Audiophiles hifi appreciation thread old and new

Depends what you're selling.

I'm not proposing an all-in-one storage + controller + DAC, etc... just a media streamer, pulling in from everywhere and with a web app for a remote control.

^^ I'm currently backing up 350GB worth of photos to dropbox, upload time is about 10hrs. I wouldn't even consider this a year ago, but with 100mbit fibre and 1tb data at dropbox, why wouldn't I

Makes even more sense for music collections... medium sized files that seldom change once saved. Only changes to a collection are to add music, or remove dupes (where new versions trump quality of an old version, i.e. a "20th anniversary remaster including bonus tracks).

It's basically an append file system... very few accesses at all. And most listening habits will touch a small selection of the files most of the time (the equivalent to the box of frequently played LPs most vinyl lovers leave next to their record player). That virtual LP box is the local cache.

As in: "if GPM can cast to sonos hardware on the LAN, maybe your proposed box could do so also, to leverage existing h/w".

Is that possible? To install custom software on the Sonos Controller?

I think it's not, not without reverse engineering the firmware. But even then... what if the Sonos doesn't exist in a few years? Most of the Squeezebox stuff is end-of-life so it's not infeasible.

I think building a super simple media server on commodity hardware makes for a better future.

We are at cross purposes here.

Google play music app, on android, has a button that allows you to "cast" the music that it is playing to one of:

1. Connected Bluetooth devices.
   
2. Chromecast devices on the LAN
   
3. Sonos players on the LAN
   
   

If you make your box and some controller software for it, it'd be cool if, as well as playing through its DAC or digital output, it could "cast" to a SONOS player, so that you get multiroom playback from any SONOS kit you already own.

It's not cross-purposes... I don't want my phone/tablet "casting" anything. It means the phone is getting involved and being a middle-man to the streaming. It affects local bandwidth, reliability (we're suddenly WiFi'ing an extra two times), performance (casts are encrypted), and drains the device battery.

The phone/tablet should be a remote only... to only control and nothing else. The music does not need, nay should not, stream via the remote.

The software I'm proposing is an aggregator of streaming services and locally stored files and cloud stored files, and has a web app or mobile app as remote control.

For those who don't have a Sonos... the solution I've proposed would be lower than £100 to buy. And if you do have a Sonos, then you could connect this box to it and if you want to cast it everywhere that would be up to you.

Don't cast from the remote; use the remote to tell the box to cast to SONOS.

The reason for this is purely that SONOS boxes either a) have no inputs or b) have analogue line in inputs.

But hey, whatever, it's an edge case.

Think I get it now - you want to build a funnel that gathers all streaming services and your own music files and pushes it through a device that acts as the controller. All "branded" services become invisible so to the end user it's just a music library.

This controller device can be connected to anything with inputs (digi/analogue) to get sound out.
Control whats coming out via app (that is simply talking to controller). Correct?
If so, I'll buy now.

Do yous even DLNA bros?

You guys are basically discussing convenience, right?

I find that with my simple wifitunes system set to random play, my listening experience degrades due to not having to make any choices about what to hear next. Almost all my files are uploaded from hard copies at 320 kbps, maybe 30-40 songs were purchased through Itunes. When I decide to play either a CD or LP, it changes my focus, even if I'm not sitting still and just listening.

If it gets any more convenient I'll end up completely disassociating from the music.

A fair point.

Indeed. I've found that going from iTunes to Spotify has shifted my attitude to music a lot. I used to have a very clear idea of my finding the last say 3 months, now it's just a blur.

The main gripe I have with Spotify is that it's based around search, and my mind doesn't work that way. I really struggle to remember names, numbers, etc, but it does a lot better with time and visuals. So my records I can find in a second, as I know it's the 3rd crate and a red cover with some yellow on in. In iTunes I solved it with a smart playlist holding everything in the order I added it

Pretty much that.

You wouldn't need anything beyond the cheap little box, but you could opt to customise your set up for your needs (i.e. with NAS, or with cloud storage, or with a subscription service, etc).

But it all looks and feels like a simple single interface to a world of music, and it just plays the best quality you have access to, with no limits on the size of collection, etc.

I presume you mean 96k and I'm not sure of all your music would require that sample rate anyway.

I meant 92k as in ~92,000 FLACs.

It is greater that Google Play supports (20k, and they transcode down to MP3), and it is greater than Sonos support (via NAS storage, 65k files).

And you wouldn't have to use cloud storage, use a NAS if you want. Back in 2002 I was already listening to my music whilst in Seattle (when I went there on business). You could stream this from home too, as that is what I've done. My argument is more that cloud storage in a few years will essentially be free... so why spend a couple of grand building a RAID-6 NAS at home?

As for "those that jump to Spotify, et al"... not all albums are getting CD release, some are web only iTunes specials, etc, and no-one has a collection of everything. Spotify, Google and the like provide a service that is a great gap-filler and may eventually be the only way to access some music (just like Netflix creates original TV, why wouldn't Spotify sponsor a Beck album exclusively to get access to subscribers?).

I'm only theorising that we'd want access everywhere, lossless, and to fill gaps in our collection prior to us having lossless. That we'd want party playlists without needing to own the files, but if we owned a file it should play that first (if it's higher quality).

BTW, been sent a link via Twitter DM... someone else has had precisely the same thought as me, except a couple of months ago:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/590-future-hifi/

He explains it better too.

Excellent link. That's pretty much it, well, for my needs. It it all about lossless, and access everywhere.

Currently I have a phone (HTC one M7) full of flac files (and a fiio external amp connected with an OTG cable...)
I then manually change what's on the phone every few weeks - bit of a hassle but at least it's HQ and what I want.

But I have duplicates on my mac, and then duplicates of those files backed up on HD and Dropbox.... and then some other random duplicates as lossy 320kbps in various iTunes or Google Play libraries. Must clean everything out and hopefully soon can simplify it all.

We've covered that.

On a related theme, Microsoft have just announced that Office 365 users will get unlimited OneDrive space.

If it truly is unlimited then £80 a year or so for cloud drives plus Office is pretty cheap if you want to upload a few TB of FLACs.

I have all (nearly) my music on an external HDD. I want something that goes between the HDD and ANY system with a line in (stereo, car, etc) to allow me to select albums.
My HDD is bigger than ipods (although I do use itunes and ipods), so how can i just attach a screen/interface?

Bet they're covered with t's and c's up to their ears

keen. where abouts are you?

@Kboy - I can relate. I often find myself with spotify search open on phone, standing in front of my cd/record/itunes collections scanning for artists I like to jog my own memory as to what to search for. Otherwise I end up just going blank with existential terror at the sheer vastness of th esearch potential. That or listening to the same two dozen playlists I've had saved offline for the last year and a half.

*ignore me, wrong place

Yep, this is a big issue for me to. Although google's explorer function is good for finding new stuff and the fact that it has my library allows me to browse NY historic collection.

But, it isn't perfect. Curation and search could be so much better.

Pervasive voice control would be helpful, so whenever I hear something I like I could tag it as "good" and then I could search by asking for "that album I listened to loads last summer that is quote rocky but with an electronic feel". Or " something upbeat".

Intelligent (I.e. based in my likes and dislikes and history and library) voice activated fuzzy searching.