XXHighEnd

I am trying to set up XX to access music on another server during playback in minimised o/s. No problem in full o/s but in minimised o/s I cannot see the server. I have the following settings

All Services Off / Keep LAN - Not Persist

With the above settings I can access the internet in minimised o/s but I cannot "see" any other servers on the network.

Help would be appreciated.

Cheers

Paul

Paul,

Look at this more rigidly;
Take for the most easy/direct example a direct connection from PC to PC (this needs a crossed Ethernet cable). Now no matter how or what you need to make your drives on the "other server" shared and make them seeable in Explorer on the Audio PC. This all works on the side of XXHighEnd. Which ...

Does not mean it works with your PC knowledge etc. to set up sharable drives in the fashion needed. So this is quite another matter, and longer ago I prepared some Tutorial for it but it is not finished (and no time to do that really).
Otoh, you should have done this correctly already, because you can see them in Normal OS.

Key is :
You don't need anything special for "detecting" shares etc., and just using Exporer on the Audio PC is fine enough.
One thing : I think it can happen (with the very first time only) that in MinOS your Network Adapter is shut off. If that is the case it only needs a "Try to solve the problem" (similar) and Windows will switch it on.

Last thing to avoid the unknown : I think I never tried it through a router etc., and that can matter. So use that direct connection to get it going.

If you think you are doing all correctly already then I don't know what the problem is, but it shouldn't be about shut off services etc. by XXHighEnd (the ones needed will stay).

Oh, did you ever assign driver letters to the shares you see on the Audio PC when in Normal OS ? That would be necessary I think ...

Peter

Hi Peter - not sure what I did but it is working now and it is working through a router.

Before I was using a USB disc with the music files on I used to set "Copy Files to XX Directory by standard" on and I thought with that option ticked the USB link could not affect sound quality because the file would first copied to and played from (RAM) Disc and not from the USB Disc. Was I wrong?

Cheers

Paul

Paul,

When a Playback Drive is used, the CopytoXX is engaged by standard. So when the Playback Drive is a RAMDisk it goes from the XX folder to the RAMDisk (all file types).

But are you saying that this is related to it yes or no working ? :scratching:

Regards,
Peter


PS: And great that you have it working now of course.

No not related at all. I just wanted to know if there is any SQ benefit in access files over a network compared with accessing files from a local USB disc if the "copy to..." option is in operation.

Paul, there sure is a difference just because of the connected USB disk ... (think similar as disconnecting the CDRom and that making a difference, ok ?)

Peter

duurrgh!!! and as I previously got rid of fans disconnected dvd drive etc to get best SQ ..... I must be turning senile!!!

Thanks

P

If you really want to do this, why not map the network drive, then your OS should see it as a an 'inboard' drive? Not tried it but.....
Best
Jack

Hi Jack - no problem doing that but not sure it helps. The issue here is the time taken to copy files across - connection and access now seem reliable.

Which just *is* the way to do it (tried to tell that in my other post).


Can't be or shouldn't be. But the Playback Drive *has* to be a RAMDisk. So this is a 100% must.
And a 1Gb/s network connection of course, preferrably direct (not through a router).

Peter

RAM Disk in use no problems there.

More of a problem is the bog standard 100mB Ethernet set up. The PC's are no problem they can go to 1Gb but the wiring and router is more of a problem. I will see if I can get hold of a 1Gb router and see how far the standard Cat5 wiring can be pushed.

P

Paul, cat5e will transfer 1gb all day every day...it does here anyway.

Peter, why do you recommend direct connection instead of a router?

Anthony,

Because a direct connection will be faster for the routers we (as no IT professionals) tend to use. It depends a bit on how others may "occupy" the router though.

But this is only a small part of the game, because the more important is almost how a router/switch may interfere with connections and how "no router/switch" will not interfere at any time. So do notice that not all LAN services are running and that real "detection" means as such do not run. So, detecting is different from "known to be there". And thus :

While people could have problems like Paul described it at first, it is better to avoid all what may interfere. So my message was merely about that rather then speed.
And if then someone comes along complaining about speed, well ...
(I'm in circles now :))

Peter

If only I had cat5e!!!! - mine is just plain old cat5. Anyway from what I read on the World Wide Wonderweb it might be possible to push it significantly further than its 100mb rating.

Unfortunately I cannot easily rig up a direct link (with xover cable) to my main server and my router has only one 1Gbit socket. But I may be able to set up something with a 1Gig switch that I can borrow from my mate (Dave from "down the road").

What I don't understand is why music accessed over my local network sounds better than the same music accessed on a separate partition on my OS disc. Given that the files are copied to and then access by XX from RAMDisk and the OS disc stays connected so the source of noise is always there.

Or am I missing something glaringly obvious again like I did in my earlier post?

Cheers

Paul

Paul,

Any CAT5 will do it.

And why it sounds better ? because I say so ? (and which is why the feature is in there in the first place)
haha

Regards,
Peter

Hi Paul,

I am trying myself to wrap my head around this... Is it related to noise ? Surely, but for the explanation...

Alain
PS: I like the last answer Peter ;)

Maybe because the OS disc can still be spinning following a transfer of files to (say) RAM Disc? - the difference in SQ between network accessed music and disc accessed is not massive but certainly worth having. It is not as big as leaving a DVD rewriter connected.

Not shure if this is the correct spot for this question  :(

I'm planning to add a NAS to my home network. Are there any specific requirements for a (simple) NAS, for convenient use with XXHE?

Thanks.

Stanley

Stanley,

Just before you think I won't answer :
I don't know the answer. I myself always struggled with them (but last time was 2-3 years ago) and they all went back to where they came from.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Where "on the LAN" do you get your music files from then?

Regards,
Stanley

Just another PC Stanley.

Peter

 :oops: Silly me, I knew that.

Haha.

Hi Stanley,

I assume that you will use the NAS for more than your music collection.  Personally, I have a wired network (with wireless as well for those devices with no physical connection) with a Netgear ReadyNAS Pro at its core.  Our entire DVD and Bluray collection is ripped to the NAS and can be streamed direct to the home theatre via the Denon Receiver or the AppleTV.  My music library is also entirely contained on the NAS as are the primary archives and backups from all the computers in the house.

I don't know why Peter had problems with a NAS in the past, but they are generally easy to set up and in my view indispensable.

I have used XXHE and its LAN functions to draw music directly from the NAS, but am annoyed by the wait for the network to come back up in windows, so am persisting with music on a local SSD for now.

Cheers,

Anthony

Anthony,


Same for me in Windows 7. But Windows 8 is hardly noticable.
Is slow in Windows 8 for you ?

Thanks,
Peter

Hi Peter,

It was not quick in w8 but I think it was quicker. 

I don't use w8 at the moment because that pesky "music stops then you move the mouse to get it started" problem is back.  I will have to find and trawl through that thread to see if I can get that problem to go away.

Regards,

Anthony

Hi Anthony,
I would use a NAS (or alternative) primary for music for SQ with XXHE, and maybe for backup of photo's. I have no movie collection (there are cinema's at close range  :good:).

So I think a simple NAS or pc would do the trick, but it should work fast and easy.
Not sure what to do right now.

Regards,
Stanley

Stanley,

Well, a NAS is simply an optimised computer.  It runs a motherboard with a processor (maybe a Celeron), ram (1GB or 2 GB), has a bunch of SAS or SATA ports for its collection of drives, one or two LAN ports, and would generally run Linux.  A NAS is a computer.

So if what you are after is the best thing for SQ and its use is limited, then maybe do what Peter is suggesting, although you should not need a crossover cable because modern LAN ports self detect the type of connection and can adjust themselves accordingly (so just use a normal LAN cable).

Cheers,

Anthony

Hi Anthony,

When you used your NAS, did you need to have your drive formatted in a linux format or was it possible for you to leave it in NTFS ?

Alain

Hi Stanley, not sure if this is helpful, but I've been using a NAS for music storage for a number of years now. It's 'only' 5x1TB drives, which is enough for me, and has worked perfectly since I set it up. I'm not at home right now so can't check, but it's a Synology NAS (the 1010+, I think).

This is how I use it with my main music PC:

1. rip CD from Plextor drive (without cache) onto SSD of ripping PC

2. transfer ripped files to NAS

3. put music PC in normal non-minimized state

4. transfer files to single HDD (2TB, I think - with a 100GB partition for the OS and XX) in music PC

5. put music PC back into minimized mode

Now, with the dedicated music PC in my office system I do not transfer the files to its internal HDD (actually a small SSD), but access them directly from the NAS (with 'copy to XX drive' enabled) for playback. The waiting time for the transfer before playback is literally a matter of a few seconds - nothing at all really. But FYI, the LAN is constantly 'on' as I use remote desktop via LAN to control the dedicated music PC from my work PC on my desk. Probably not the best for SQ, but it's OK for my office system.

When I get back home, I can test using the NAS with my main PC and disabling the LAN before playback. Never tried this. Might be interesting to hear if there is much difference between playing the files from the internal HDD.

HTH.

Mani.

Hi Alain,

My NAS manages the drives itself so I don't know what format they are to be honest, but it runs Linux so I guess a Linux format.  I use Raid5 which keeps a duplicate of every piece of information on another drive and the drives should be matched in pairs (same capacity) although this is not essential.  On top of this I backup the NAS to another computer on the network which means that I have my info on at least three local drives.

Anthony

I have Gbit ports on the two PC's on my network and I have a Gige router and Cat5 cabling. The typical copy speed I get is about 90Mbps (bits). Disappointing as it means there is a fair wait while an album worth of files is copied over before replay starts. The longest run of Cat5 from the router to the XXPC is about 35M which is not very long for CAT5 really.

Unless anyone has any ideas I guess the next step is to get the two PC's close together with a short length of Cat5 (xover) and see what speed I can get. Then if that works I will work back from there.

Anyway any ideas welcome!

Paul, I don't know how easy it is for you to route some new cable (cat5e or cat6) but the cable itself is quite inexpensive as is the gear to terminate it yourself.  When doing the house here I purchased a 100m roll of cat5e and the tools to do the termination and test the cable for about AU$100.  It is simple to do for a guy of your diy ability.

And you will not need a xover cable to direct connect two computers...modern LAN ports will self detect the connection and adjust accordingly...so you will be able to use a normal LAN cable.

Anthony

Hi Anthony - I installed CAT5 cable in this house a few years ago when we re modelled the house and did the terminations (maybe that is why it is slow ha ha!!). It would be impossible to replace the cables now as they are buried in the walls and under the floor boards etc. I will find out why it is slow though -and I still have a crimping tool somewhere!!.

Cheers Paul

Hi Paul,

Can you run the same test between the 2 PCs (instead of passing through the router) ? Or have you done the same test with the same results ?

Alain

Hi Alain - yea that was what I was intending to try - PC direct to PC with a short network cable just to make sure everything working properly before I start adding back in longer cable and router etc.

Cheers

Hi Paul,

Maybe things will change for the better :)

But... Be sure that your router is not the culprit, by using a cable long enough (if possible) to create the same situation...

Alain

Thanks Anthony. I am still struggling with some obstacles about having a NAS, but I certainly find that alternative interesting.

Alain

It turns out that the router was the culprit. The 1Gb label on the back only applies to one of the network ports the others are all 100Mb. With a decent Gig router in place I can transfer at close to 1Gb with Cat 5 cable - so that's good!!!

Now I don't have time to make a cup of tea while waiting for XX to start playing music.

Paul

:)

If that is so you have 100mb throughput. Think about it ...

Peter

No - I have a new router now with all 1Gb ports. Before only one port was 1Gb. Anyway now data transfer measures very close to 1Gb.

Anyway, now people readily understand why the connection better be direct; it just avoids lousy home routers and misunderstandings about them.

And btw, with one 1Gb ("input") port and the remainder 100Mb ("output") of course you'll still have 100Mb throughput only. That's what my previous message was about.

Also, even when all ports are rated at 1Gb it is very common that the router/switch/hub has a separate rating for total throughput. E.g. use two connections which consume 1Gb and the total throughput can be 1Gb alright, but each connection only receives 500Mb.

Peter

.............. and CAT5 wiring is no problem at a Gig although theoretically rated at 100Mb mine is a 50m run (not much in network terms) but anyway just for information.