XXHighEnd

Hi,

Planning to have all music stored on a music server.
Need advice how to arrange this best possible way.
Hardware, software and setup.

- will use iPad for remote control.
- high storage capacity. Min 20 TB.
- back up.
- Lan between music server and xxhighend pc.

 :)

See planned setup.

Can I use a NAS or should I use a server with a higher capacity?
Software required to make this work?
Will use team viewer to control the music server and xxhighend PC.
As I understand this is how Peter have it arranged.(?)

Any input/ recommendation is very much appreciated.

Yes, all fine Kjell Narve. It is only that I wouldn't use TeamViewer for Remote Control. But do notice that RDC for IOS exists ... So I would use that (never tried it, but heard good things about it).

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn473013.aspx

And oh, a NAS is maybe unnecessary complicated and it will usually do more than what you want from it. So if you have the choice of using a normal PC for it, ... that is what I would do (and do btw).

Regards,
Peter

Forgot :

I have a 6TB harddisk in use since a couple of months; works great. So 3 of those and ...

Will try a normal pc with 6tb disk, and using remote desktop.
Now, how do I control the xxhighend pc using Lan conn.?
Thanks!

XXHighEnd settings for the NOS1a (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3057.0)
?

OK, So I should continue with remote desktop directly to the XXhighend pc.
Then I can connect the LAN from the xxpc and the music server directly to the router (save me a network card with 2 ethernet connection on the music server)

Ho. That is not what you have drawn in that schematic. The schematic is the way to do it *and* the way how I use it. It will also be the fastest means of connection.
So connect XXHE PC to the music server. Music server is in the LAN and in the LAN there's a WiFi access point (can be the router but just as well a dedicated one (access point).

Notice that now the XXHE PC is not connected to the Internet.

Peter

I was planning to build also a similar network so it could be also a big help for me.

What I´m going to use is a laptop as music server with a USB hub with several hhd with music. This laptop is connected to the Music Pc and to the router.

My questions are:

Following the same schematic as KnB, can I use a laptop connected to a USB hub with some hhd with music as a music server?

What software must be in the laptop in case I don´t want to use a remote tablet? Do I have to install TeamViewer in this case in the laptop? Any advantage if I don´t use a remote tablet (in SQ I mean?

Juan

Thanks Peter,

- 2 LAN connection on the music server, will add a new card for this.
- Remote desktop connection to the Music server. 
- Remote control of the XXpc from music server - how should this be arranged?

 

Yep. After you "first" let control the Music Server the Audio (XXHE) PC. So you have a cascaded RDC connection.

Tablet-RCD -> Music-Server -> Music Server-RCD -> Audio PC.

:yes:

Peter

Hi Juan,

Yes. But you can expect the disks to be too slow to not bother you. Only if the laptop has USB3 it could be OK.


See previous post. ;)


No, because the last part in the chain is the same and only that part counts.

Peter

All done now :) Music on LAN.

Put together a new server same as this one:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/610-computer-audiophile-pocket-server-c-p-s-v4-cortes/

Supermicro motherboard have two LAN and a IPMI port. Flashed SAS controller to IT, do not need RAID

Work very nice, time it takes to load music is not an issue at all.

Using Microsoft remote desktop between music server and XX pc,

RDP between tablet and music server did not work... so far. I do not understand why. Just using teamviewer for this until I have figured it out. This works OK, but think it will be better using Microsoft RDC.

Very happy with the result.

Well, now you must help me ...

You mention two LAN ports but I do not see a relation to that (you don't mention something either, explicitly).

So how is this going to "help out" ?

Regards,
Peter

PS: If that is supposed to be the PC holding the music, yes, then I can see it. I mean, my PC holding the music also has two LAN ports and I use them both for this. Well, sort of, because one connects to the router hence Internet and internal Home network, and the other to the Audio PC. Could do without the Internet / Home connection and in that case still one LAN port is sufficient.

Two lan as I need Internet to the server :) One crossed Ethernet cable between server and xxpc.
Server will be used for ripping music and other tasks, And one nice feature is the IPMI were I can manage the server including switching it on and of remotely, not needed but nice.

I've just built a new music server (music-PC, with 4 ethernet ports) and have configured things exactly as in KnB's schematic, with a direct ethernet connection between the audio-PC and the music-PC (and a separate ethernet connection between the music-PC and the LAN). All the RDCs work perfectly and I really love this whole configuration. But I've got a bit of a problem with the network speed between the directly connected audio-PC and the music-PC.

I've measured the time it takes to transfer a 460MB album of music (5 wav files plus jpg):

1) 5 seconds from music-PC to my office PC SSD (via the LAN)
2) 21 seconds from music-PC to audio-PC RAM (MinOS)
3) 323 seconds loading music in XX in unattended (MinOS) before music starts

Something is obviously throttling the speed. It can't be an issue with the ethernet port, or the HDDs in the music-PC because of 1) above. I will play around with a few things myself (e.g. connect audio-PC to the LAN, though I'd rather not have this permanently), but thought I'd just ask if anyone has some obvious things that I should try.

Cheers, Mani.

Hi Mani, have you tried a Gigabyte Switch? That will transfer the files faster. The problem is that you'll have also a power switch connected to the mains. I use a TP-LINK Gigabite Switch and all goes quite fast.

Regards
Juan

Hi Mani,

Have you tried copying that album between the 2 PCs, just to see if you can get the speed transfer (the box that indicates the transferring) ?

Alain

Hey Juan,

A switch is not going to make it faster (as far as I know). So notice that Mani doesn't use anything in between (direct connection).

Regards,
Peter

Mani,

You must have something seriously wrong in there and it should be the PC itself.

Maybe it is best to use a FLAC for testing, as it is the most predictable what will happen, plus it seriously hits the CPU (and that seems suspect to me).

Should be 5-10 seconds (loading for Unattended), a bit depending on the cpu speed. I think I manage with 5 seconds (and cpu at 430MHz). Just a normal 60 or so minute album.
Test it with an album that doesn't have more tracks than (hyperthreaded) processor cores in your CPU.

Peter

Hi Peter, yes I know that Mani has a direct connection and that's why I propose the use of a switch. In my experience and also with the information I have a switch can make the connection faster. Of course I can be wrong.

Regards
Juan

Thanks for your thoughts everyone... really appreciate it.

Peter, just FYI, I haven't touched the audio-PC. It has been working perfectly with my Synology NAS via the LAN (and still does). But there seems to be something amiss with the direct connection with the music-PC (Win10). (Although RDC works perfectly between the music-PC and audio-PC.)

I'm going to connect the audio-PC to the LAN (which already uses a a gigabit switch, Juan) to see what happens. I suspect Juan is correct and that the speed will increase dramatically - it should be on-par with the transfer from the music-PC to my work PC in the office.

But the root cause of this issue will remain - why is the music-PC throttling the output to the audio-PC? Maybe it's the Firewall or Defender in the music-PC? When I look at the 'Network and Sharing Centre', it is referring to the direct connection to the audio-PC as an 'Unidentified public network'. Does this seem right?

Mani.

Mani,


Yes. See below.

Are you using the same physical network connector in your Music Server PC for the testing you did vs the connection to the Audio PC ?

Network ports can be set to 100Mb (or maybe even 10Mb) instead of the required 1000Mb and/or can be set to Not Dual mode or something (two-way communication at the same time).

Peter

Thanks Peter.


Just tried this and... nah... it's exactly the same speed as the direct connection. This now points to the audio-PC as being the culprit. Why? Because transfers to my work PC in my office from the music-PC are super fast. Therefore, there can't be anything wrong with the music-PC or the LAN.

I'm going to go back to booting from disk and then NormalOS - of course, this is exactly what I did when I first connected the music-PC to the audio-PC, but I didn't check file transfer speeds in NormalOS on disk.

Will be back...

Mani.

Hey, I recall "network slowness" as an often heard W10 problem.
(but it is often heard with any new Windows OS, so it may not tell a thing).

Did you ever install Network (card) drivers ? Or any drivers for that matter ? So things may work (RAM-OS) but maybe not optimally ?

Peter

But then why are things working super fast between my music-PC and my work PC (both Win10)?

Mani.

Because it is Windows 10.
;)

... and those drivers ...

Nah... nothing to do with W10 drivers... on this occasion anyway.

SOLVED!

I noticed that when I was trying to transfer 500MB or so, the transfer would start and stop for a few seconds, and start again - sort of staccato. When it was going, it was obviously very fast. It seemed that something was interfering with the transfer.

So I just disabled the firewall for public networks in the music-PC. I think this is totally OK because the firewall for my public network is still up and running, and only this is connected to the internet. Maybe it would be safer to keep the firewall for private networks and try to make an exception for XX. If anyone knows how to do this, please let me know.

In any event, everything seems to be working just fine now. I'll do a bit of testing and will report back, in case anyone else has this issue in the future.

Thanks for all the help everyone.

Mani.

Maybe it's too early to tell, but everything really does seem to be working fine now.

Thanks to KnB for starting this thread, and Juan and Alain for sharing their thoughts. And of course Peter for encouraging us to go down this route. I'm now really looking forward to loading XX on the music-PC (OK, perhaps "looking forward" is over-stating things a bit) and getting 'pre-fetching & preparing' working correctly. This should open up the world of Tidal for me...

Cheers, Mani.

PS. Call me completely crazy, but has the SQ improved? Must be imagining it.

I was wondering... Is the Windows firewall necessary ? I thought that a router already has its own firewall ?

Alain

No, I wasn't imagining it... or at least not totally. The sound definitely changed, but not necessarily for the better. It was sharper and more edgy than earlier. But nothing to do with the new music server - just me forgetting to set Q5 back from 0 to 1.

Lesson? If you feel your sound is a tad too sharp, check your Q5.

Mani.

I'm not sure what the best advice is, but feel that as long as performance isn't being affected (too much), why not have extra security? But having said that, I never use any virus protection programs (but happy to leave Defender on nowadays for my work PC and work laptop).

Mani.

Nah... I was right in the first place! (For sure, Q5 makes a difference, but not to the extent that I'm hearing.) With a few days of intensive listening, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the SQ has taken a massive leap forward with the new music server. I'd say the improvement is close to that of the RAM-OS!

OK, so what exactly is going on? I remember a few years ago now trying HQPlayer's 'Network Audio Adapter' and finding that the sound changed depending on whether the music was stored on the player PC's HDD or on an external Synology NAS via a network switch. I just couldn't understand why. Jusssi (HQP developer) seemed to dismiss the possibility that the sound could have changed at all. But now, thinking about it, I think I was hearing the affect of noise coming through the LAN to the DAC via the NAA.

My current thinking is veering towards the network switch as being the culprit. I mean, there are all those 'high-speed' digital connections that the switch has to contend with. The noise must be high. Of course, ethernet connections are galvanically isolated by design, but this has nothing to do with stopping noise getting through (something I think a lot of people don't understand). The 'digital die-hards' will tell you that noise in a digital system doesn't matter - that's the whole beauty of digital. But they don't know how digital music works - if the noise finds its way through to the DAC, it will produce jitter, which will kill the sound.

Soooooooo... we've now got to not only contend with the USB connection from the audio-PC to the DAC, but also the bloody ethernet connection into the audio-PC. Isn't this hobby just wonderful?

On the bright side, I now have the best sound in my room that I have ever heard... anywhere  ;)

Mani.

Coincidentally today I removed the switch that was between the Music and Audio Pc. It seems to be a slight improvement in SQ with less edgy sound in general. It appears also that the transfer rate is similar to the one  with the switch. So now the switch is out and the connection between the two computers is made through a direct cable. Peter was right and it seems that the speed does not increase with the switch, at least it isn't perceptible with only one Ethernet cable of 3m length.

Regards
Juan

Hi Juan, in your previous setup did you have a lot of other devices connected to the switch at the same time? I suspect this is where most of the improvement (decrease in noise) would come from.

I have to say, I still can't quite get my head around the level of improvement over here. Certainly, I'd urge everyone to go for a direct connection between the music-PC and the audio-PC. No problem if you only have one ethernet port on your music-PC mobo - just buy a PCIe card.

Mani.

Hi,
Because I also found this improvements in SQ because of the music server. That supprised me, therefor I also added a network isolator in the lan connection. A network isolator med MI 1005 (100 euro).

Someone else made this suggestion in this forum! And to my ears it helps, more rest and details in the highs.

So even on the lan side improvements are possible.
Regards, Arjan

Hi Mani, I was using the switch with the only intention of making the transference of data faster and more stable between the Music Pc and the Audio Pc. I haven't had any device connected to the switch, it was just in the middle of two Ethernet cables. My music is in a dock connected with a USB 3.0 cable to the Music Pc. That I didn't had other devices connected to the switch is probably the reason I could not hear a greater improvement in SQ.

Regards,
Juan

Does anyone have a visual presentation of the connecting PC's? Too many sorts of connections possible and reading the text makes me dizzy trying to implement something similar for my situation...

If I connect my Music PC directly to my main PC (crosslink) is it then possible to control the Music PC from the main PC as well?

The music is stored on my NAS but can be found from the main PC directly as if it is stored locally.

If possible then I can connect wireless to the main PC and control the Music PC through the main PC (RDP) too which would be both options I want to be able to use.

This way I only need a crosslink cable or a clever adapter to change the path and remove the Music PC from the switch.

Wishful thinking?

Bert

Hi Bert,

The cross link cable is an artefact of times past...you can direct connect computers these days with a normal Ethernet cable.


Yes, the AudioPC (I am using Peters terms) can be controlled from the Music Server via RDP.  You should be able to remove the graphics card and keyboard and mouse and other unnecessary stuff from the AudioPC.


Yep.  Tablet. >> RDP >> Music Server >> RDP >> AudioPC.

Hope this helps,

Anthony

This is how I have things set up (replace tablet with laptop). It works really, really well.

Mani.

Bert,

Anthony is right. Do not make your own terms up here, because the first who does not understand is you yourself.
Next, we can not help you either.

There is a Music Server PC which holds the music (one way or the other).
There is an Audio PC which produces the sound (the DAC is connected to that).

Anthony talked in those terms, so you should be able to follow him (now).

Additionally :

What some want (for reasons) is controlling the Music Server PC via the tablet as well. This is only confusing as you'll have that automatically (intrinsically). But you don't want / need that - same as my situation. When we both need maintenance on the Music Server PC, we just walk to its screen. Now, relative to that situation (expplicitly referring to your situation) :

Let the Music Server PC screen be as it is (you are playing audio with it).
Now set up the RDP connection from the tablet to that screen. That is really all ...
If you have it running you will see that it is too simple to explain. But it is hard to explain.
haha

Peter

Just for my curiosity... Is RDP the same as RDC ? I know RDC to mean "Remote Desktop Connection", but for RDP ?

Thanks :)

Alain

Alain,

Microsoft is trying to make us mad.

In the early days we had Hydra. Hydra was the beta version of RDP - Remote Desktop Protocol. Oh ... let me tell you that I have started all this idiocy with a bunch of Japanese. So Hydra was sort of mine (when MS had taken over).

Not really long ago, this remote connection stuff was called RDP. That is, I'm fairly sure. Possibly on XP it was still named like that.
It ?
It = what today is called RDC. Remote Desktop Connection.

Then came RDC for Android and Mac and it was named ...
RDP.
Most probably this is because it is more explicitly a protocol as such, when viewed from the different OS (than Windows).

Wonder oh wonder that only the other day I saw that now it is called RD - Remote Desktop. That is, on the Mac I saw that.

Now watch out :
Today we have Windows 10. Desktop is sort of back, while Windows 8(.0) tried to elminate that. But it will be eliminated again in the future (well, I suppose and for my today's fun).
So what will RDC be named in the future ?

That has been my complaint about MS different versions of Windows... I remember trying to find the "Add/Suppress" in Control Panel, to discover that it was not called "Programs and Features" (when I switched from XP to Win 7)... This is just an example of the situations that many encounter with each new version.

My mother-in-law that I find extraordinary for working with Windows is in a part of her life where changing from Windows 7 to either Win 8 or 10 would be a show stopper... And they tell us that the new versions are more intuitive...

For me it looks more like marketing bull than anything else...

:(

Alain

Thanks.. will use common terms!  :sorry:

The question was basically also if I can remotely control the Audio PC through a direct connection between that PC and the Music Server PC (my main PC should be used for that). I know I can using the network (the switch) but apparently it works the same.


Thanks, that's clear now...  :yes:

Remotely control one PC using it remotely to control another one using its own RDC connection... mmm, let's see if my network card needs a crosslink cable or not (not so new one!).

Bert

Hi Bert,

I have 2 network cards on my Music server PC.

- The wired one is connected to the Audio PC
- The second one is wireless (USB connected), accessing my router (internet).

This way, I can use my Music to access internet, do whatever I need to do, and I can also access the Audio PC with the wired connection (through RDC).

And as Anthony (aka acg) mentioned, there is no need for a special network cable to link the Music server to the Audio PC, since the moden network cards are intelligent enough to invert one side (output > input) so a "cross feed" (or "cross link" cable) is now obsolete. But you can of course use a cross feed cable if you wish :)

Regards,

Alain

Thanks Alain,

For a brief moment I could connect directly through a normal CAT5 but after logging off from the Music Server PC (my main PC) there is no way to connect anymore though that cable directly...

The before used way to connect still works so nothing is lost.

Somehow there is something weird going on which I need to tackle first to be able to login after a reboot as well. Next XX will need to find my files on the Music Server PC...

I do know now that I only need the extra network card to make things work one day. It will then be similar to your setup Alain.

Bert

I do need a crosslink cable/adapter to make a connection...

Found an old PCI LAN card which acts similar (both 1G) to the internal LAN connection on the PC.

For the moment I can use another more simple approach and that is selecting a list, press play and unplug the LAN from the audio PC.

Nothing beats any other connection...  ;)

Bert

Bert,


And then be out of control ?
:nea:


Not to interfere and I realize you don't announce this as a problem, but I don't get it ...
I'd say you already had this working :

Music Server PC -> RDC -> Audio PC.

Mind the "Server" part which means that your music was already there and thus your Audio PC already obtained it from there.
If I am wrong with this then OK. But if not, you now must have done something which should not have been done ?

But never mind; I just noticed it.
Peter

Yes, with the Audio PC connected to the main house network (switch) but not directly with a LAN cable from Audio PC to Music Server PC.

This connection can't be made (needs a crossover) and when done the next step might be a problem to get access to the NAS through the Music Server PC

Bert

Hi Peter,

My XX PC Playback computer is connected via network cable to the wi fi router and the music server is also connected via network cable to the wi fi router. Obviously that is not the recommended configuration as shown here:

http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3060.msg33165#msg33165

Having read the thread it seems Mani has better SQ with the recommended configuration. Now normally I would just try it but in my case it is a real pain in the a**s to do it (floor boards need lifting etc etc). So I do not want to make the change unless it really is justified in sound quality terms. I will of course make the change if justified but I was wondering what the experience of others is in respect of SQ. Is it really recommended for better SQ?

Cheers

Paul

Hi Paul,

To my ears it was even a bigger upgrade for SQ then I had expected. So yes you will hear it. Can you not first place the pc's more close to each other for testing? That was what I did first.

Regards, Arjan

Hi Arjan,

Thanks for the feedback. It is not very easy to setup the PC's close to each other even temporarily it is probably easier to run temporary network cabling. I will have a look over the next couple of days to see what is the easiest way to do it.

Cheers

Paul

Hi Peter,

I've finally setup my music via Lan using an old computer.

I'm having problems with keeping the network connection open from the old computer. Rebooting music server did solve the connection issue yesterday but I have had to reboot it again today. I don't turn off this computer but it does go into sleep mode after 3 hours.
I have loaded W10 into the music computer and it is not connected to the internet. Both computers are connected directly together as per diagram at start of this topic.

What network software setup should I use to keep the connection open? I used Microsoft network settings. Is it necessary to use homegroups?

Ram OS works fine when it sees the music server so all is good here I think.

Robert

Hi there Robert,


No. And my advice would be to not attempt that, as it is highly confusing (I never understood it and usually can't get it to work either).

Your problem will be that the server falls asleep, but I think you recognized that already. So what to do about that ?


Of course I don't know what PC you mean by that ... I assume "Audio PC". So :

Maybe a bit depending on the OS you have running in the Music Server PC, the preventing from falling asleep can be tedious. IIRC Vista was a drag about it; Windows 7 (only RTM ?) the same. Anyway, this should be in power settings.
Not only the main screen, but also inside (Advanced Settings I think it is named) there's things about sleeping and hibernating and what not. Shut that all off (not the disks and USB etc. - so only the "system" things).
NOTICE : Do the very same in the Audio PC (but I'd say that I did so in the RAM OS Disk already).

To make all more robust, do this :

Open a command prompt by right-clicking on the command prompt in the start menu, and then choosing Run as Administrator. Once you’re there, type in the following command:

powercfg -h off [enter]

(exit [enter] leaves the command prompt)

Now the system has no means to sleep because it can't store the memory anywhere (this is about shutting off hibernation).
This too has been done in the RAM OS Disk, if all is right.

Now all should stay awake ...

N.b.: Monitors can still set to be switched off after xx minutes, as you wish.

Regards,
Peter

Peter,
       Yes that works the music server which is W10 was going to sleep. All good now thanks.

Robert

:)