Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 144151	2017-07-24 11:38:00	New to networks	4Lowie (10869)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1437573	2017-07-24 11:38:00	Hi all I'd like to set up a real simple server in my music room, I've got an old xp laptop that I can use.... Just downloaded freenas and have a couple of questions. If I boot of the image and set up the server as directed, can I go back to the original os or is that laptop resigned to be server? The recommendation is to have bridged network, what do i need then? As mentioned I'm looking for the simplest way to network 2 devices, I have a music player that's network enabled and they say delivers best performance when the music files are delivered over the network as apposed to an attached USB. Trouble is I don't know how to get this network stuff setup, the audio guys talk like everyone knows all about networks, I don't!!!! Help please for a network newbie. Cheers	4Lowie (10869)
1437574	2017-07-24 21:18:00	Forget freenas, it requires a minimum of 8GB RAM to function properly. You could either put the music files on the XP machine and share out its drive or install a small linux on a flash drive and do it though that booted on the laptop. The first one (share from xp) is probably the simplest. www.microsoft.com	KarameaDave (15222)
1437575	2017-07-24 22:25:00	Agree with KD. Freenas while its Ok its also like a lot more software, power requirements gone up. XP with shared folders certainly is an easy way. I personally use NAS software by Open-E (Linux Based) . There are a couple of free versions, the SOHO takes upto 4TB of drives (free) if you want more you need to buy Storage Extension upto 36TB. www.open-e.com Like all NAS software it takes a little getting used to / configuring, its not simply install and go. Software on "store Brought" NAS's have different often easier to use Software. The actual OS installs on a USB drive which remains plugged in all the time. You install it like any other OS with a KB/mouse and monitor, then once done, they can run headless, No KB/Mouse or Monitor. On a laptop that wouldn't be an issue. you alter/ maintain Via a Browser on another PC. The requirements are low. Actually running 3 NAS servers, two have a Pentium 4 with 1 having 2GB Memory and the other ( older lite Version) under 1GB showing (see Picture) They all run perfectly fine. They can take more if wanted. Real grunt ;) 8172	wainuitech (129)
1437576	2017-07-24 22:30:00	If your music player can play from a USB drive, that's the route I would take in your position, in spite of what "they say". I can't envisage the situation where delivering via USB could be worse than over a network. Perhaps we need to see the context of that recommendation.	linw (53)
1437577	2017-07-24 23:21:00	USB2 will be more than fast enough for music files . So as long as its a reasonably modern USB Hard Drive , it should be OK. Chances are , an old XP notebook isnt going to have fast throughput (from its old HD) anyway. USB HD may just be faster .	1101 (13337)
1437578	2017-07-24 23:35:00	It might help if you tell us what player and what it is you want to do with it exactly. NAS software will reformat any drive you use as storage and blow away windows so probably not easy to go back and forth unless you have more than one drive or possibly partition. Another option is media server software, PS3 media server works pretty well and is fairly simple to use (and not just for the PS3). A lot of devices will also work with a plex server. With these programs you install them, set them up for your music folder, and leave them running. They show up on your network as a media server. Windows media player can also do that on some versions but I don't know about XP, you need to add everything to it's library and then enable sharing - couldn't tell you how on XP anymore. I used to use the PS3 media server so I could play my movies and music on the PS3 but it is a DLNA server which will work with with lot of devices. Plex is similar but does a lot more and therefore takes a little more setup.	dugimodo (138)
1437579	2017-07-25 00:48:00	Thanks for the replies, appreciate them. Ok, the player I have is a SoTM (Soul of the music) SMS-200, its designed as audio end point for a home network. Yes it runs nicely as I have it now with a usb stick for the music files and a wifi dongle to control it. The reason that they say it sounds best when feed from a network is that the processor has to do less work to deliver the end result, a clean usb audio stream which is then feeds my DAC. I realise some of the audio guys go a bit funny on some of these things, that’s why I have switched the practical side of my brain on and want to look if its really an advantage or just BS. So if we use a USB stick, the processor has to take this usb data and send it to the usb output. With the network input, the processor has to take this usb data and send it to the usb output. To me I can’t really see much difference…… Getting back to networks, do we need to set up a network to share files or can we plug both devices into a hub or something like that? If I was to look at getting a simple server what should I be looking for? Cheers	4Lowie (10869)
1437580	2017-07-25 01:05:00	The reason that they say it sounds best when feed from a network is that the processor has to do less work to deliver the end result, a clean usb audio stream which is then feeds my DAC . Its BS , as you suspected . Audiofools often spit out this sort of rubbish . Keep in mind, probably the same sort of people who claim that a magic $400 power fuse makes a big difference in sound, or a $800+ power chord is a audibly noticeable upgrade . If that system hasnt enough processing power for USB, then its junk that belongs in the bin Its all just 0's & 1's . If really concerned to that sort of level of audio purity, you wouldnt be feeding a DAC via USB anyway :)	1101 (13337)
1437581	2017-07-25 02:22:00	I remember an article by a sound engineer who decided to analyse the effect of gold plated terminals and oxygen free speaker cables and a couple other high end connection options to see how much it effected the sound. After analysing waveforms and levels and distortion etc on all his fancy equipment his conclusion was the net effect is a small but noticeable increase in level (due to lower loss of quality materials) He went on to say that human perception equates more volume (level) as higher quality so all that expensive equipment did improve the sound - by about as much as turning up the volume knob one notch for free. Which just goes to show how reliable audiophile advice is to most of us - spend hundreds of dollars or turn the knob a bit.... hmmmm. Digital is digital - a bitstream from any source should be absolutely identical right up to the moment it enters the DAC, the quality of which is the first thing in the chain that'll actually effect the sound. It's like guy who tried to tell me I was getting poor sound from my CD collection by using a cheap blu-ray player as the source and couldn't explain to me how that mattered when I was using the optical output to connect digitally to my receiver. Bottom line, if it works to your satisfaction and sounds good don't worry about what the "experts" say - that includes us by the way.	dugimodo (138)
1437582	2017-07-25 04:10:00	It's like guy who tried to tell me I was getting poor sound from my CD collection by using a cheap blu-ray player as the source and couldn't explain to me how that mattered when I was using the optical output to connect digitally to my receiver. A high quality CD Player will have a better DAC than the receiver . Will you notice the difference ..... nah, doubt it . Theres a reason you usually dont see any double blind testing/reviews on audio gear , not from those trying to sell stuff . :) Theres one esoteric hifi amp, sold at a very high price , that used a el cheapo $15 power amp chip . The same as used in low qrade boomboxes. People saw the price of that amp & perceived it as being very high quality sound. :banana	1101 (13337)
1