAC.

      "And only by the most ideal case possible will one particular frequency ever be sampled such that it appears as a single frequency point within the Nyquist criteria - 1/2 of the delta-time sampling rate. Under that condition, it will appear at (K*Nyquist_criteria) + actual_frequency - and in our case, the next occurrence won't happen until past 22.05 kHz."

      The Nyquist criteria is that *any* frequency *less* than 1/2 fs can be *completely* reconstructed. A frequency of exactly 1/2fs cannot have it's amplitude and phase components reconstructed.

    41. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No, the sampling is not instantaneous - by definition.

      Of course it is - it's a measurement of a voltage level at a given moment in time. The only question is how accurate is that measurement?

    42. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by rob13572468 · · Score: 1

      keep in mind that before the signal is sampled it needs to be low-pass filtered at the nyquist frequency. so everything above that frequency is attenuated as much as possible.obviously you cannot eliminate the problem of aliasing altogether but the practical goal is to eliminate it from occuring within the band you are sampling (e.g. 20-22Khz for audio). I agree with you that digital audio could use better sampling overall if for no other reason to deal with the granularity problems. they did a pretty good job with cd audio and it came pretty close to being indistinguishable... there are actually alot of listeners that have a very difficult or even impossible time telling the difference now in a true A/B setup. Often the issue is that an "audiophile" will make comparisons that are not direct: e.g. a standard high end CD player against a high end phono/preamp combo and the phono sounds obviously better. The problem is that there is no proof that the digital component was inferior.. it could be that the phono/preamp colored the sound in a more pleasing manner, or that the cd engineer made changes during mastering.. we just dont know because nobody likes doing an exact A/B comparison of digital/analog format and it ends up as sort of anecdotal evidence that we all hear about... The new digital workstations used for professional mastering are all either 24 or 32 bits and when i listen to tracks being played back on those systems that are sampled even at 24bit/96khz they sound nothing short of amazing. It would be fun to do a richard clark type A/B monetary bet: the audiophile can use their own reference system; you take a master recording of a record album playing at the preamp output at 24bits and then do A/B playback with the reference levels set the same. I would bet that it would be impossible for anybody to be able to tell the difference...

    43. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by jackocleebrown · · Score: 1

      OK. Despite the fact that I earlier stated that I couldn't tell if there was more than one AC I was talking to... I'll just take that one lying down.

      #30020820 is me, the others not. I am not a frequent poster, I had to request a password reminder before replying the second time!

      Agreed - I choose the wrong word. Kindly correct me - were you copying that from somewhere, or trying to phrase something that you believe that you know?

      Trying to phrase something which I believe I know/knew.

      If you're a practitioner in the field, I will kindly and sincerely apologize - when you correct your post with discipline.

      Apology not required. I am indeed an Engineer in the Audio industry. I think that this is a case of mistaken identity.. on both our parts. All the best, Jack.

    44. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Man, if you do lectures in this stuff, I'd hate to be one of your students.

      OK.

      The signal is band limited to 1/2 fs BEFORE it is quantised, and so the aliasing frequencies are not "at plus or minus a (hopefully small) margin about that frequency.", but instead ALWAYS above 1/2 fs. So these can be filtered off in the reconstruction filter. (And this is trivial nowadays with oversampling DACs).

      I am completely familiar with this filtering fact - and some of its myth.

      Are you aware that you're trying to justify that you can filter the complex conjugate of the sampled signal? I ask that in complete candor, and without sarcasm.

      I'm also familiar that at many schools, aliasing is the term given specifically to the misunderstood components of the other half of the S plane. In such a case, you were likely taught to use the terms, "frequency estimation error" or "frequency component leakage" where I am identifying that as another form of an alias. Am I correct?

      Now - I am not arguing against anti-aliasing filters, per se. Their value is well-established for many applications. I do argue that much of the math used to teach them is not sufficiently rigorous.

      As for reconstruction filters, yes, I understand what you're trying to get to and how I ignored that completely. However - I honestly wonder to the extent that speaker diaphram momentum was taken into account - and if the reconstruction filter was needed as much as believed. Again - a bit of speculation, but given that few perform decent speaker measurements, and given that that momentum term is already contributing to smooth any hypothetical staircase, I thought that the whole reconstruction point wasn't that big a deal.

      Except, you're of the school that sufficient oversampling applies. Me, too - but to a more limited point. It suggests you'll getter better confidence of your low-frequency estimates (relative to the sampling rate).

      Remind me, if you will, as to how oversampling at the DAC weighs higher than oversampling at the ADC. (No sarcasm intended if that was a simple typo on your part - and if not, it's an honest question.)

      The slew rate of amplifiers has NOTHING to do with this.

      Then I stand corrected and thank you.

      I agree that samples are not signals.

      It's a good starting point for clarity.

      The "waveform" you see when looking at a collection of samples in a wave editor has little to do with the analog waveform that leaves a DAC.

      And with sampling error, I question how well that analog waveform that left the DAC resembles the analog waveform that went into the ADC.

      And it is precisely upon this point that I am so unforgiving.

      The Nyquist criteria is that *any* frequency *less* than 1/2 fs can be *completely* reconstructed. A frequency of exactly 1/2fs cannot have it's amplitude and phase components reconstructed.

      Or, you could have said - with greater simplicity - that the real axis is crossed at DC and 1/2 dt. You say *less* - I said *within* - yes, you'd have hated to have had me - or not.

      ...brush up on sampling theory.

      Yes. I agree. I recommend it as a daily activity, myself.

      This parallel discussion may be slightly interesting to you - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1435342&cid=30020132

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    45. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who argue that the lossy formats are "indistinguishable" tend to be happy with averages, and ignore individuals who can hear differences. Unfortunately, these capabilities are not correlated with budget, or education, or even musical interest. So it is a bad assumption to think that you can give people audio advice without first understanding their own listening abilities and preferences. Individuals are not average.

      I am a happy owner of several iPods (upgrading over time, not using several models at the same time). I don't go for excessive audiophile equipment or fancy cables, though I do consider it reasonable to spend about as much on audio as I do on video, so roughly $1k USD budget for main hifi and again for my HDTV. I suspect my hearing may be diminishing a little bit now by age 35, though I am very protective of it compared to most friends in my generation.

      I can hear substantial differences between my $100/ea speakers and my $300/ea speakers (I tested each as main speakers out of curiosity, though the smaller ones are really my surrounds and the larger my mains). I can hear substantial differences between playing audio from my computer to my hifi via fiber optic or analog outputs. I can hear substantial differences between sending my MP3 or AAC recodes over the fiber optic, versus my original FLAC recordings. I can hear substantial differences between different CDs based on their production qualities. I have a few FLAC recordings which are my own digitization of 1960s vinyl, and I think they have better sound than some modern CDs even though they are nowhere near the best CDs I have heard.

      My brother has a recording studio and in the monitor/control room, which is a controlled listening environment, I could hear the difference between playbacks of 44.1 16-bit and 96 KHz 24-bit recordings of the same acoustic guitar performance. I wish I could repeat that test on my home hifi system, but I am aware of the limitations of my room and would not spend the money to upgrade my digital link from the computer to the hifi receiver just to run the experiment. I am aware that my hifi is already slightly oversized for my apartment, and it is really the building and interior design which would need upgrading to make the next largest improvements to sound quality.

    46. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be fun to do a richard clark type A/B monetary bet: the audiophile can use their own reference system; you take a master recording of a record album playing at the preamp output at 24bits and then do A/B playback with the reference levels set the same. I would bet that it would be impossible for anybody to be able to tell the difference...

      I would throw in another twist - do a set of trials not with a digital master vs. the reference system, but with a digital recording OF the reference system vs. the reference system!

    47. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Apology not required.

      Gracious of you to the max - but it's hereby given as offered.

      Mom always said there's no good excuse for bad manners - so, my bad.

      This snippet may clarify my response to some of your criticisms - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1435342&cid=30022018

      Or - it could make it worse. Either way, I wrote it, so I bought it. :)

      I do get confused by the threading when it gets deep, I guess.

      Cheers!

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    48. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For an 11 kHz signal - not at all unreasonable for violins, harpsichords, or synthesizers - you're getting only 4 sample points per wavelength. Chances of getting reduced sampling error - to even hit the peaks and zero crossings in time of that frequency or higher is absolutely laughable.

      You only need 2 points per Nyquist - and with oversampling, the error is pretty minimal. You certainly won't hear the difference at 16 bits.

      Believe it or not, the engineers have thought about this stuff...

    49. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Of course it is - it's a measurement of a voltage level at a given moment in time. The only question is how accurate is that measurement?

      Ah. That's what you meant.

      OK, then you're trying to describe quantization error. It's not the only question. Sampling error is more important.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    50. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree you really have some things confused or missing from your understanding of DSP.

      Of course you can have leakage and there will be finite energy from an imperfect (non-brickwall) antialiasing filter. The point is that the system can be designed to keep these components insignificant (below the analog noise floor).

      The use of higher oversampling at the DAC spreads the DAC quantization error out across a wider frequency band, providing less in-band noise and allowing a simpler (lower order) reconstruction filter for the DAC. This is not equivalent to oversampling at the ADC.

      The audio domian is not the only place that digital signal processing and sampling are used. Much of wireless communication depends on accurate understandings of aliases, harmonic mixing, analog and digital noise floors, etc. This stuff works and is robust.

    51. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      The new digital workstations used for professional mastering are all either 24 or 32 bits and when i listen to tracks being played back on those systems that are sampled even at 24bit/96khz they sound nothing short of amazing.

      Cool.

      One of my DVD players I got specifically because of its SACD capability - and have yet to hear a single one of those recordings. :-(

      How does what you're listening to compare with that? Any projections for when that will hit the consumer market?

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    52. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      I have to agree you really have some things confused or missing from your understanding of DSP.

      Yes. In some areas, that is true. Not quite as many as I'm being accused of in this thread, but why quibble? Fundamentally, you're right.

      The use of higher oversampling at the DAC spreads the DAC quantization error out across a wider frequency band, providing less in-band noise and allowing a simpler (lower order) reconstruction filter for the DAC. This is not equivalent to oversampling at the ADC.

      I am more experienced at ADC - no practical field experience at DAC.

      The audio domian is not the only place that digital signal processing and sampling are used.

      Roger that, Houston.

      This stuff works and is robust.

      You're welcome.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    53. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Are you aware that you're trying to justify that you can filter the complex conjugate of the sampled signal? I ask that in complete candor, and without sarcasm."

      Well, why not? The sideband frequencies will never appear at (lower than) 1/2fs because we band limited the signal before sampling it.

      "Remind me, if you will, as to how oversampling at the DAC weighs higher than oversampling at the ADC. "

      They are of equal importance. Dither is vital as well.

      I'm taking a systemic approach, the DAC can only operate properly if the data it is fed obeys certain constraints. Not every possible combination of bits can be 'legally' reconstructed as a waveform!

      "And with sampling error, I question how well that analog waveform that left the DAC resembles the analog waveform that went into the ADC."

      Do you mean amplitude quantisation error or timing errors (jitter)? There will *always* be amplitude errors, but they can (and indeed must) be removed with 1/2lsb dither.

      "However - I honestly wonder to the extent that speaker diaphram momentum was taken into account - and if the reconstruction filter was needed as much as believed."

      People have built dacs with simple one pole R/C filters, or no filter at all, but they do sound a bit harsh. I suspect this is not due to the ultrasonic side bands being audible, but to the way they may cause IMD in amplifiers and tweeters.

      If the sample rate is low enough so that the side bands are not ultrasonic, then it's pretty obvious. I have enough dodgy old drum machine and samplers to know this. :)

      Here is an interesting question:

      Is there any way the output from an ideal DAC can be analysed to tell that source is a DAC rather than a band limited analog signal+noise?

      There are no 'steps' in the output, there is no quantisation noise because of the dither. Do you think there is a way of telling? And how do you think we could tell if it was a 'real world' DAC instead of an ideal one?

    54. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need *more than* two points to reconstruct a sine wave.
      But, oddly enough, you do not need three points. :)

    55. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need *more than* two points to reconstruct a sine wave. But, oddly enough, you do not need three points. :)

      To clarify, from Blackman and Tukey (1958):

      "Sampling theorem (of information theory): Nyquist's result that equi-spaced data, with two or more points per cycle of highest frequency, allows reconstruction of band-limited functions. (See Cardinal theorem.)"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shannon_sampling_theorem#Why_Nyquist.3F

    56. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by roju · · Score: 1

      44.1kHz sampling is enough to reproduce an 11kHz signal exactly, despite only sampling it four times per period. Read about the sampling theorem. Specifically: "If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart."

    57. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get a picture of the waveform, you get a picture of the samples.

      The waveform only appears after the reconstruction filter.

      It is possible though, to calculate and display what the reconstructed waveform will be in the digital domain. Very few wave editors do this, as just displaying the samples is near enough for editing. When you need to know the difference is when mastering and things like inter sample peaks become important. (Ie, levels which will reconstruct to greater than the full scale digital peaks.)

    58. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Exactly what "Nyquist's result" they are referring to remains mysterious."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shannon_sampling_theorem#Why_Nyquist.3F

      Mysterious, because if there is only two points you lose both the amplitude and phase information of the sine wave. This is why the sample rate must be *more* than double the highest frequency you want to capture.

      "Nyquist Sampling Theory: A sampled waveforms contains ALL the information without any distortions, when the sampling rate exceeds twice the highest frequency contained by the sampled waveform."

      Note the 'exceeds' this is what gives us *more* than two points to reconstruct the sine wave, but not necessaryly three.

    59. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just overly frustrated at having to once again explain this sort of thing, and I'm too lazy - or something - to contribute to wikipedia to improve things. (Or, I just don't believe in a voting process for knowledge - there's no democracy in physics, right?)

      If you are capable of improving the article and refuse to do so, then you're in no position to complain about the state of the article.

      Also, there's no "voting process for knowledge" involved in Wikipedia. Editors don't vote on facts. It's meant to be based on research from reliable sources, and yes, sometimes there's voting on which details are worthy of inclusion - but you seem kind of resentful of how Wikipedia works, perhaps because you misunderstand its policies?

    60. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Frankly, I believe all you're hearing is your own confirmation bias. Wine tasters have the same problem. Your experiments were not controlled and couldn't tell you anything other than that you liked to think your expensive equipment was somehow worth it.

    61. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You don't get a picture of the waveform, you get a picture of the samples.
      > The waveform only appears after the reconstruction filter.

      Riiiiight, and a scan of a photo isn't a picture of the photo, it's a picture of the samples.

      Face it, a sampled sawtooth wave *looks* like a sawtooth wave - the samples represent a quantized picture of the original waveform.

    62. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      OK, then let's do a blinded A/B/X comparison.

      The one consistent thing about 'audiophiles' is that they insist that they can hear the difference. Not that the difference can be measured (which, of course, it can be - no one disputes that), but that they can reliably tell the difference between two reproductions.

      That's not to say that MP3 is transparent with all input sounds, or that it suddenly becomes lossless at a certain bitrate. It obviously doesn't. There are real differences, at any bitrate, between a decoded MP3 and the original data.

      But, I'm betting that you can't tell the difference between lossless and high-bitrate MP3, at least not reliably. That's what the statistics say. Your argument is basically, "well, I'm not average". That's certainly possible. But I think that it's more likely that the perceived differences you hear aren't reproducible under blind conditions.

    63. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Yes, for continuous functions with unlimited time sampling, gee, that's completely true.

      And for transients? Where you cannot control where the transient will actually be sampled?

      Once again -

      Have a friend give you some exponentially damped cosine waves at audio frequencies and then the same with a few raised cosine pulses summed in and have them give you that as the analytical function - as a blind experiment, let someone else choose that. Ensure that the function is piecewise continuous and give it a start point offsetting it from zero time by some irrational value multiplied by the sampling rate. Run the function, sample at 44.1 kHz, transform it, and compare to analytic results. Next - using the same functions - sample at 317 kHz and compare to 44.1 kHz and to analytic results.

      You may be surprised.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    64. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      That's what the statistics say.

      What statistics?

      Your argument is basically, "well, I'm not average".

      I never once said that. I did say this:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1435342&cid=30018954

      And I did say this:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1435342&cid=30020646

      The one consistent thing about 'audiophiles' is that they insist that they can hear the difference.

      Ah. I even said this:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1435342&cid=30020358

      Next time, kindly respond to where I'm coming from, not just where you want to accuse me of coming from.

      My arguments and positions were specific whereas yours are generalized - exactly my complaint.

      Hope this helps.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    65. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      If you are capable of improving the article and refuse to do so, then you're in no position to complain about the state of the article.

      I've already pointed that finger at myself and have stated my regret more than once for the harshness of my criticism.

      Does it occur to you that it's incredibly difficult to satisfy the tremendous amount of AC posts in this thread?

      Also, there's no "voting process for knowledge" involved in Wikipedia. Editors don't vote on facts. It's meant to be based on research from reliable sources, and yes, sometimes there's voting on which details are worthy of inclusion - but you seem kind of resentful of how Wikipedia works, perhaps because you misunderstand its policies?

      No, I'm not resentful, I'm simply worn out by it.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    66. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Well, why not? The sideband frequencies will never appear at (lower than) 1/2fs because we band limited the signal before sampling it.

      No problem. I've seen more than a few filter designers who've tried to get rid of the complex conjugate by not really understanding that were looking at invalid transform results. Better designers never had that problem - but in my generation there were few of those.

      I'm taking a systemic approach, the DAC can only operate properly if the data it is fed obeys certain constraints. Not every possible combination of bits can be 'legally' reconstructed as a waveform!

      Well, I'm pedantic, but I'm not a peasant about it. :) Throughout, I'm presuming real-world and reasonable constraints.

      Do you mean amplitude quantisation error or timing errors (jitter)? There will *always* be amplitude errors, but they can (and indeed must) be removed with 1/2lsb dither.

      I apologize. I had simply thought that all readers would be clear with my choice of terminology - completely my bad.

      I'm unconcerned - for the sake of this discussion and the points I was putting forth - with quantization error. One chooses 8, 12, 16 or 24 bits largely by convention and the application and ya just live with it. I'm not overconcerned with 2^16 quantization levels being insufficient because I'd expect it to match or exceed the noise of the analog components (microphone, mixers) in the original analog recording. In other words, you have to start somewhere, and with dithering, filters and a certain uncertainty that the input signal is indeed perfect - as I express it - ya just live with it.

      But timing jitter. I've not heard not that term in quite some time. If you'd caught my earlier reference, I did say that there's a reason that the PDF is related to LaPlace transforms (I _believe_ I remember mentioning it in this thread) - and I therefore, not without foundation, refer to that as sampling error.

      It had simply never occurred to me that modern readers would read that quantization error, so I apologize.

      Have you ever tried this experiment:

      Have a friend give you some exponentially damped cosine waves at audio frequencies and then the same with a few raised cosine pulses summed in and have them give you that as the analytical function - as a blind experiment, let someone else choose that. Ensure that the function is piecewise continuous and give it a start point offsetting it from zero time by some irrational value multiplied by the sampling rate. Run the function, sample at 44.1 kHz, transform it, and compare to analytic results. Next - using the same functions - sample at 317 kHz and compare to 44.1 kHz and to analytic results.

      You may be surprised.

      This was illustrative of the crux of my sampling argument - and I thank you for not quoting wikipedia's sample theory pages to tell me about what I don't get and have instead responded kindly and intelligently.

      People have built dacs with simple one pole R/C filters, or no filter at all, but they do sound a bit harsh. I suspect this is not due to the ultrasonic side bands being audible, but to the way they may cause IMD in amplifiers and tweeters.

      That is all I needed in the way of correction on filter use for this application. Again, thanks.

      In directly, it illustrates one part of my point - that sampling itself, played back - is wrong. After that, the argument reduces to ADC/DAC quality and the filters.

      And I simply have chosen to ring the dinner bell that once the sampling - time jitter by your terms - is screwed up, then filters cannot correct that.

      Is there any way the output from an ideal DAC can be analysed to tell that source is a DAC rather than a band limited analog signal+noise?

      Crediting that all reasonable conditions exist for this experiment then under most signals - perhaps I'll go so far as to sa

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    67. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Any digital sampling of even a simple sine wave - absolutely regardless of sampling rate - is going to present to the electronics as nothing less than a series of impulses. Regardless of the optical illusion that the sampled points look like the sine wave sampled (dots on an x-y graph) - that's not how it's going to work out.

      Well, that is or is not true based on the behavior of the D to A converter you use. No, actually, this is never true. You can't produce a perfect "impulse" -- since it has 0 time duration -- with any actual hardware. Because it would have, as you suggested, infinitely wide frequency response: DC to Daylight, as they say. More likely, your D to A will sample and hold, or do some form of interpolation. It's the reconstruction filter's job to turn this back into the original sampled signal. You can make the analog filter's job easier (and your job as a filter designer easier) by doing some DSP interpolation. So let's not pretend that D to A converters output impulses to the reconstruction filters, OK? It would imply that the designers went out of their way to obtain the unobtainable to do something stupid.

      The point is therefore not frequencies at 44.1 kHz, it's to acquire the signal at 44,100 samples / second. For an 11 kHz signal - not at all unreasonable for violins, harpsichords, or synthesizers - you're getting only 4 sample points per wavelength. Chances of getting reduced sampling error - to even hit the peaks and zero crossings in time of that frequency or higher is absolutely laughable. That's 8 points at 5 to 6 kHz, and 16 sampled data points in the critical voice range.

      11 kHz fundamental is what, A9? I'm just pulling that out of my ass, but violins? Harpsichords? Really? You really think so, eh? How many keys does your harpsichord have?

      I can reconstruct your sine wave with 4 points per cycle. Why can't you? And Nyquist does better than me, but I'm conservative with respect to signal processing. Do you know who I'm writing about? Are you aware of the Nyquist sampling theorem? Yes, yes, I know we can only approach the theoretical, thanks. I'm aware of your "approach" argument. But we can and do approach it, and we work very hard at it. Maybe not as hard as the marketeers who write press releases for audiophile magazines, though.

      Do you have any actual experience or education in DSP?

      I'm completely comfortable admitting that CDs may not be the ultimate in audio fidelity, but your arguments are without basis in math, physics or fact.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    68. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Smart does not equal an ability to explain. But given that I've lectured on digital signal processing at the post-graduate level, I'm not without some qualification in the area.

      Apparently, in your case, it equals an ability to bluster your way into a lecture hall. Oh, I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? You speak of engineers as "others" ('Engineers have poorly chosen the word aliasing'). You are amazed that CDs sound OK. You literally hear the results of the engineering, and still say it doesn't work. And your only argument is to call opposing theories "laughable".

      Something tells me, if I built a fire, you'd tell me it shouldn't produce heat.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    69. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a scientist, and am aware of how to run an experiment. I did a few controlled tests at one point, to eliminate my bias. But I have to tell you, the differences are so stark that I would probably have gone to see a shrink if my experiments had not confirmed my earlier belief. I am one of those people who hears electronics whining, overhears people whispering when they don't want me to, and sometimes flees from noisy environments that don't seem to bother everyone else.

      For my local hifi tests, I used my computer to randomize playback of different versions of the recording (ripped CD into FLAC, recoded FLAC to multiple formats and bitrates, and played via optical and analog outputs which were volume-trimmed to match, with the A/V receiver automatically playing which ever input was active). I took notes and had to compare them to logs from my test script afterwards to verify what I had heard, having never listened to the lossy recodes prior to the experiment. I had listened to the CD and FLAC many times previously, so knew the music well.

      For the 44.1 kHz versus 96 kHz test, my brother did A/B testing on me without telling me what I was hearing. I actually thought he was demonstrating a bad mic in his studio, but it was just the difference in ADC resolution from the same mic.

    70. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Mike610544 · · Score: 1

      Given the reality of the math, it's a wonder that CDs - uncompressed from their 44.1 kHz standard - manage to sound as good as they do.

      Maybe it was just a poor choice of words, but when the "reality" of the math doesn't match observed results, you're missing something.

      Also, in the other post where you described a DAC's analog output voltage snapping instantaneously to each of its digital input levels (slew rate in the amp being our only savior) was that a DAC you built out of Legos?

      --
      ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
    71. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      I think you'll be interested in my parallel response, so in case you've missed it

      Oh no, I saw it - all 30 replies (lol!) I wish I could have kept up with the more technical aspects of it.

      All you have to do in any of these articles to be modded as 5, funny, or 5, insightful, is to bray like a jackass

      Well, that's slashdot for you. I've been on here for 10 years. It's not that the mods don't take their jobs seriously - they're just not very good. I complained 5 years ago that they should hire an editor to go through the comments and pull out the ten best, hide the rest. Well, it ain't gonna happen. This site is what it is. If you were CS and saw the Perl source code that runs this monstrosity you would cough blood. The quality of this site is the people who come here.

      I've been offered mod points. It's not hard once you max out your karma. The question is, do you want to play by their rules, adding +1 to random posts, without the ability to delete or re-create or move things around? It's a joke. We were joking on this site back in '01.

      Oh, I apologize for conflating 44,100 and 44.1k. I multiplied 44,100 by kilobits and got 45 million.

    72. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      Heh. I wish I had mod points now ;)

    73. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      >For all of its woes, I'm terribly happy with CD audio.

      So am I.

      So happy, in fact, that I make CD's almost every week and listen to them in my car. In fact they tend to be mp3 CD's, which means I'm sacrificing 10% sound quality for 10X space savings. And it's good enough.

      But I also listen to deejays, and dj's are either analog (vinyl) or mixed on cd. And I can't tell you how much fun it is to guess what I'm listening to.

      You would think if CD's are so perfect, it would be impossible to lose it. For example, playing a CD, recording it through some analog or sampling gear, turning the wav into an mp3, and then pressing the same song onto another CD.

      I mean, you start off on a cd, and you end up on a cd. Yet clearly there's a transformation.

      I'm not one of those audiophiles who thinks they can hear the faintest brush of lint on a stylus. But I do think we are operating well below ear capacity, because of low expectations for speakers, for ear frequencies, and for media.

    74. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Some audiophiles are prima donnas.

      Sound is simply a sense, and like vision, it can be a form of trainable observation. One day you're listening to Birdland by Weather Report and you become unhappy with the bridge to the cacophony - so you go looking for weak spots causing it - whether it's your speakers, a scuff on a CD or something else.

      All I care about is the music. It's why I leave my electronics out of sight - I don't want to see or think about how I'm getting it. Takes longer speaker wire. So what. So you like MP3s in a car. What's wrong with that? My opinion, as long as it's better than radio, I'm winning. Stuff where I couldn't hear a difference - or one to speak of - I listen in the house to AACs, and save the storage for those recordings where it makes a difference.

      Nice to exchange with someone who isn't all dogmatic about it.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    75. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      No prob on the 45 mill - I simply assumed that was what happened. Unlike some forums, this one doesn't give you an edit button, and people make a federal case out of the lamest things instead of cutting a little slack. I especially liked the idea that we needed help in the form of some 1200 HDTVs to graph a single second of CD audio. So we could _understand_ digital audio. Golly, that was helpful. Never mind that the same guy correcting your 45 mill got it as 41.1 k.

      As for mods - didn't mean to sound too harsh on that. I've been following /. since a few months after its inception, and generally keep up. Lost my low-numbered acct when I forgot my password - and they no doubt mailed my password to the email account that was no more. Got a new id, and got flamed the first day for not waiting and lurking and then saying something intelligent. :P

      What was it we used to say? Life is short and slashdot karma is cheap?

      I meta-mod and mod when I get the chance, which is less often than when I'm offered points. I take modding seriously and that means it takes time and the efforts to not look at the id and to put away one's own opinions on a subject. I think people get fans - or memes do - and some mods operate in packs. I'd go thru a stretch where I'd get a +5, insightful for saying a ham sandwich is tasty and then a few days later get modded at troll or flamebait for posting a link to an article that _supported_ TFA.

      Well before /. there was another saying - on the internet, no one can tell if you're a dog. But some of us can tell who belongs in an RL conversation and who needs to be 86'd.

      Woof!

      Cheers!

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    76. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      It's designed for audiophiles, what did you expect? Audiophiles are the kind of people who are willing to pay premium cash for a light pen (you know, for coloring the CD's....). Or how about these cables? After all, it produces sound that is "Notably relaxed and highly detailed" (just like the stuff I defecated yesterday) for only $9000 for eight foot pair of speaker-cables! And when you REALLY want that "something extra" to your sound-quality, here's a wooden knob for just $485.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    77. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Have you ever tried this experiment:"

      I'll give it a go.

      Thanks for the reply. Much to think about!

    78. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scanning a photo is not a time domain function.

      Now try it with a 17khz sine or a 14khz saw, sampling at 44.1khz. Have a look at the waveforms in the wave editor, then see with a 'scope what is coming out of the DAC.

    79. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Now try it with a 17khz sine or a 14khz saw, sampling at 44.1khz.
      > Have a look at the waveforms in the wave editor, then see with a 'scope what is coming out of the DAC.

      I can see a jagged sine-like pattern in the sample editor for the 17khz tone, and just like with a picture, a higher resolution will show you a better likeness. It's still a picture of the waveform, even for details near the threshold of resolvability.

      As for the 14khz saw, the first harmonic is at 28khz, so you should be filtering that out anyway. You won't hear it as a saw timbre anyway.

    80. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I believe all you're hearing is your own confirmation bias.

      Not sure how that was - I didn't know what the source was being switched for comparison. It was simply - ok, agree to these passages on this music at these time points - switching was done in another room by another party.

      The routine included included many "switches" with no actual change of source. I reliably reported no difference on those. In the cases where I could I hear the differences - different samplings were indeed present. There were no cases of reported improvement with lower sampling.

      And I did limit my earlier comment to only some program material.

      Dude - I didn't want to hear a difference - I wanted to save storage. I took close to three hours on that, and made it as fair as I knew how.

      Try it for yourself.

      I don't say it requires expensive equipment - but I don't believe you'll hear a difference if all you run is junk and listen to Britany Spears at full volume. Otherwise, I invite you to try it out. With a variety of program sources.

      On some source material - I could not tell a difference.

      Your claims against me are too harsh by half. I already stated that I heard a difference on some material only.

      Traveling Wilburys, Trip Wamsley, Stanley Clarke, various classical, various acoutic, various electric.

      BTW - I tried several MP3 and AAC sampling rates for this. I found better range, tonal and dynamically, in the AACs - except when I couldn't tell a difference.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    81. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      QuoteMstr - I am not the AC, and can no longer follow threading of who is responding to whom in this thread.

      Sorry if I responded you if you were not responding to me.

      Since Saturday the threading has looked funny - same browser, same rev, same OS, different hardware - I've not experienced that before. So, I've even tried different browsers in an effort to find the best one for /. (And having a few bad days of reading comprehension (per my earlier post you've seen) hasn't helped!!!)

      I hope my replies have sounded with the high respect intended - I found you alone in your position of pro-MP3, but highly polite and scientifically cold-blooded, compared to other compressed music proponents, so as to warrant a more courteous response.

      Hope we're square!

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    82. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by roju · · Score: 1

      Haha this is what I get for spouting barely-remember undergrad math. Thanks for the interesting conversation, I spent a couple hours looking at windowing functions and MDCTs and all that on Wikipedia. Cheers.

    83. Re:Obligatory audiophile post by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Hey, we're all in this together - cheers.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  24. Mac Mini by solid_liq · · Score: 1

    How about a Mac Mini with a remote control? They have good audio hardware, you can connect it to your network wirelessly, and you can use Mac OS X, Linux or Windows on it for playing audio. They're also small, nearly silent, and women think they're cute.

  25. Low Power FM radio by shking · · Score: 3, Informative

    About five years ago I, spent about $75 on a low power FM transmitter from CanaKit. I can get music anywhere in my house (or at close neighbors' houses) with a simple radio. CanaKit's transmitters cost from $20 up to $300 and have about a 150 meter range (about 500 feet).

    Recently I added the "Remote" app to my iPhone. Now I can chose songs and playlists without needing to walk over to the computer. Obviously this will not work if you can't, or won't, use iTunes.

    --
    -- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
  26. Just Multiroom, or Multizone? by nate_in_ME · · Score: 2, Interesting

    (Disclaimer: I actually DID used to work for a place that set systems like this up, and have designed several myself as well) To determine what you need, a little bit more information is needed. Do you simply want on/off speakers in each room, all listening to the same thing? Or, are you looking for a system that lets you listen to different sources in each room? If you want different sources/songs/whatever in each room, you're actually looking for what is called a "multi-zone" system, which is where you start seeing the higher price tags. You mention you've already found the Russound products, which is actually quite a flexible system that gives you a lot of options. It looks like they recently came out with what they are calling their Collage system, which will pull music from any uPNP server on your network. In addition, the keypads have a FM reciever, and built-in intercom between keypads. It also uses HomePlug for communications between the various keypads and the media source, so once your individual keypads are connected to power, they will not require any additional wiring for data. The keypads also have a built in amplifier, so all you will need to add beyond the cost of each keypad and the HomePlug adapter for your server are speakers and wire from the keypad to the speakers. Russound has older systems that are quite cheaper, but not all of them are designed to handle the music being on a server like you currently have. It appears that Collage is specifically designed for this type of setup. The downside is that the cheapest price I could find for keypads was $549USD.

    1. Re:Just Multiroom, or Multizone? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hi, I'm the OP.

      The reason I asked the question is that I've spent some hours digging around and I can't give you intelligent answers to most of those questions - because I don't fully understand the questions. I didn't know there was a difference between multiroom and multizone until I read your post.

      What I had in mind was some sort of central unit which can stream my MP3s to the amplifier in the lounge and also to a number of units elsewhere in the house - preferably with the choice of "same thing in every room" or "different thing playing in the bedroom and the kitchen" so my wife can listen to something else. Ideally the units elsewhere in the house would be self-contained - I'm not really going to be in any position to tell the difference between 5.1 surround and just a basic output in the kitchen or bedroom so there's no point in going overboard.

      So far I'm liking the sound of the Squeezebox solution but I'm wary of planned obsolescence - for instance, can a new Squeezebox boombox receive a stream from a 5-year old unit? Or have they messed around with the firmware to prevent that?

    2. Re:Just Multiroom, or Multizone? by alext · · Score: 1

      Well the stream comes from Squeezebox Server on the PC so it's just a hardware-software match rather than a hardware-hardware one like Sonos.

      And they're doing pretty well so far, longevity-wise - my SlimDevices Squeezebox 3 has upgraded itself to the latest Logitech-branded firmware and works with a new Boombox, and the latest software & services of course.

    3. Re:Just Multiroom, or Multizone? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      And they're doing pretty well so far, longevity-wise - my SlimDevices Squeezebox 3 has upgraded itself to the latest Logitech-branded firmware and works with a new Boombox, and the latest software & services of course.

      That's exactly the kind of thing I was concerned about - thanks.

    4. Re:Just Multiroom, or Multizone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a Squeezebox Boom and I was disappointed that they'd changed the system so that I couldn't play from SlimServer on a Linksys NSLU2. Now I have it playing from a ReadyNAS Duo, which works okay once I added more memory and configured MySQL so it was tuned reasonably. Even so, the web interface runs pretty slow.

      The problem with the Squeezebox systems is that they rely on a rather heavyweight and crufty server that has to run on a server somewhere. It shouldn't need the resources it requires.

      On the other hand, the Squeezecenter server software that currently supports these units is open source and written from perl, so you can use it with some players that aren't from Logitech.

  27. Airport Express by guytoronto · · Score: 1

    Airport Express base station with a decent set of computer speakers. Remote control via iPhone or iPod Touch.

  28. Rocketboost from Best Buy by wmshub · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Rocketboost system at best buy is a wireless solution that will work for you: http://www.bestbuy.com/rocketboost gives a good summary of how it works.

    You can add speakers and audio sources around your house, and the speakers have a "next source" button that lets you flip between your audio sources. It is modular, where you can buy as many units as you need and they all join together into one big network in your house. It isn't super-cheap, but it is cheaper than other products that are equally as flexible in how you set them up.

    Disclaimer: I worked on this product (wrote the protocol stack for moving the audio data over the air), so you may want to take my recommendation with a grain of salt, but I am happy with how well the product turned out and I think it's pretty neat.

    1. Re:Rocketboost from Best Buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, another one from Avnera.

  29. Apple Airport Express by Mindstate · · Score: 0

    honestly, that's probably the simplest solution. add an airport express for each room you want and you have an instant wireless music network. add an iPod touch or an iPhone and you have a really excellent remote that lets you easily switch the music from one room to the next and multiples at the same time with no delay, as well as creating custom playlists on the fly and using itunes DJ and genius playlists. plus it can join your home wifi network and share printers, charge USB devices, or even extend your wifi network. to me, this is probably the most under-hyped apple product ever. it's made my life so much easier. i only have one, but i can just unplug it and move it to another room and have it hooked up somewhere else in seconds, and the remote app on the iPhone is worlds better than any other audio remote i've used.

  30. You're Guilty! by woolio · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just replay the music in my head. This helps avoid copyright infringement suits.

    Nay, you only think you are...

    I say you are guilty of illegally creating a derivative work based upon copyrighted material.

  31. The "right" answer, rather than the geeky one... by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You want a "distribution amplifier". These usually downmix to mono (seriously - You want mono for this purpose. Stereo coming at you from several direction at unbalanced distances will get annoying fast), and have a large number of channels (12-16 would work well for most houses, unless you really need it in every corner of every room including the attic, basement, and garage).

    They don't cost all that much, which leaves you to spend your money on decent speakers. Depending on your home layout, you may want surface-mount, or recessed, or just cube-in-the-corner. As for wires - Keep in mind you either have signal, or power, or both going to them. So wireless doesn't really buy you all that much unless you absolutely positively cannot make discrete 1/8" holes hidden in the corner/wall/floor/ceiling/whatever. Personally, I consider speaker-wire easier to hide than power, so have chosen to just run an array of speaker wire through the basement up through small holes between the floorboards (old-style New England house with a decent gap between floorboards, so as close to invisible holes as you could ever want).

    But yeah, you don't want a high-tech solution, you want an old-school distro amp. What you feed it with depends on what the wife will put up with, but you can find a huge number of digital car audio solutions that provide minimalist interfaces with decent functionality.

  32. What about DNLA or UPnP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (subject)

  33. xbmc multizone audio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe someday xbmc will have multizone audio support.
    there is also a thread about this topic: http://xbmc.org/forum/showthread.php?p=367551

  34. Just get an amp & distribution box by lalena · · Score: 1

    I just use speaker wires to distribute the audio. I use a cheap stereo amp (~$150) and then a 4 pair impedence matching speaker distribution box w/ volume controls for each pair of speakers (~$150). The amp & distribution box are in the stereo rack with the rest of the stereo equipment. I have this amp connected to the 2nd room output of my receiver. I get the 5.1 in the main room + 4 pairs of speakers for other rooms. Wiring is very easy this way. Only benefit of the more expensive systems is that they let you control the volume in the room itself and some repeat the remote IR signals that let you control everything from any room. Still, CD/DVD players that use radio frequency (not IR) remotes can be found for $50 so why bother.
    I've posted some more ideas to my site: http://www.diyaudioandvideo.com/

  35. Simple enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're happy to run wires:

    Plug a small/cheap portable mixing desk into an Airport's audio-out: You'll need a desk with multiple audio-outs and a pre-amp (Mine cost $100 in New Zealand). You'll be able to produce a bunch of line-level outs from a single audio source.

    Run an RCA pair cable to each room, plug them into various amplifiers, and you're away.

    If you need wireless, well:

    (I do something similar to this to drive a bunch of hardware from a DJ mixer: I end up needing 4-5 stereo pairs at line level).

  36. SlimDevices / Squeezecenter by audionoom · · Score: 1

    You might want to check out Slim Devices (acquired by Logitech now) - http://www.logitechsqueezebox.com/how-it-works/overview.html.

    I'm usually not a big fan of all-in-one solutions from vendors like Logitech - but this is a no-brainer. If you have a NAS, you can hook it up, and control it from any web-enabled device (computer, android phone, iphone, netbook, maemo, ...) throughout the whole house over wireless. There are remote controls that work over a wireless network (Duet controller), and they also got speaker+player combo's.

    The software is free, and available for Linux and Windows (no Mac I think?) - and it scans your library you point it to, indexes pretty neatly, and sports a good search, shows new music added ...
    Also - same system streams internet radio, and there are a lot of plugins and small apps available (alarm, multiroom vs. synced audio stream, ...).

    In my setup, I hooked 5 players up over cable in the rack closet, which are connected over audio cable to separate amplifiers. Speakers in the ceilings are connected to those amplifiers.
    My rooms stay clean and uncluttered, and I control the whole thing through my HTC Hero phone, and the misses through her Iphone. The navigation and lookup on all devices (webinterface, phone apps, duet controller, Nokia 770) is pretty quick - given that I run an MP3 library of around 60Gb.

    To pass the wife test - you can try and set up one of the products they have, and expand later on.

    Total cost, without amps or speakers - 5 rooms, 5 different streams --- 5 players, 1 Duet controller - around 750Euros (around 1000$, approx).
    However - if you'd only need one room to be connected to the NAS over wireless - you'd be set with about 400$, I guess (Duet controller + player).

    When clients or friends are curious about the setup - I just give them the Duet controller or the Maemo tablet, put them in one of the rooms that are kitted out - and let them have a go at it. Even the n00bs or the laymen understand it without any info, and are quickly listening to their own stuff ...

    Just my 2 cents ...

    --
    Knowledge first. Social contact later.
  37. iPod by icebike · · Score: 1

    Its called an iPod.

    You don't have to listen to someone elses choice in music, and they don't have to listen to yours.

    You will no sooner get this installed than you will realize what a huge mistake this was. If/when teenagers arrive in the house you have a disaster in the making.

    Music, like your reading material should be a personal issue.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  38. Sonos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Sonos is the best deal out there and you can even control it now with an iPhone or an iPod touch.

  39. Squeezebox or AirTunes by djkitsch · · Score: 1

    I've got two systems setup (home and work):

    Home:
    A Mac Pro (could just as well use a Windows PC, but this is my home server) running iTunes. AirPort Express with AirTunes units in my bedroom, office and kitchen, with powered speakers attached to each. AppleTV (ehem - "enhanced", of course - http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/) in my lounge, hooked up to the TV and hi-fi. I use an iPhone or iPod Touch with the Remote app to control it, and it works great. You could get more functionality with a Sonos setup, but I already had the server and AppleTV, so it only cost me about $70 with eBay AirTunes units.

    Office:
    A VM running on our office server with Squeezebox Server, serving the tunes. A mixture of Squeezebox devices and PCs running the software player throughout the office. A whole load of apps and web interfaces to control the server, and the multiple streams coming out of it. With the exception of the Squeezebox hardware, it was free to setup, and you don't even really need those if you're happy to use spare PCs.

    By and large, both arrangements work well - the aim was to have systems that we could just setup and forget about, and save the odd server reboot, that's what we've got.

    --
    sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
  40. The Bulldozer Approach by flyneye · · Score: 5, Funny

    I filled one of my houses with sound simply by using a 500 watt P.A. system with some 15", 12", horn, speakers purchased at a flea market for around $500.
    Another house I put the same P.A. in the basement, eq'd it for low end and split the signal to my home stereo upstairs. Basement as a sub.
    Neighbors will love ya. Bathe in sound.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    1. Re:The Bulldozer Approach by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're sick. How could you tell if it was the movie or your neighbors shooting at you?

    2. Re:The Bulldozer Approach by troll8901 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The neighbor merely causes the windows to shatter.

      The movie causes the walls and floors to rumble as well. You can tell by looking up - the ceiling paint will start falling.

    3. Re:The Bulldozer Approach by pbhj · · Score: 1

      I filled one of my houses with sound simply by using a 500 watt P.A. system with some 15", 12", horn, speakers purchased at a flea market for around $500.
      Another house I put the same P.A. in the basement, eq'd it for low end and split the signal to my home stereo upstairs. Basement as a sub.
      Neighbors will love ya. Bathe in sound.

      Put the system outside under a small rain shelter. Then you just need to open a window when you want to hear it.

    4. Re:The Bulldozer Approach by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Fortunately this is a stand alone house. One neighbor is deaf and one is an ex-wife. Across the way is rentals.
              Actually gunshots with added bass are way more dramatic than realistic.
              Wagners " DIE VALKURIE" just lives for a system like this. If I heard gunshots during this, I would be suspicious though.

       

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  41. Move? by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

    Just move into a studio apartment. Problem solved.

    1. Re:Move? by klashn · · Score: 0

      Just move into a studio apartment. Problem solved.

      LOL, that was great quip

  42. Ampache by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

    you might work something out with ampache using localplay.

  43. Sonos by farnsworth · · Score: 1
    I haven't used Sonos, but once I have enough extra cash that's what I'm going to get. I currently have a bunch of hand-me-down iPods and laptops in the various rooms that I want music. But this system does not scale very well, and comes with its own complications. I did a bunch of research, and Sonos pretty much the only system that has what I want:
    • Uses my existing amps/speakers -- I have an existing audio setup in each room already. Sonos can just plug into that.
    • No media synchronization required -- it can read files off of your NAS.
    • No computer involved -- I don't want to have to boot anything, or log into anything, or launch any apps, or care about remote endpoints. (yes, I'm sure there is a cpu in these things, but it's not a 'computer' to me.)
    • Expandable -- You can get just one and add more as you want
    • iPhone controllable -- I always have my phone on my person, so I can always adjust whatever's going on anywhere.

    It does have downsides. The magic peering technology seems complicated and is not very well documented (at least when I was reading about it). I don't think you can use it purely wirelessly, I think at least one device needs a cat5 network connection. I think it then NATs all the other devices over an 802.11 network. It's also on the pricey end of things, although for a couple rooms it is not thousands of dollars.

    They also have new models and capabilities pretty regularly so the above may already be out of date. Check it out, though.

    I've also heard good things about Squeezebox, but it didn't appeal to me for several reasons that I forget.

    --

    There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.

  44. Just set up some stereo mini Radio Station by viking80 · · Score: 1

    Just broadcast it on FM. You can easily set up a lot of radio stations multiple ways.
    1. Buy some 0.5W (thats 1km) stereo mini Radio Station for $15 on ebay and hook it to:
    A. 4GB mp3 player $10. Download one flavour of music here. Repeat, and leave connected to the USB port.
    or
    B. One of many PCI or USB soundcards on your PCs and stream from Muziic, TubeRadio.fm, Grooveshark and Pandora(Only US) on some.
    2. Get some FM radios. Both table, wearable and rack will work.
    3. Enjoy

    This may sound simple and low tech, but a) it is cheap, b) has a familiar user interface (tune knob)

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
  45. I live by this setup by wandazulu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have 3 airport express', one in the bedroom, one in the dining room, and the other in the kitchen. They all work wonderfully and it has replaced our stereo to the point where we simply don't use anything else. That was great, but the thing that kicked it into overdrive was the remote control app; with the iphone or ipod touch, I can control everything wherever I am. Absolutely brilliant setup!

    I assume there are other setups like this, but I don't know of them.

  46. wired player with iPod iface by davygrvy · · Score: 1

    http://www.auraliti.com/
    amp with volume control needed and speakers

    --
    -=[ place .sig here ]=-
  47. Re:FM Broadcaster - simple, cheap, expandable, in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I boosted mine so high I'm picking up Free Bird from my teethe. Is that bad?

  48. headphones + ipod OR PS3 in every room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    having your music on nas is a waste of electricity but if you insist on having it as part of your solution, get Playstation 3 for every room. As long as your nas supports DLNA, you should be able to stream any videos or music to it/them.
    And you don't have to buy brand new playstations - there a lot of them available used or with broken bluray drive - since you don't need the drive for streaming or updating firmware, any ps3 that's not completely fried will do. What's good about ps3 is that you can get a bluetooth remote control - uses radio waves instead of infrared - works through walls. You can also stream content from PC to PS3 using free software - http://code.google.com/p/ps3mediaserver/

  49. AE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about Speakers and a few Airport Express stations?

  50. Why multiroom music? by Ivan+Stepaniuk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This makes sense in an office, or a dental clinic... but I don't understand why would someone want this in a house. What's next? a coffee machine in every room? Multiroom toilets? I think an iPod would do what you need, you can even get two iPods, one for you and another for your wife, she can listen to something else even in the same room!

    --
    My other signature is a car
    1. Re:Why multiroom music? by HycoWhit · · Score: 1

      Different strokes for different folks. Having unified music playing through out the house while entertaining is fantastic. A few years ago when guests would arrive there would be different music playing on the dock than there would be on the deck, and still different music inside the house. Now no matter where you are on the property, everyone hears the same music.

      On a side note--my dentist has personal A/V systems for each patient. Want to watch or listen to something specific to your tastes while in the chair--no problem. It is actually quite nice to have the headphones on, sucking away on the N20 while the dentist does her work!

    2. Re:Why multiroom music? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      What's next? a coffee machine in every room? Multiroom toilets?

      I have a multiroom toilet you insensitive clod.

      --

      Listening to ice melting in stereo drives bats nuts.

  51. Good quality wireless FM transmitter.... by syousef · · Score: 0

    ...with a range of 20-30m or so. One that lets you tune the frequency within a nice large range. Provided it's legal where you live. Then all you need in each room is a standard radio to receive it. If you already have one, total cost is the purchase and running cost of the transmitter. Won't give you optimal quality but it's cheap.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  52. Just turn it to 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just turn the volume on the equipment in the living room up to 11. Unless your house is huge, that should cover all the rooms.

  53. Re:Obligatory Blackadder post by quercus.aeternam · · Score: 1

    Pedant.

  54. 8 speaker system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've setup an 8 speaker multiroom audio system using a 12V switch mode power supply, 1F capacitor, 2x 4 channel car audio amplifiers and 8 ceiling speakers. I feed the car amps using two 4 channel sound cards in a PC and run MPD. For wire I used ordinary house lighting wire ( 1.5 mm2 2C+E ). I was going to use pulseaudio but it's very glitchy ( more glitches than music ) over a wireless network. I am considering changing out the PC and connecting the amps to something else. The electricity bill from having a PC constantly on is expensive. I would like to get some sort of embedded, i.e. 5W or less computer, but finding one with sufficient outputs is difficult.

    I bought everything on ebay ( except for the 12V supply ). Car amps ~90AU ea, speakers ( all 8 ) ~200AU. Roll (100m) wire ~80AU. 12V supply ~80AU. Cap ~70AU

    The sound quality is excellent.

  55. To quote Rita -- Do it on the Radio by wagadog · · Score: 0

    Tune the radio in each room to the same station.

    Duh.

    You can broadcast on your own low-power station if you want to listen to your own CDs, MP3's, etc.

  56. UPnP AV / DLNA to the rescue... soon... maybe by inu_maru · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the upcomming months plenty of companies will start offering DLNA DMR devices (https://coherence.beebits.net/wiki/MediaRenderer).
    You can stream the music from your NAS directly to this devices, as long as you have the software (ushare, twonkymedia, windows 7 has it as 'Play To').
    There are not many devices available as of now, but they will be in the next few months.
    DMR software: foobar2000 (need a plugin), rythmbox (needs a plugin)

    Just an idea, you can google the rest.

    --
    Mu
  57. Re:FM Broadcaster - simple, cheap, expandable, in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea is genial per se, also seen the large number of 'vintage' fm receivers, easyness of finding them... et voila` the all house has sound. But:

    1) Is this legal?
    2) Is it legal when it's "adjusted to boost the range beyond what the FCC allows"
    3) Any idea if this is possible anywhere else than in America without breaking the law? European countries for example?

    Thinking of average european city density I can already figure the neighbours either listening or complaining because their favourite station is disturbed by another (unallowed) signal?

    Otherwise one could think of some unlicensed space (not 2.4G please, too crowded already!), but not sure is there's any, and it strongly depends on which country you are in.

  58. MPD+Pulseaudio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the technical way to make it happen, but I use MPD and have pulseaudio outputs throughout the house, connected through my network. Enable output, disable output, etc.. or open them all and have a out of sync symphony :)

  59. build a cheap FM transmitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I built a cheap FM transmitter from a hobby kit and use existing FM receivers in my house to listen (and have a $5 thrift store boom box to go outside).

  60. requirements? by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe you could clarify your requirements. You say "something which requires a separate amp, speakers and PC in each room and requires a keyboard to control is right out." Which of those things do you have to avoid? You certainly can't avoid speakers. When you say you don't want an amp, do you mean you don't want any amp at all, or you just don't want one the size of a traditional stereo amp? If you don't want any amp at all, then you're going to have to run speaker cables around the house, and that's that. When you say you don't want a separate amp, speakers, and PC in each room, do you really mean you just don't want a PC in each room? What kind of audio quality do you need? If all you want is the ability to play some tunes while you're cleaning the bathroom, then a portable music player would probably do the job.

    1. Re:requirements? by FridgeFreezer · · Score: 1

      My god, a man talking sense rather than rushing off into wacky techno solutions...

      For my 2p's worth I'd ask what's wrong with a £50 laptop off eBay with wireless, and then plug the line out into either some small & cheap PC speakers, or a reasonable amp & speaker combo depending on the required volume / quality.

      --
      There is no music - home taping killed it.
    2. Re:requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - we don't need requirement clarified. He needs a squeezebox(es). If this doesn't fulfill is requirements, his requirements are wrong.

  61. Airfoil by nikanj · · Score: 1

    Check out Airfoil and Airfoil speakers

  62. Soundbridge is same thing for less by fibrewire · · Score: 1

    Sonos is awesome if you have the cash to spend - it even has a pandora interface!

    I recommend the soundbridge http://soundbridge.roku.com/soundbridge/index.php for the working middle class.

    And it definitely has that audiophile look to it.

    1. Re:Soundbridge is same thing for less by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      We have a Soundbridge and I have a mt-daapd server running 24/7. Works well enough and passes the wife test as far as her tolerating its presence in her sewing room. But she has no interest in figuring out how to use it. The user interface works well enough, but it takes more learning than she has any interest in doing. Neither does she listen to the mt-daapd via itunes on her PC although that also works once you get past the obscure interface.

      I play the mt-daapd audio on my Linux machine some days when I'm in the mood via a Python script (persuading Amarok 1.4.9.1 to talk to mt-daapd is like trying to fix the Windows Registry. Possible, but not fun and usually not worth the trouble).

      I also have a streaming audio server running serving up random tracks via http using edna. I listen to that sometimes, but no one else does.

      Maybe in a different house with a different wife the Soundbridge would work brilliantly. It actually can play music from the household network quite reliably.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Soundbridge is same thing for less by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Funny

      And it definitely has that audiophile look to it.

      It looks like it does absolutely nothing usefull but is made of overly expensive materials?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:Soundbridge is same thing for less by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Do you know if there is an easy way to synchronize playback of multiple soundbridge devices using mt-daapd (a.k.a. Firefly Media Server)?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  63. sonos by aachrisg · · Score: 1

    I'd unhesitatingly recommend sonos. Its one of the few electronic products that I own that I am completely satisfied with. It should pass the wife test - the controller is very pleasant to use (though controlling it with the iphone is pretty nice as well), and its hassle free. You don't need to do anything on the computer at all to use it or even to set it up. They have 3 solutions for audio output - a bare module which outputs line-level audio and so requires an amplifier + speakers, a module with a built in amplifier (so just hook it up to speakers), and a system similar to an ipod dock which includes speakers. The whole house control is excellent, allowing you to arbitrarily link any units together for synchronized audio, or play differnet audio on any unit. There integration with internet streaming is excellent, and their rhapsody implementation is particularly good - songs streamed from rhapsody are usable in playlists as if they were on your local nas. You get a free rhapsody streaming demo account with it, and chance are after it expires, you're going to end up subscribing.

  64. E-Mu Pipeline EM5000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could always go for the E-Mu Pipeline transceiver. I use them to connect audio systems in different rooms. The living room is treated as the source, and all other rooms are receivers. There is no noticeable delay (only 5ms or 10ms, depending on how you have them configured), and it's just like having a wire run between the rooms. They cost about $100 each but they really do work well, and couldn't be much simpler.

  65. Re:The "right" answer, rather than the geeky one.. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Assuming that each of the rooms is a proper room with proper walls and a proper door, stereo bleed shouldn't be a problem. But perhaps the submitter should have clarified whether "ambience throughout the house", or "easy access to music from several scattered locations" was the goal.

  66. Re:FM Broadcaster - simple, cheap, expandable, in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have one of the old Sirius Sportsters with a built in FM transmitter and it works around my entire house. In fact, it works in the yard and even the neighbors house and I have five acres. I seem to remember getting a letter in the mail from Sirius referencing some FCC issues so they must have got in trouble with that model ;)

    I know broadcasting Sirius around your house is not your goal but I do know that using a decently powered FM transmitter is very convenient for listening to a specific source of music around the house, in the garage or out at the pool.

    Another option is a set of powered speakers plugged into a cheap HP mini or Asus netbook running Windows or Ubuntu and pulling songs from the NAS. You would have music anywhere you get a wireless signal and a small cheap second laptop for other uses like Hulu or video or doing basically anything else you can use a netbook for all for about $300 + the cost of speakers of your choice.

  67. Hmm I found a good solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought an Apple Airport Express a while back, and this is mainly what I use it for. iTunes can sent its output to one or multiple of them. You plug it in, and plug the speakers into it. It's much smaller and cheaper than a PC (though you need to configure it from the computer).

    The negative side is that you have to be using iTunes - or hack together something else to control it. (There are some open source tools that can send audio to it, but...)

  68. Affordable Whole Home Audio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally use CasaTune, http://www.casatunes.com.

  69. Logitech Squeezebox + FM transmitter works great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Add me to the list of folks who wholeheartedly recommend the Logitech Squeezebox coupled with a decent FM transmitter. You can then have your mp3's or any Internet radio station anywhere you're willing to put an FM radio. If your living room amp doesn't include an FM tuner, simply run the Squeezebox output to an aux input and then feed the tape rec out to the FM transmitter. I do it this way and it works beautifully. My FM transmitter is a Ramsay kit that came pre-assembled.

  70. Hardware mod by jrumney · · Score: 1

    something which requires a separate amp, speakers and PC in each room and requires a keyboard to control is right out.

    If installing an amp and speakers in each room is out of the question, then perhaps the best solution is a hardware mod to your existing amp so the volume goes to 11. That way you'll be able to hear it all over your house, and as a bonus, you can extend it to your neighbours' houses at no additional cost.

  71. Try M&S system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few years ago I installed and setup one of these http://www.linearcorp.com/intercom_music_speakers.php M&S systems, which is now owned by Linear Corp. It uses Cat 5 cable which had been run before my installs. Great sound, cool features, lots of options http://www.linearcorp.com/communications.php, maybe a bit pricey...

  72. Bluetooth receivers? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Anyone have any experience with these?
    I have a pretty decent "wander area" between my headset and the cellphone or computer before voice quality degrades. I haven't tried it with music yet but I'm grabbing an inexpensive receiver that will be plugging into my stereo head unit
    By the time it arrives this thread will probably be a bit dead (where I live delivery takes a few weeks), but can anyone else comment on bluetooth audio transmission for music?

    1. Re:Bluetooth receivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check Sony Ericsson portfolio.

      MBS-200 or MS500 would be my recommendation, but they have also MBR-100,MBS-100 and MBS-400 in their portfolio.

      They are really awesome, I get 65 feet range from the cellphone, and the sound quality if very good for a $30 wireless speaker. You can buy two MBS-200 and use together to double the power, this is what I did.

  73. Easy Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a divorce

  74. Re: by amiga500 · · Score: 1

    Simple, Cost-Effective, Multiroom - pick any two.

  75. Man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some day I hope someone will invent a music player small enough to carry in your pocket...

  76. Squeezebox family FTW! by notanatheist · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sonos = cheese when you factor in cost, flexibility, freedom. Squeezecenter runs on Windows, Mac, Linux. Web interface. Internet radio. Quite affordable. Very flexible. They're so damn good that most people don't own just one. I have four at home and two at work. One is the BoomBox which is perfect for the kitchen or other small rooms. The newest models have touchscreens which I'd love to get my hands on (literally too!!). You can keep a setup small and the sound big when you pair a Squeezebox with a T-amp and a nice set of bookshelf speakers. You could buy a unit with a speaker built in. You can even get a unit without a display and a pretty remote.

    And flexibility in Squeezecenter is unmatched! You can stream FLAC, MP3, OGG, WAV, AAC, or darn near anything else and choose what to transcode and where to do it, server or client side!

    Seriously, Sonos can even come close?

  77. Easy dual-source multiroom by chrylis · · Score: 1

    I bought my first home about a year ago, and even before I moved in I installed a whole-house audio system. I didn't put in the expensive source-selection room controls, but I did install per-room volume controls and in-ceiling speakers in each main room. I have home-run speaker cables to the same spot where my network cables go and an input cable that runs to where I have my receiver in the living room. The speaker distribution panel I have actually has two inputs and per-output switching, so I could send an alternate audio source to some of the rooms.

    My receiver has dual outputs (5.1 plus a separate stereo output), which is important since it can be easy to run at too low an impedance if you have multiple pairs of speakers. This arrangement allows me to send the main channels of a movie or the like everywhere in the house, in case somebody goes to the bathroom or to get popcorn.

    I purchased my cable and wall plates from Monoprice, and my speakers, volume controls, and the distribution unit were from Outdoor Speaker Depot. I was able to do stereo audio to four rooms, with volume in each room, for a little under $500 in materials.

  78. k, cost-effective and muliroom by patiodragon · · Score: 1

    It's called a cable. Look into it.

    Seriously, they come 50 foot lengths with plugs already on them, or add the plugs later. "Y" and male/female adapters are cheap and so are remote volume controls. Goes under floors and inside walls to pass wife test.

    Happy pulling...

  79. Apple is best solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been looking for a solution to this for many years, via HTPC-enabled system. When Apple released the Iphone/Itouch "Remote" application, it solved all my needs. It brings up all your Itunes library, including album art, onto any PC, Iphone or Itouch. The Itunes library will play in any room(s) where you place a $99 Apple Wifi router. The router connects to any powered speaker or receiver system. I have 3 of them around the house, including outdoors. You turn each router music source off or on via any PC, Iphone or Itouch. In effect, this is all free, since I needed 3 wifi access points to cover my house/property anyway.

  80. Re:FM Broadcaster - simple, cheap, expandable, in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "variable potentiometer" is redundant. A potentiometer is by definition 'variable'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiometer

  81. FM Transmitter from EDM Design by kriston · · Score: 1

    Get a portable device with a screen on it.
    Use iPhone/iPod Touch Remote or VNC.
    Then, buy a transmitter from here:
    http://www.edmdesign.com/

    Enjoy your music throughout your house and property.

    --

    Kriston

  82. Russound vs. Elan vs. Crestron vs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think what he is getting at is audio amplifier/matrixes. These are devices which switch a source (i.e. mp3 player or jukebox) to one or many rooms. Right now I use squeezecenter as the most used source, plugged into a Russound. I have had trouble with the best control mechanism. You need a simple control which controls BOTH the source AND the amplifier/matrix. Russound and others have panels for each room. I have tried them, have them all over my house in fact. However, we dont use them. They can control the amplifier, but getting to them to control the source is a nightmare.

    SO, using an itouch is the easiest. IPeng will control squeezecenter, and the Russound can be controlled serially through a number of programs, the easiest I have found i Cinemar connected to a GC-100.

    This said, it is definitely not a bullet proof answer, but it will get to the wife simplicity level using the itouch as the front end.

    Right now, the easiest for "simple to use" is to use an insteon switch for a light, connected to an ISY controller. Set up doubletap for on and off and have it control the squeezecenter and amplifier. In our case it turns on whole house NPR. There is no controlling it, other than on or off. If Wife wants to get into more detail, well, then she has to use a different controller like the itouch, or web browser.

  83. Considering all of the opinions given thus far... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need to be a little more specific. Forget about any stupid audiophile ideas. Being an audiophile is a compulsive disease. I have it.

    You probably want multi-room audio because you anticipate moving around and listening to music, so while sound quality is important, your probably not going to notice every little detail or blemish. Considering the wife factor, how attractive does this system need to be? Do your speakers need to be built in? Do you have an area in your home where you can conspicuously store a lot of equipment? Lastly, how much control do you need? Do you need to have the ability to run several streams of audio at the same time? Does the system need to interface with AV equipment in individual rooms? If you're handy, you can find reasonable in-ceiling or in-wall speakers, wall volume controls, and amplifiers for not a ton of money (though don't count on spending less than a few hundred dollars), and install those yourself. If you're in a one story home, that's definitely the way to go. Go get some good used computers. Use one per audio stream, and use iPod touches or iPhones for remotes. The interface is great. Also, you're not investing in anything that isn't pretty easily upgradable. If you do a good job on you're installation, you're speakers will add value to you're home.

  84. Re:Sonos - it begins and ends with Sonos by enselsharon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sonos is the answer. The problem with all of the lower priced squeezebox-style systems is that they save money on components by not having the decoding hardware inside of them. That is the reason that even with a stock-standard samba share, you STILL need to install their "server software" on the system you store your music on.

    In reality the "server software" is actually doing some or all of the transcoding of the music format because the units themselves don't have the horsepower to do it.

    The sonos systems, OTOH, have the necessary horsepower, so you can just point them at your A/UX based fileserver (or whatever else you want to point them at) and say "just work".

    I've had a 5-zone sonos system for 4+ years now and could not be happier.

  85. My weird solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A "music box" in the basement runs a custom (and very bad) web app which we use as a media player of sorts. That box is connected to a stereo. The stereo outputs to a custom switch box, which has an AVR that talks to the music PC over serial. Using that switch box, from the web app we can switch four sets of speakers on and off. We have speakers in the living room, on the back patio, in the garage and in the basement. It sounds messy, but it works surprisingly well.

  86. A-Bus? by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    If you have cat5 in place (or the means to run it), A-Bus is probably the most cost-effective strategy for whole-house audio. It's not as sexy as something like ZonAudio, but the hardware components are dirt cheap.

    Here's the basic network topology of A-Bus. You feed the left and right audio to a box that's basically a balun. It sends the audio to the A-Bus hub on two pairs of cat5... one pair for left, one pair for right. At the hub, it distributes the source to typically 2 or 4 destinations, and outputs ~24v (48v?) on the remaining pair or two (somehow, it relays remote control signals back... I'm not sure offhand whether it uses one pair for power, and one pair for the remote/control backchannel, or whether it multiplexes it on top of the power wires). In any case, from the hub, the cat5 runs to the keypad-amp. Usually you'd put this someplace convenient, like next to a light switch. The keypad contains a digital amp that draws power from the cat5. A simple keypad has little more than a volume control and power button. The next level up adds a remote control sensor. The highest-end ones can handle 4 sources, and I believe Russound's has a feature that enables you to shut down the entire system from any keypad.

    The speakers themselves connect to the keypad-amp. Additionally, you can run additional speaker wires off the keypad to connect a powered subwoofer and/or a local audio source (like the cable box). Anytime an audio signal is present on the local input, it overrides whatever's being sent by the hub.

    A-Bus is far from perfect. Because it only draws power from the cat5, and draws only half the max allowed by (US) law, you can only get ~5-11 watts RMS per keypad. IMHO, they should have an option to put a typical wall-wart coaxial socket on the local input box and use it to power a beefier amp. Or, if you have 16/4 installed alongside the cat5 in a home run, they could repurpose the 16/4 to carry power (actually, I think Russound did something more or less like that with their new non-ABus liene)

    If you have an amp and speakers in the room already, and just need to distribute the raw preamp-level audio, just use cat5 and baluns.

    For the record, I researched this pretty heavily ~2-3 years ago. From what I remember, the big problem the digital alternatives to A-Bus had was timing. In theory, there's no reason why you couldn't use PoE to drive speakers directly from their own local amp connected via cat5, but unless you give it its own dedicated wires and use noncompressed audio streamed via UDP, you end up with serious timing problems (ie, speakers in two adjacent rooms might be 50-100ms off from each other. It's kind of like the problem lots of people now have with digital TV and adjacent rooms... unless the two TVs are absolutely identical, they won't decode the same signal at exactly the same rate, and the two rooms can be up to a few seconds ahead of or behind each other.

  87. Roku Soundbridge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have used this thing with wifi for years, and it works great.

    http://soundbridge.roku.com/soundbridge/index.php

  88. A-bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my last house I installed a russound 4-room 4-zone A-bus system. The raw kit (distribution hub, control panels and local source overrides) was $600. The system has a hub from which you run cat5 (carrying power & audio) to the control panels and then speaker wire in the walls to the in wall speakers. The only drawback was a limit of 4 amps to the speakers unless you bought (and wired in power for) an inline amplifier.

  89. The wife test! by f3r · · Score: 0, Troll
    Damn it, now I'm 100% sure (no more doubts) that there is absolutely no woman reading slashdot. I would say more, I can conclude with several points:

    1) no woman reading slashdot (I'm male, but still, it is veeery long ago that I didn't hear something so reactionary...haha..."the wife test"...incredible)

    2a) how old are you guys? 16? are you still fixed in the penis age?

    else

    2b) you are older and married, but you see your wife doing her things and you can only imagine that she comes from another planet. You cannot understand why she would never have one amplifier per room, or everything full of computers (with command-line linux, of course). I.e. you married someone you have nothing in common with.

    3) this situation is so amazingly common and extended, that none of you even detect anything strange in the sentence "the wife test"!! my god..

    PS: Just for fun, in gypsy language (at least in spanish gypsies) there is something called "the handkerchief test". It is done when a young gypsy girl is to married to a gypsy guy, and consists in the elder women going with the girl to a room, opening her legs, and sticking the handkerchief into her pussy. If it gets bled, she's virgin. Otherwise she's a "used product" and cannot get married.

  90. Re:The "right" answer, rather than the geeky one.. by ogdenk · · Score: 1

    Chances are that someone trying to do this on a small budget doesn't have sound proof rooms and high-end speakers. Just a thought. They might be doing good to have additional insulation in the rooms, they may not even have that.

    I get annoyed with stereo bleed in my house due to this. For the record, just because people are in the tech industry doesn't mean we have nicely built homes. Most don't even own a home. A lot of us are fairly poor and try to do cool things scrounging through others' discarded "crap".

  91. pulseaudio ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://jackflapb.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/howto-bluetooth-multi-room-sound-system-in-ubuntu/

  92. get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get a walkman, a wogbox or a proper stereo an mount it on a cart.

  93. Cheap Labor + Recession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hire a Mexican to follow you around the house with a boom box.

  94. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One up for iTunes/Airtunes. If you only want one song playing in multiple rooms and are happy to control it via a PC/iPhone, this seriously is a great solution for next to nothing.

  95. XBMC on xboxes networked to your NAS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about plugging an old xbox (what? $20 per unit these days?), installing xbmc (another $20 for softmod equipment), and then using them to drive powered speakers ($no idea). You can then use the living room one to generate music for the existing amp, and upgrade amps in other rooms where you want improved quality. Of course, without a TV you'd have to control the xboxs with another device. I recommend any web browser or even one of the iPhone/iPod touch based interfaces available.

  96. fm transmitter+power converter,20-40 dollars by skoony · · Score: 0

    as stated in other posts an fm transmitter is the way to go. check in the automotive electronic accesseries section.you'll need the xmitter,and a power adapter.(12 volt input to 3 volts for the xmitter-typical) instead get a power adapter for home 120 or 220 volt to the xmitters power requirment. plug in to line out or headphone jack.there you go. first seen them here in the states when people coupled them to there single walkmen like cd players to listen to there cd's in cars without cd radios. the ones i've seen advertised for home use may have more xmitting power but are way overpriced. unless you have a large home the ones made for automotive use are fine. i have 2 xmitter regards.

  97. Er, laptop? by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Just bring your laptop and small but great sounding portable speakers into whatever room you want to listen to music in?

    That's what we have done for oh, 10 years? Works fine...

    Dunno why people always have to over-complicate problems.

  98. Just run speaker wire through the walls. by argent · · Score: 1

    I haven't looked at all the options listed here, but they all seem pretty geeky. What's wrong with just running speaker wire through the walls? Having to walk twenty feet to change what's playing doesn't seem like much of a hardship to me.

  99. Apple TV by fa4744 · · Score: 1

    I have my Apple TV connected to my tv and a panasonic, PT-sc760, surround system. The Panasonic system has a wireless receiver, SH-FX85 that I have in the kitchen. I can listen to my iTunes library or the ballgame in the kitchen. The only downside is that I have to have the tv on and the living room setup turned on to listen in the kitchen. Overall though, it's a relatively inexpensive way to get sound in multiple rooms and the functionality I want (music and video through itunes).

  100. Squeezebox Touch? by jzimmer · · Score: 1

    Hi, I'm going to get a LogiTech Squeezebox Touch when it gets available. For multiroom, you can combine it with the other squeezebox models, if you like (e.g., the 'boom' with builtin speakers). cheers jzimmer

  101. Re:FM Broadcaster - simple, cheap, expandable, in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I can also vouch for the CCrane FM "Whole House" transmitter. Works great for us since we already have a decent radio in every room anyway. As it costs only ~$80US its really on the cheap side, requires no extra wiring and can be set up to use ANY FM band frequency (Not just 2-5 different preset frequency like most whole-house transmitter).

    Their website also tracks signal strength for most US & Europe stations so it's easy to find a frequency "Hole" to transmit to.

  102. What's the name of that home automation suite..? by RichiH · · Score: 1

    A good year ago there was this _awesome_ tech demo of video & audio that followed you around the house, remotes which worked in 3D, lighting that went off when you left the house etc etc etc...

    I have been looking for this stuff for ages, but as I can't seem to remember the name, I have been unable to find it again... Any help?

  103. Humbug! by ascari · · Score: 1

    When I was a lad we didn't have any of your fancy pants electronics. If we wanted cheap multiroom audio we tore down the drywall.

  104. tips for tunefull tightwads by JackSpratts · · Score: 1

    purchase used pcs from auctions, tagsales, craigslist or your local equivalent. preferably horizontal workstations running xp ($30 each). they fit well under receivers. they will wreak havoc with analog am but the world is migrating to digital ota radio so this problem is receding. pick up a small amp and speakers from same (again some $30). repeat per room. finally network them with either a wi-fi based router or simply clone your media onto outboard drives. either way you can do each room for under $200 and that's with no audio equipment in those rooms now. in rooms that already have systems this solution will be much cheaper. alternately you can pick up western digital's media player. it's a stand alone codec box that streams both music and movies from outboard storage and goes for around $100. more expensive but you get your hd-tv along with your tunes. plays downloaded content well. you know, for all those romantic hi-def linux how-tos wives clamor for on friday nights. makes them purr like a penguin.

    - js.

  105. Airport Express by k2r · · Score: 1

    We have 5 Apple Airport Express Basestations and our Macs, one AE is connected to the main WiFi-Router by Ethernet and acts as roaming Base. We do use our iPhones as remote and stream from our MacBooks. Works flawlessly, the only thing missing is a way to tune the accoustical delay in the connecting rooms, but that's just nitpicking.
    There are even free tools to stream music to the AE but since we really like iTunes and have a lot of Music in it, I didn't really try them.

  106. HTD multiroom system by Big+Boss · · Score: 1

    I'm using the multiroom audio system from HTD and it works quite well. Much less expensive than the other similar products and works well. The whole setup was about $2000 USD, a little pricey, but compared to the other products out there it looks really cheap. The control pads pass IR back to the base so you can control the devices at the head end, you can also wire sources from the control pads. I plug an iPod into a control panel and start it, then any room in the house can listen to it.

    The downside is it's all hardwired, so you need to be able to get wires to the proper locations. The control pads need Cat5, speaker wires go from the amp to the speakers directly. The system can send up to 8 sources to 6 zones. Each zone can choose what source it wants to listen to.

    I've seen wireless and powerline based systems, but the reviews online didn't seem very good. The HTD system works very well for me. I'm also using their in-ceiling speakers and they sound quite good.

  107. Re:The "right" answer, rather than the geeky one.. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    Don't assume.

    I have a nice living room stereo. It's useless when I'm cooking, because the speakers are pointed the wrong way, and ambient noise of the onions hitting hot oil. It's also useless in my bedroom-- where I do most of my programming, because the speakers are pointed the wrong way, and there's a wall and a door in between.It would be nice if I could listen to a single repository of music throughout my small home, regardless of what room I need to be in. If I ever put something like that in, I'll probably end up with Apple airports.

    Don't confuse that need for "ambient music everywhere".

  108. Sony Ericsson has wireless portfolio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sony Ericsson has a BT based system, typically you use your mobile phone as the media server, but with bluetooth in your home computer, by default or with a $20 dongle you have choose to place the audio in any room.

    The MBR-100 is for connection to your audio system,
    MBS-100 or MBS-200 is portable speakers with buit in battery and connects wirelessly to phone/computer
    You have use 2 MBS-200 together and thus you get left and right in each, with a very powerful sound. MBS-400 is a economy pack with both in one.
    They have also an MS500 which is even cheaper and more portable than the others. MBS-200 is around $40.

    I have most of these components and they solves the music in every room problem for me, and you can also bring them with you.

  109. Use Old Hardware by winphreak · · Score: 1

    Surely you have a few old boomboxes laying around?

    Check out this post, should be an... inpromptu solution.

    http://blogs.oreilly.com/digitalmedia/2007/07/stupid-wifi-speaker-tricks.html

    --
    "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
  110. Re:iTunes + Airport Express - Passes the wife test by chiefscienceofficer · · Score: 1

    I can confirm that the remote application running on either my wife's iPhone or on an iPod touch passes the wife test. My wife loves to show off to her friends how she can now access her extensive music collection. All the systems I looked at had steep learning curves for operation. My wife picked up the remote app and within a few days was happily choosing her own music.

  111. Re:Sonos - it begins and ends with Sonos by CDPS · · Score: 1

    The problem with all of the lower priced squeezebox-style systems is that they save money on components by not having the decoding hardware inside of them.

    Absolutely incorrect! The Squeeze units decode most common formats in hardware--e.g., MP3 and FLAC. One advantage of the server-based format is that the server can transcode unsupported formats or bitrates, etc., so that you can play any format on them if need be.

  112. Definitely Squeezebox by Wee · · Score: 1

    I have a Squeezebox Duet. Beyond easy to set up. Runs on my dinky little linux server that's connected to a NAS. I love the remote (you can ssh into it!) and the wife is 100% on board.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  113. get an ipod by j1mmy · · Score: 1

    now you're got music in an infinite number of rooms

  114. My simple wired system by raftereefer2 · · Score: 1
    I have a system that I love, which cost about $100 worth of wire to link existing systems. Here's how it works:

    1. I already had a good computer with great audio as part of the recording studio in my basement.

    2. The studio's firewire audio interface outputs to an 8-channel Behringer headphone distribution amp (and another headphone amp for actual headphones).

    3. Nearly every room in the house already had a stereo or computer sound system.

    4. I bought long cheap headphone extension cables from yourcablestore.com. Most were 25 to 100 feet long and my total was under $100.

    5. I ran the cables from the headphone distribution amp to each room's sound system. Since computer speaker systems typically use 1/8" stereo headphone connectors, it all plugged together without any adaptation.

    6. Now when Pandora is playing in the studio, any room of the house can choose that source (the wire from the studio) and be on the house "channel."

    7. Using a netbook, I can RDP to the studio computer and control the music wirelessly. I also added an RF remote (ATI Remote Wonder) so I can use that to skip/pause songs in Winamp all over the house.

    This system works well for us. There aren't the latency issues you find in network-based distribution, so all the rooms are in sync. Maybe not in perfect phase, but I can't tell while roaming around cleaning. I've played with wiring in different sources, so for example we can listen to the Satellite or an ipod upstairs on the desk. I've ran video out to the projector in the theater so one wall of the house can enjoy milkdrop visualizations. All fun geeky ways to pass the time, but ultimately it's a fairly simple system that even the less geeky inhabitants can use.

    It's fun to crank the whole place up at once; many watts of power and countless speakers at my command!

  115. Good low cost wireless speakers by bjr · · Score: 1

    Wireless (digital 900Mhz) speakers from Cables Unlimited (available at Newegg) are simple and work well enough to satisfy many listeners. I use 4 of them with a server running the Squeezebox Server (free) and the squeezeslave application to get whole house audio.

  116. Re:Sonos - it begins and ends with Sonos by alext · · Score: 1

    (redundant bit) As someone else has pointed out, this is incorrect - the Squeezebox players decode FLAC, MP3 etc. directly from the stream.

    (non-redundant bit) And the Squeezebox Server is a very useful central controller for setting up plugins, playlists etc.

    I guess the Sonos players can also synch to each other tightly so that playing the same thing in multiple rooms works nicely? The physical Squeezebox players do, but the version you might run on a PC (Squeezeslave) doesn't as far as I know.

    And if you're paying in GBP, you'll probably be interested in the BBC iPlayer plugin which is very convenient. No neat Spotify integration yet but it's on the cards.

  117. Simple solution with PC-type speakers by DeadGenetic · · Score: 1
    I bought a 4-way "microphone amplifier" (like this).

    With some 1/4" to 3.5 mm adapters and 3.5 mm cable, you can run a signal to 4 PC speaker systems. The individual gain controls for each line out allow you to compensate for the specific loss in each line due to varying cable lengths.

    If you buy the right speaker systems, they could also have local aux in jacks in case you want to listen to an ipod or something. You might want to check whether it replaces or is layered onto the main input, though.

  118. LAN / Wifi client by Ignatius · · Score: 1

    If you happen to have a TV around, then your best option would be a cheap Media LAN client like the Zyxel DMA-1000 (100 Euros - not in any way afiliated - just a happy customer). There are also Wireless options and you can play from USB sick oder drive.

  119. AirPort Express by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

    This works pretty well.

    I've got an "AirPort Express" in 3 rooms. They just plug into the mains. A 3.5mm lead connects to your hifi.

    The music is on a hard drive plugged into an inexpensive computer.

    A second hand first-gen iPod touch acts as a wi-fi remote control, with the free 'Remote' app.

    With the iPod, finding music to play is dead easy. And I can use it to control which rooms it plays in.

    Assuming the original poster already has a computer, the costs would be:
    AirPort Express, £79. (multiply cost by number required) http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MB321B/A/AirPort-Express-AirTunes
    iPod touch (refurb) £119 http://store.apple.com/uk/product/FB528BT/A

    --
    "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
  120. Cheaper Option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a very inexpensive device known as the radio.

    I can control the volume in every room - plus have a wide variety of musical choices. One room can be listening to rock, another country, another pop - tec.

    Works great!

  121. I choosed Russound by toesterdahl · · Score: 1

    I choosed Russound since it does one thing and does it fairly well. The biggest limitation is probably that it is limited to 6 amplified zones; another one beeing that the unit comes up front with a 12 channel amplifier and a corresponding power consumption. The future solution I see in a industry standard real-time bus for all AV equipment; think about the technology to replace HDMI but able to distribute AV to a number of room at distances up to some 100 meters. Biggest technical hurdle would be synchronization. Conventional networking technologies from the PC Lan space (Ethernet, Bluetooth) is not up for the task since they rely on buffering and for this application syncronization is an absolute must.

  122. E-MU Pipeline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't purchased any of these yet, but I've been wondering the same thing as you, and the E-MU Systems Pipeline looks really interesting.

  123. Here is my solution by keithpreston · · Score: 1

    Here is a fairly cheap solution
    1 - Carvin DCM 1204 Amp (4 channels, 300 watts a channel)
    16 - Monoprice 8" in ceiling speakers (Four per channel, 2 groups in series of 2 parallel speakers (8 ohm load)
    1 - Onkyo tx-607
    7 - Monoprice 8" in-ceiling speakers.
    About $2000 with 12awg speaker wire.
    I have a split level house and a pool in the back yard. I ran Coaxial Cable (with RCA ends) from my computer to my coat closet where the Carvin Amp is located (along with a 20 amp outlet) so I drive the system with mostly pandora, but there is no reason an ipod or such could drive it. It powers 4 zones (Upstairs, Kitchen/Dining Room, Basement, and outside) all with plenty of power. It is only a single source system, but I can see much of a need driving different rooms with different music. The onkyo is in my Home Theater on my main level. It also has coax run from it to the Carvin so I can have both system driven by the computer at the same time. I find it works very well, the in-ceiling speakers are very wife approved and are a decent trade off. My friends all like the system and it is very nice to have music through out the house for cleaning, parties, etc...

  124. Audio with no source.....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to reproduce music in rooms where there is no amp or speakers, without putting in amp or speakers..... What about surfing the net using trees? I think this defies logic and physics. For every zone, you need an amp and speakers.

  125. My solution by Eil · · Score: 1

    My solution: $20

    - 1x second-hand 2GB MP3 player (free to me, but may cost up to $20 new)
    - 1x pair of headphones that I already owned

    The best part is that I can even go OUTSIDE with it, and the music is still crystal clear everywhere I go. Better yet, each person occupying the house can have their own multiroom audio configuration operating at the same time with no interference. I listen to music, podcasts, radio stations, whatever, and can even take the whole experience with me when I travel.

    Man, they should have invented this DECADES ago.

  126. cheap line level distribution amp + cat5 by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    $50 at radio shack. If you already have phone lines you can use them. Replace the rj11s with rca. Voila! Then just get some amplified computer speakers and plug them in.

  127. Why not just use... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Headphones and an Ipod. It'll work anywhere in the house and automatically roams with you.

    Seriously though I've got a friend who put Cat-6 cables and network ports in his house. He has made an audio to network cable and uses it to run audio through the network cables in his house...

  128. if you dont use your telephone lines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you don't use land lines, already existing telephone lines can be used to send audio to almost any room in your house and since most houses are wired for two phones you generally can get stereo sound.
    An issue with using these lines is noise, mostly from AC so a really nasty 60 hz hum. So how do the phone company and power companies share?
    they use differentially encoded signals of course. Voltage spikes in the positive side of the signal are also negative in the negative side (overly simplified but you get the point). So when you put both sides of the signal into an op amp or transformer (almost all amplifiers perform this operation on the input signal) you get a nice clean signal. My brother and I used this technique to put audio throughout his house, for about $50 for 5 rooms. The end server was just a computer connected to the net running an audio server or something similar to control what is played. The remotes were then really opened. it could be a psp, nintendo wii, ps3, laptop, smart phone, or pda.
    http://www.thatcorp.com/1570_Low-Noise_Differential_Audio_Preamplifier_IC.html

  129. Phase matters if the rooms are within earshot.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't have a delay of even a few milliseconds without screwing up the phase. Simplified, when the speaker cone goes "out" in one room, you need the speaker cone to go "out" in the other room - pressure up everywhere - if you screw up and one is delayed, then one will push, the other will pull, cancelling out between them, massively screwing up the sound in any area where you are exposed to more than one speaker...

    If you think anything involving a network and a sound card is going to have sub millisecond latency, you are more optimistic than I would be...

    Simple solution: Amplifiers, like a 4 channel (A speakers B speakers) for each 2 rooms. Line level wires from the source. Control it at the source. Copper. RCA plugs. Cheap, easy.

  130. More Volume? by zztong · · Score: 1

    I guess turning up the volume is out of the question? :)

  131. 70 Volt Systems by slewfo0t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Running multi-room audio can be challenging. Some things to consider... a typical amplifier will only work at 8 or 4 ohms per channel. This means you can only run 1 or 2 speakers on each channel before you run into trouble and put too much load on your amplifier. That being said, consider a 70v amplifier and speakers. A 70v system allows you to run multiple speakers from one amplifier and select the speaker wattage at the speaker. you still need to do the math to make sure you don't go over the amplifiers rating, but this is how restaurants and grocery stores do it. Since the feed signal is always at 70v, the speakers can be run in series. The speakers have a small transformer on them to select the wattage for each one. You can also get a volume control that does the same thing. One thing to note, Audio quality can suffer with a 70v system, but the trade off is long speaker runs in series and wattage selectable speakers. TOA makes a good 70v amplifier as does Peavey. Here is a site to get you started... http://www.allprosound.com/catalog/viewproducts~m~Amplifiers~s~70-Volt-Power-Amplifiers~fsubcatid~9.htm

  132. Some ideas on getting sound through out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a similar situation in my basement. I had one amp and multiple speakers of the same impedance. But they were different sizes and wattages. What did not help me was that all my rooms varied in size. I was streaming my audio from my PC upstairs using a Linksys media adapter and car head rest display that I rigged up on my rack. (actually looks pretty sweet)

    But the problem was trying to get all rooms to be the right volume; the bigger rooms needed to be louder and the smaller rooms needed to be lower. So what I ended up doing was daisy chaining my pre-amps together using the tape deck input / outputs So that I could have all the pre-amps play a single source and then used each individual volume knob to adjust the sound in each area. Works really well and the great part is that I only have a need for one big stack of equipment which hides inside a computer rack in the corner with a nice plexi-glass front door. Just and idea if you need a way to hide things. Also the vented shelves help with removing the heat from the cabinet.

    If you are not looking for full sound quality and more of like a back ground music; you could just purchase a few sets of small indoor /outdoor speakers and chain them all together and just run speaker wire through out the house. Just make sure that you don't go under the minimum impedance. If you receiver is 8 ohms as you are wiring in series the ohm load will continue to increase. But at some point your amp will not be able to put out enough sound as the resistance goes up. What ever you do; do not wire in parallel because this would drops the ohm load down below the minimum tolerance and this is when you can blow up the amplifier. You may be able to do a combination of series and parallel but you would need to do some serious homework.

    http://www.termpro.com/articles/spkrz.html

    That link will explain further. I however like the idea of separate amps and different size speakers based on the size of the room I am filling. But everyone has different ideas of what they want.

    Good luck!
    Ed

  133. Sonos by fulldecent · · Score: 1

    Get Sonos.

    There are amped and un-amped versions. Use their branded remote or the Desktop/iPhone/iPod app. 100% recommend.

    Here is a light info PDF http://hometheater4you.com/sonos.pdf -- or go to the website.

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  134. Why not a mac? by GWBasic · · Score: 1

    So, honestly, why not just use a Mac Mini or an inexpensive Mac laptop with iTunes? The audio quality is excellent, it's easy-to-use, and you have a more appliance-like experience with the remote control. The new versions of iTunes support some form of magic synchronization, so you can effectively have a distributed backup system as well.

  135. Sonos Rocks by RebornData · · Score: 1

    It definitely is a luxury system (and probably not within the OP's budget), but it has some refinements that really make a difference:

    1. When you have multiple units, the entire network acts as a single, seamless system. You can play different music on each unit, or a tie group of units into a "zone" that plays the same music (with centrally controlled volume level), with the music perfectly in sync between units (this is technically quite difficult to do). I'm not aware of any other system that does this...
    2. The Sonos units form a wireless mesh network, so you don't have to have perfect wireless coverage everywhere you put a unit, as long as each unit is within range of another. This is very helpful in the large houses of the people who can afford these things. One unit does need to be hardwired.
    3. The remote is very well done. Having an iPhone remote is great if everyone in the house carries one, but that's rarely the case.
    4. It plays very well with NASs. It can read your iTunes playlists, and because there's no local storage it's one less music repository to sync and maintain.
    5. Sound quality is very good. They handle lossless formats, and the internal amps are decent.

    Anyway, it's a fantastic system if you've got the money to burn.

  136. Wireless headphones. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Plug the base to your sound system, move around your home as needed, the wife will not even know you are listetning to your favourite music, unless she wants to talk to you, but you can now ignore her as usual having a perfectly acceptable excuse over your ears.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  137. Keep It Simple by FreekyGeek · · Score: 1

    My Method:

    1) Get an ipod.
    2) Get an iPod-capable "boom box" for each room. There are some out there with excellent sound that don't cost much.
    3) Bring your ipod from room to room.

    Cheap, no frills, no high tech, no wires, no headaches, no hassle.