Re: Digital Distribution

Andrew wrote:
> I started down that route with the AT. We currently
> have one in the family room and one in the bedroom.
> My original plan for the living room was a 3rd AT but
> no longer, unfortunately. (Unless of course someone
> has one to sell for a reasonable cost :)  There is no
> way I am paying as much for a used AT on ebay as i did
> for a new one 3 years ago.)
>
> I could switch over to another player, but I would
> prefer sticking to 1 type and I am not ready to give
> up  my ATs.  Our neighbors just bought a squeeze box
> on my recommendation and while it has its advantages
> (such as being available), I sill prefer the AT.
>
> For now, the point to point digital balun looks like
> the most cost effective solution.

I guess it all depends on whether or not you're happy just sending a
digital signal from one room to the other.  Where are you getting the
digital source to send?  Is it an extra output from a receiver that
will need to be left on?  There's only one output on the AT and
presumably that's already being used by the system nearby the existing
AT, right?  Also, you will (obviously) not have any local control of
the remote AT unless you happen to have a web browser or something in
the remote room.

If you _do_ have a remote web browser, then there's another option
which I'm in the process of setting up in my office tonight.  I think I
previously mentioned on this list that I have all of my mp3 files on a
LinkStation.  I recently also set up mt-daapd on the LinkStation, so it
serves up not only mp3 files over SMB (aka Windows file sharing) but is
now also an iTunes "server".

The problem I've always had in my office before is that I use one of
three machines at any given time:  PC (rarely, but where music was
hosted before the LinkStation), Mac (usually) or Laptop (for work).  I
could, in theory, play music through iTunes on any of these three
machines, but it wasn't possible (or convenient) to connect all three
systems to the stereo at the other end of the room.  Plus, I hate the
idea of connecting the PC output to the stereo since if the stereo
isn't on, you get no audio feedback at all of system functions (and
when it is on, you get blasted from the stereo speakers).

This evening, I picked up an Apple Airport Express, which does two
things for me.  One, it restores wireless coverage to my office (since
my previous base station was relocated to the other end of the house),
and two, it has an audio output (digital and analog).  Now, whichever
of the three computers is on can run iTunes, and send music (via
AirTunes functionality, as it seems to be called) to the Airport
Express and out to the stereo.  The nice thing is that I still system
sounds from the local system speaker, and yet whichever machine I
happen to be using can "play" music that gets routed directly (and
digitally) to my stereo and speakers that are much better than anything
on my desk.

The AudioTron remains in the family room in our entertainment center,
and I (shortly) will finally have a high quality playback option in my
office that works with multiple computers but with a high-quality
signal path to my stereo (and thus not involving any computer audio
circuitry whatsoever).

For another computer in the house that plays back music using iTunes
through local computer speakers, I just ordered what appears to be a
great bargain (while it lasts):  Altec Lansing XA 3021 speaker system.
List price was over $60, and even at Amazon they're $34.  Buy.com,
however, is blowing them out for $20, with FREE shipping!  Go figure.
The reviews seem mostly positive so check them out if you're looking
for a great deal...
<http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10322733&loc=101>

On the topic of mp3 data rates, I wonder if anyone has ever considered
that there could be a significant variance in using difference encoders
(and as some have noted, even different settings used for LAME)?  It's
entirely possible, IMO, that 160kbps or 192kbps in a "good" encoder
could beat 256kbps in a different (I don't want to say "lame", but you
get the idea) encoder.  Therefore, besides the whole ABX double-blind
discussion, it sounds a bit misleading to make a generalization like
"everything shy of 320kbps mp3 sucks" (or something like that).

If one's storage is unlimited, and portability isn't a concern, then it
seems you can rip with a high rate.  However, if storage size is
important and/or you want to take music with you (and as much as
possible in a limited device) then lower rates can be quite helpful.  I
guess what this leads up to is that what some of us really want is a
good lossless and an easy way to re-rip to whatever other rate(s) we
need/want.  Too bad the AT will never support lossless, and too bad
Apple Lossless seems to be proprietary (meaning, I believe, that it is
likely impossible to transcode a collection from Apple Lossless to MP3
-- unless iTunes gives you a way to do that somehow).

OK, enough rambling for tonight.  I gotta get this new Airport Express
working in my office.  Much cheaper (and easier to control from across
the room) than a second AT.  :-)
--Steve