Great buy on a music server

[mlsstl]

I run a Squeezebox Touch as my main music source. This was supplied by a 7 or 8 year old PC that needed replacement. I became interested in the Votexbox server. There are two options. First, they sell a small, complete turnkey box complete with hard drive and CD ripper and preconfigured with their own OS (based on Fedora Core Linux) and the Logitech Media Server program.

Alternatively, you can download the OS/software package for free and install it on your own PC.

I picked up a Foxconn R10-D4 with an dual core Atom processor for $120 on Amazon. Add $25 for RAM (and the relatively new 1.5 TB hard drive from my old PC) and I had a new music server for under $150. Not bad.

The Vortexbox software installed easily and quickly and then I moved my music collection over. With a few minor adjustments, my 3 Squeezebox players were back up and running very quickly.

The Vortexbox is designed as a "headless" system. You don't need a monitor or keyboard attached. You can control all aspects of the server from any other computer on your system. This lets you hide the server out of the way. The Atom processor is very low power usage so is ideal for 24/7 use. And, since it is a real computer, it is a much better choice IMO as a music server than the under-powered NAS boxes that some use.

In short, if you need an energy efficient music server that is preconfigured to make the most of your Squeezebox and don't want to spend a ton of money on fancy stuff, take a look at the Vortexbox options. I'm glad I did.

[recoveryone]

sounds like a winner, you normally hear the guys in Europe talk about Vortexbox and NAS setups, but its nice to hear how easy it can be done. I tell people who ask about my Squeezebox system how easy it can be setup now days. Most poeple already have a wireless system up and running in their home and all they need is old PC (easy to find or build one from spare parts). The hardest part is doing the ripping of your collection.

[mlsstl]

Have to say I've never understood the statement that "ripping is the hard part". Depending on the size of one's collection, it's not an instant gratification project, but a steady routine takes care of things. Most ripping programs these days automatically do a good job with tagging and artwork. In fact, even though my collection is current in this aspect, the auto-ripping/tagging/artwork feature is one of the strong points of the Vortexbox.

I've got 53,000 plus songs on my server and about a third of them were converted from LP or open reel. Now that was slow work! But, then again, it was also an excellent way to get reacquainted with some of the more obscure material in my collection.

[recoveryone]

Have to say I've never understood the statement that "ripping is the hard part". Depending on the size of one's collection, it's not an instant gratification project, but a steady routine takes care of things. Most ripping programs these days automatically do a good job with tagging and artwork. In fact, even though my collection is current in this aspect, the auto-ripping/tagging/artwork feature is one of the strong points of the Vortexbox.

I've got 53,000 plus songs on my server and about a third of them were converted from LP or open reel. Now that was slow work! But, then again, it was also an excellent way to get reacquainted with some of the more obscure material in my collection.

You hit the nail on the head yourself, Time used to rip ones collection. In the instance world we live in, some people are not willing to put forth the effort. I tell them once it is done, they will always smile when sitting back and being able to play any type of music they have at their finger tips. I can not tell you have many times I have started off listening to Jazz, then old school R&B and finish off with a classical spin without leaving my seat. At 53k songs you are 10x ahead of me, so I know you had to devote some time into ripping all of that. I just took a weekend of about 2-3 hours each day.

[mlsstl]

In my case, the LP and open-reel conversion was a 10 year project covering about 2,000 albums. Though, like anything of that duration, there were some long periods where nothing happened and other spurts where I worked feverishly over several months.

However, it is neat to have all of my old material available on the server. Some of the items exist nowhere else (I have the only recording of Stan Kenton live at Drury College from 1974 and other studio tapes from various musicians I've known), so the ability to transfer material has been important to me.

[frenchmon]

I've only become interested in streaming music because I can do it through my new home theater receiver. But I don't know....call me old fashion. About two years ago I returned back to my roots. I'm a vinyl junkie at heart and practice. There is something about holding a record in my hands....putting it on a turntable....dropping that needle....and sitting back listening and reading the album cover too the record I am listening too. And on another note...(not trying to open a can of worms but) I prefer the sound of vinyl more so than digital....and especially with the 2M Black.

So will I use the features on my me new home theater receiver with streaming capabilities? Don't know, but thanks for this thread mlsstl and telling me its easy to set up. I do have two WXP machines sitting around not being used so they are primed for ripping to the hard drive. So maybe....in my spare time.

[mlsstl]

... I prefer the sound of vinyl more so than digital....and especially with the 2M Black.

Guess it's a matter of experience and perspective, but frankly if I do the analog-to-digital transfer myself, I can't tell the difference.

It seems, in a very high percentage of the commercially available digital releases of old analog material, that the producers can't resist the urge to "improve" things. Sometimes that works, but often it doesn't.

The other issue for me is a high percentage of my analog material was on open reel and it was original or direct copies of rare stuff. It wasn't replaceable. The catch is open reel tapes do deteriorate over time, plus trying to keep an open reel deck up to spec is not easy. As such, I chose to transfer everything while the tapes were still good and my Tandberg was running well.

[mlsstl]

Just a brief update - the new server is running fine. Been up for 9 days now without missing a beat and my 3 Squeezeboxes seem very happy with it.

The remote access feature works great - I'm running the server headless (no monitor, no keyboard). Updated the Linux software package this evening (similar to Windows security updates) from my laptop and rebooted the server without ever going near it. Similarly, I added 3 new CDs to my collection (Faure, Franck piano works) from my upstairs computer. Didn't have to touch the server.

You can probably tell I'm pleased with my Vortexbox. If you need this type of server, they've got my recommendation.

[dingus]

...You can probably tell I'm pleased with my Vortexbox. If you need this type of server, they've got my recommendation.

same here. i've been using a Vortexbox for a couple of years and its never missed a beat.

[Feanor]

A great Squeezebox back-end by the looks of it. And perhaps a good back-end for DLNA-compliant network devices.

In my case, though, I have a Windows Home Server which serves the back-end function for my other Windows computers and my Asus media player. And I have dedicated music PC with attached an external hard disk for music.

[dingus]

the Squeezebox is only necessary if you do not use the built in Vortexbox Player. the Vortexbox Player does require an external dac though.

[mlsstl]

I like the Squeezebox players for several reasons.

First, they get the computer out of the listening room. That gives additional freedom concerning fan & hard drive noise, PC placement and cabling issues.

Second, it is easy to support multiple players. I've got a Touch in my main system, an older SB3 in my second system in the office, and their mono SB Radio in the kitchen. They can all play independently of each other or you can sync whichever ones you wish.

Finally, the Touch is easily tweakable if one has the urge to chase certain audiophile schools of thought.

Of course, there are other network players out there with their own sales pitches, but I'm a big fan of the general idea.

[recoveryone]

Well put Mlsstl, I think people that still use their computer instead of the remote to run the system are more likely to view the Squeezebox system as average. The LMS/SBC is not the smoothest GUI.

[mlsstl]

You're right that the LMS/SBS is not as slick as some other interfaces (Apple has a reputation to maintain, after all), but I've never had a problem locating the music I want to play. Some months ago I got a Kindle Fire and installed Squeeze Commander on it. It makes a simply fantastic remote for controlling any of my players from the listening position - beats the Squeezebox web interface by a mile.

The only area where I've ever found the LMS/SBS format weak is for building a "party music" type of playlist. The drag & drop programs are just easier to use. However, in my situation, I almost never have a need for making that type of list. Most of my listening is either album oriented or multiple works from a relatively few artists, so I really don't miss what the slicker programs are best at.