The Antipodes DS Reference Music Server

by Anthony Kershaw on December 11, 2013 · 27 comments

in Digital, Sound Docks/Servers/Computer, Stars

You may have read my review of Antipodes’ seminal DS1 Music Server published last April. I spent a good six months using and listening to the DS1 and came to think of it as the shining source in my digital front end. It was adaptable, very well built and sounded divine. Smooth, detailed, liquid, with the listener seemingly always in a great seat for the concert ahead. A quick read of that review would be instructive in the technology behind the Antipodes’ Music Servers.

The DS1 took a little getting used to regarding setup, but once it was speaking with the DAC and Ethernet, it sang a beautiful song. The new DS Reference Music Server is more Plug and Play and makes for a very quick setup.

Three connections need to be made to the rear of the DS Reference:

1. Connect the Server to your network with an Ethernet cable.
2. Connect the Server to a USB DAC (if using one) with a high speed USB Cable.
3. Connect the Server to mains power, and turn on the rear power switch.

Antipodes DS Reference Music Server rear connections.

To begin playing music you need to download and install a Remote Control application to almost any device on your network - iPad, iPhone, Android, Windows PC or Mac.

The DS plays all music file types (unless DRM protected).

- Bit-perfect and gapless within the capabilities of your USB DAC
- PCM files up to 32bit/384kHz
- DSD64 & DSD128 (Double DSD) music files using DoP

There are detailed and readable setup pages for the DAC and the remote control application on the Antipodes website even this musician could decipher. Worried about computers? Fear not.

That’s it. The DS Reference works with the vast majority of USB DACs. Got a problem? Really, it’s not a problem. Antipodes support is incredible and fast. They’ll start a support ticket and even use Citrix’ wonderful Go To Assist to solve the problem at a time of your choosing right from your desk. I’ve never seen anything like it in high end audio. I had a problem connecting to a DAC that used an out of date something or other during my review of the DS1. Owner/designer Mark Jenkins was in and out of the computer in one minute and the problem was fixed.

If you are already an owner of the DS1 Music Server, congratulations. You already know the superb performance of the unit. That will help alleviate any pangs of ‘I wish I had the DS Reference’ as the DS1 is not upgradeable.

I posed a couple of questions to Jenkins regarding the major change to the Reference, the power supply. It seems the New Zealand cousins of the British have inherited the idea and importance of a really good and well designed power supply.

Mark Jenkins of Antipodes and his DS Reference Music Server. At the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, 2013. Denver, CO.

Mark Jenkins of Antipodes and his DS Reference Music Server. At the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, 2013. Denver, CO.

What are the main internal upgrades compared to to DS1?

The power supply is the main difference. While the DS1 was available with an external linear power supply as an option, we developed a much better sounding linear power supply, provided an additional separate rail for the audio card, and being internal the DC cables could be kept very short.

What would you consider the improvements are mechanically/computer interface?

The key thing is that all regulated power supplies generate switch noise, and that with digital it is really important to not only reduce that noise, but through design, put the residual noise in a frequency range that does not interfere with the digital signal. This not only involves the regulation used, but also how the transformer is wound and how it is screened – for example our transformer is completely copper screened.

So, how does that change the sound? I found the resolution to be improved, with micro dynamics benefitting, especially. Bass, too, sounded a little deeper and with better definition. I used my reference track, Thomas Newman’s theme of American Beauty to justify the perceived changes. The track includes incredibly low synthesizers, acoustic percussion and electronic effects. A well nigh perfect trifecta for a component test. I’ve heard the track hundreds of times, probably thousands! It’s a bog standard CD but sounds incredible on the CD players, DACs and music servers I’ve tested over the years.

I ripped the CD to the DS Reference. It’s as easy as pushing the CD into the front slot and leaving things alone for a minute or three. It’ll spit out the CD when finished. Press refresh cache to update the list on your remote control app and you’re done.

The track runs a couple of minutes and features marimbas and struck percussion (bongos, tom toms various, etc) as the prime melody and rhythmic instruments. The music moves quickly and only the finest digital equipment (and speakers) can capture the subtle to and fro between the drums. The marimbas are dead centre of the soundstage with the bongos et al darting in and out of the picture. The best replications allow the listen to hear the decay and fade around the drums’ resonating chambers. It makes for captivating listening. It’s also a superb piece of orchestration by the brilliant Newman.

I’ve heard the synthesized bass sound a little diffuse. Not through the DS Reference. Spot on and defined. And bloody low! But, my main signpost is a synthesized glissando near the opening. It would sound impressive through any decent digital kit and speakers, but as I continue on my digital journey and gear gets better and better, the magic of the inner lines of this glissando keep revealing themselves. Never more so than with the DAC (review forthcoming) and the DS Reference in musical synchronicity. It keeps on removing veils we want gone. Only one more left, surely?

The sounds of the FLAC files continued to show improvement no matter the genre. The DS1 was no slouch in vocal delivery and the same excellence continues with the DS Reference. Orchestral music was explosive as always but the micro dynamics (a mezzo piano breath support push in the middle of the last note of my recording of Debussy’s Syrinx was instructive) shows measurable improvement. It may be a case of the noise floor being lowered or some magical elixir Jenkins has discovered with the interplay of the parts, but subtlety is this unit’s forte.

Jenkins is proud of his Music Servers. He suggests the new Reference in comparison with its predecessor is ‘more rhythmic, organic and lays a tuneful bass foundation for the music’. Pretty words, for sure, but I heard differences in a more ‘measurable’ way. The differences I heard are important differences, differences audiophiles want and will invest in, but they are subtle. In Audiophilia terms, musical subtlety is good.

One of my concluding comments in the original DS1 review was ‘We often read about “lifting a veil”, but the DS1 does more than lift a veil, it shatters a ceiling. It is that good.’ And, it still is. But, the DS Reference is better. Simple. We’re through the ceiling and into the rarified air. It improves in the areas that are important and it maintains where needed. Timbral accuracy (some of the inner lines of Beethoven Quartets — Takacs/Nagy Quartet — wowed me as the 2nd violin and viola fast runs were so resolved and defined in space with lots of the resin intact and previously unheard, at least this clearly), micro dynamics and all around resolution is improved and the solidity and ease of use of the unit is maintained.

The prime reason for the improvement is clear. No, not the much improved power supply, but designer Mark Jenkins. As I’ve mentioned before, the man is a fanatic, and in the very best sense of that word. He’s not a ditherer, he’s not a pedant, he’s not a nit picker, he’s a thinker. He reasons, thinks, acts and then implements. And his servers and cables are the better for it. So are we.

Antipodes’ cables and servers have been reviewed by four Audiophilia writers, each with, let’s say, utterly different tastes in music and gear. We don’t shill. We don’t lie, especially to each other. And each Antipodes component reviewed has received an Audiophilia Star Component Award. That has not happened to one company in the seventeen year history of Audiophilia.

[It is with great pleasure that we award The Audiophilia Star Component Award to the Antipodes DS Reference Music Server. Congratulations! - Ed]

The Antipodes DS Reference Music Server

Manufactured by Antipodes Audio Limited
2/59 Fancourt Street
Meadowbank
Auckland 1072
New Zealand

website
email

Price: USD$3500
Source: Manufacturer loan

Specifications

In Black or Silver
CD Ripper
2TB 2.5″ HDD storage is Standard
SSD options available
Reference-level USB Audio output
110-120VAC or 220-240VAC
Power consumption 29VA; 13VA standby
105mm (h) x 240mm (w) x 250mm (d)
Shipping weight 5kgs
Warranty 1 Year - All Manufacturing Defects
Now Plug ‘n Play - No Setup Required

{ 1 trackback }

Mojo Audio Mac Mini Music Server With Joule III Power Supply — Audiophilia
12.16.13 at 8:51 am

{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }

Karl Sigman 12.11.13 at 11:35 am

Anthony: Spot on. I too have been using this DS server for about 2 months.
It is, by far, one of the finest music servers out there, and I agree that Mark Jenkins is the reason! Even the ripping is very special: `paranoid’ mode in uncompressed FLAC. I also think that its USB output quality is among the very finest available. Finally, Mark recently upgraded the firmware so that one can connect the DS to any DAC without having to set up any software in advance (the DS automatically `knows’ what DAC you are using); a very convenient new
feature.

admin 12.11.13 at 11:38 am

Glad you are enjoying the server, Karl. It’s special. I also love the ‘look and feel’. A design triumph.

RJ 12.11.13 at 12:13 pm

Can somebody explain to me how two “bit-perfect and gapless” devices can sound different on the same source material unless there’s some problem downstream that introduces variability?

Karl Sigman 12.11.13 at 12:40 pm

RJ:

When you say `devices’, do you mean the server or the DAC?
In my experience, two different DACs being fed the same file
by the same server (with same USB cable) will sound different. For example (an extreme case) even if the server’s software supports gapless, one of the DACs might not.

Sincerely,

-K.S.

admin 12.11.13 at 12:41 pm

Because there are other ‘improvements’ at play in the Reference which introduce that variability. Why does the variability have to be a ‘problem’?

Cheers, a

admin 12.11.13 at 12:43 pm

Maybe I can get Mark to jump in, RJ. Not sure what time it is in NZ, though.

Cheers, a

Mark Jenkins 12.11.13 at 3:44 pm

I think RJ, you are asking how the DS Reference can change the sound of a system, compared to another server or CD transport, if it is serving up the same bits.

When you store a digital file you are storing 1s and 0s. But when you are transporting a digital file it is done using an analog carrier. The data is 1s and 0s but the method is either an electrical or optical waveform. In any high-precision digital application, whether audio or flying missiles, being bit-perfect is not enough. Any clock irregularities or noise interference with the signal affects the precision with which the downstream stages can process the file, and therefore the end result. It is often referred to as jitter, but that is just a gross measurement that tells you little on its own. The downstream stages can usually extract the correct 1s and 0s but in a real-time system, such as in playing digital files, distortion changes or obscures the timing of the recognition of the changes in the analog waveform that indicate a 1 or 0.

A key point to appreciate is that any chip has a speed limit at which it can do things, but as it approaches its speed limit, the precision of what it does reduces. In general, the cleaner the signal you send into a DAC chip, and the less processing you are requiring it to do, the more accurate its processes will be.

The argument is really about whether you can hear it. Some digital engineers working within their assumption set will rubbish what I just stated as in their abstracted view of reality digital is resilient to noise interference and able to deal perfectly with moderate jitter. Other digital engineers will endorse what I am saying because in the field they work reducing noise interference with the waveform carrying the digital data is their main design challenge.

These issues don’t matter if you are simply going to record these 1s and 0s on a hard disk at the destination. When stored, digital files have no jitter in them. Based on this, digital is argued to be ‘fixable’ by buffering and reclocking the signal, late in the journey, close to the DAC. That is, write the 1s and 0s to a buffer (which does not store jitter information) and then clock it out with a good clock for a short journey to the DAC chip. This and similar stories are told to assert that a DAC is immune to jitter, or totally eliminates it.

But it is simply not true. One reason why it is not true is that a buffering and reclocking step is by definition a digital process that has two sets of clock data in it (even if a common clock was used), and that in itself generates noise interference. We know of only one DAC manufacturer that admits to this but there may be more.

Buffering and reclocking is a good idea - we do it twice within our servers - but it is not a panacea to fix molestation of the digital signal in a playback system. It is a process that has benefits and side-effects that are of a similar nature to what it was designed to fix. The quality of the digital signal entering the buffer stage impacts the magnitude of the side-effects.

We (Antipodes Audio) often make the analogy that the asynchronous resampling, or buffering and reclocking steps used to clean up digital should be seen as similar to suspension on a car. Some suspension systems are better than others, by the way. Continuing the analogy, think of the distortions in the waveform carrying the digital data as roughness in the road’s surface. With any suspension system, rougher roads feel rougher, despite the benefits of the suspension. So it is important to not molest the signal at any point on its playback journey, as well as judicious use of well-designed buffer/reclocking stages.

This may be the reason why we prefer (based on listening) the music server approach over the streamer. In designing our music servers the emphasis is to get a bit perfect read from the CD, and eliminate the jitter by storing it on a hard disk with zero compression (which means it has a constant bit-rate - whereas lossless compressed files change bit-rate many times in the same file). Then read from the hard drive later with all emphasis on eliminating noise interference with the waveform carrying the digital data at each step in the journey, and to buffer/reclock at selected points. To be clear, we believe buffering/reclocking can be very effective, but based on listening we reject the idea that it is the ‘fix all’ it is often claimed to be.

I don’t know RJ whether this is sufficient explanation for you, but in anything like this, it can only be a rationale, not an argument, and not a proof. The only proof can be what you hear. These issues are fraught in audio simply because despite the assumptions that many scientists and practitioners consider reasonable to make about our hearing acuity, we are still just scratching the surface when it comes to understanding how the ear/brain system is ‘upset’ or not by the many different forms of distortion created in music systems.

Finally, many thanks to Anthony for his thorough review. We are indeed very proud of the DS Reference. We are a firm that is completely focused on audio quality rather than feature-sets, and we would not be doing music servers at all unless we felt they could out-perform CD transports. We are very confident we have achieved that by some margin with the DS Reference. When I send gear to Audiophilia for review it is always a process of some months before the review emerges, but during that time I get a nearly constant stream of questions and observations that tell me how the time is all spent listening. It is very impressive and we are all grateful for it Anthony.

admin 12.11.13 at 3:49 pm

You are most welcome, Mark.

I was getting a little jealous that all the other Audiophilia writers were having all the fun with your products, so I jumped at the chance to review your amazing servers.

Again, congratulations.

Respectfully,

Anthony

dave 12.11.13 at 4:49 pm

Sorry, to me asynch USB is now fossil technology. Talk to testing with a high performance DLNA set up and I might pay attention.

Robert 12.12.13 at 10:13 am

Mark, I have a Weiss DAC-202 designed to accept a Mac Firewire input. It also has one XLR and one RCA connector for AES/EBU input. Currently I connect my existing Mark Levinson No 39 CD player via the XLR link and the sound is surprisingly good. But I have been keeping an eye on servers such as yours. How would you recommend connecting the DS Reference to the Weiss 202, assuming it is possible?

Thanks

Mark Jenkins 12.12.13 at 6:08 pm

Hi Robert. While Firewire is a very good data protocol, its main downside is that it uses a lot more computer resource than USB. For the purposes of good sound we keep the computing power used at its minimum, and when we use Firewire we can hear the impact. This is much less an issue with a relatively powerful Mac.

The short answer to your question is that I recommend you get a USB to AES convertor, or consider upgrading your DAC at the same time as getting a music server. The long answer follows…

Here is our dilemma. We believe that USB is the best sounding option and a fair chunk of your cash is going into optimising the USB output on our servers. (We appreciate there have been some reviewers that have stated a preference for SPDIF over USB, but when reading the context it is clear they have compared a decent SPDIF implementation to using a USB port derived directly from a motherboard, which is just crazy.)

If we added the flexibility of a few output types the cost would shoot up, or we would have to compromise each of them to contain cost. There are some music servers on the market that do this, but I am not keen on it.

Arguably, we could offer different options and contain cost that way, and it is indeed possible to fit a high quality SPDIF/AES or Firewire output instead of the USB output. But we do a lot of fine tuning to manage noise issues and we would have to optimise the power supplies for each output type too, so it adds complexity and ultimately cost. Looking ahead, if we are to offer just one then in our experience the ‘no-brainer’ choice is USB.

If we offered optional outputs, then we would be able to directly meet a wider range of customers’ current needs, and so I have agonised over the issue you have raised many times. But we wonder whether this is the best way to meet those needs, as a customer that changes her DAC (to say a USB DAC) would need to change her music server too.

The other way to approach this is to suggest that customers use a USB to SPDIF/AES convertor with our servers for feeding DACs that only have SPDIF/AES. Arguably this meets the customers’ needs better for now and in the future, but involves an additional investment in a separate device and cabling. On the other hand the convertor can be sold when upgrading to a USB DAC.

I used to own a Weiss DAC202 and recently auditioned one with the DS Reference. To do that I used a SOtM USB to SPDIF convertor and it sounded a lot better than our tricked out Mac Mini feeding the Weiss via Firewire. I also tried it with a very good Firewire card installed on the DS Reference and the sound was a lot better than the Mini but not as good as through the SOtM convertor. There are other very good USB convertors around and the Audiophileo is highly recommended. A simpler option (because it includes cabling) is the Halide Bridge, but that is restricted to 24/96, I think still.

I suspect that the main reason the Firewire card did not sound quite as good was mainly due to the higher quality of the USB output implementation we have. We have been making music servers since 2009 and that includes working a lot with Firewire and have not been able to achieve as clean a digital signal as we can with USB, principally due to noise interference challenges.

Weighing up all these issues, we have decided to only offer the high quality USB output.

Michael 12.13.13 at 12:37 pm

What’s the benefit of using a $3500 ripper/storage/player when compared to a decent MAC running one of the audiophile players and a separate DAC?

Karl Sigman 12.13.13 at 3:43 pm

Michael, that is a legitimate question. As a user of both a Mac Mini and a DS Reference, let me try to answer. In my experience, there are 2 kinds of music player users: (1) those who enjoy using computers and are good at doing so, and (2) those that do not like using computers,etc.
A good stand-alone music server is a great choice for type (2), and given that it is devoted to being only a music server it can, for example, focus on playing audiophile quality sound, by having (for example) outstanding USB out (created specifically for audio), and being stable (e.g., not crash) because it is not expected to multitask. That being said, a Mac Mini, when properly fitted/upgraded can be a stiff competitor! Finally, if one’s stereo system is not of high quality, then an inexpensive Mac Mini model (non upgraded, etc.) with an inexpensive DAC is certainly the way to go.

Sincerely,
-K.S.

Mark Jenkins 12.13.13 at 3:44 pm

It sounds quite a lot better ;) We certainly wouldn’t be doing this if it didn’t. Expensive Hackintosh builds were our reference back in 2010 and properly built they left the standard Macs far behind. The DS Reference is more immediate and resolving than those Hackintosh builds were, because we can use a lot less power using Linux, and have more control of what each process is doing.

We have plenty of customers that have made the switch and agree. We may have another DS Reference review out very soon that does that very comparison for you. I wouldn’t usually make a comment like this about a competitor but Apple isn’t really trying to compete with us, are they …

I don’t blame you for doubting it Michael. You will only know if you try it.

Mark Jenkins 12.13.13 at 3:51 pm

I didn’t see Karl’s post - which occurred just before mine. The Mac Mini can indeed be a good investment. I am talking about highly resolving systems showing up a significant difference. A less resolving system will show it less. The same goes for answering ‘why spend $10k on a CD player when there are very good $5k ones?’

admin 12.13.13 at 4:39 pm

We’ll be publishing a review of a modified MAC Mini setup next week.

Michael, what do you mean by ‘audiophile player’? Software?

Thx.

Rob 12.14.13 at 4:18 pm

I am in the market for either a top quality and affordable server (like the Antipodes DS Reference) or a modified MacMini, so this article - and the upcoming review of the modified MacMini - are what I was waiting for.

If I may suggest, could you specifically compare features (or lack thereof) like the use/creation/editing of playlists and meta-tags between the two concepts (I mean the concept of free-standing audio device like DS and the concept of MacMini as a server)? That would be, IMHO, much more telling than comparing file-resolutions and minute differences in sound quality.

admin 12.16.13 at 9:50 am

Rob:

Here.

Dan Rubin 12.19.13 at 5:17 pm

The Antipodes website lists the DS and DX models of music server, but no mention of either the DS1 or DS Reference. Can someone clarify the product map for me?

admin 12.19.13 at 5:37 pm

Sure, Dan.

The DS’ full name is the DS Reference.

The DS1 does not appear because it is no longer current.

Mark Jenkins 12.19.13 at 6:08 pm

That is correct. The DS1 required an external power supply. The DS Reference is the new model, same price as the DS1 but significantly better sounding with the new internal power supplies. I appreciate we may have been confusing on this point. The Reference moniker was added to indicate the level the DS is now performing at.

Robert 12.21.13 at 7:16 am

Hi Mark and thanks for your detailed response (re the Weiss DAC 202 above). My other and separate question, which may have been answered elsewhere, is about music library management. While there is much to criticize about iTunes, and I would love to see a strong competitor emerge, it is pretty much the dominant player in asset management for music. How does the DS Reference work with iTunes … or does it just import from iTunes and then operate independently? While most of the discussion is about sound quality, library management of hundreds of albums is not trivial either. Thanks!

Rob 12.25.13 at 9:57 pm

I am very much interested in the same topic as Robert is. IMHO, nothing matches iTunes simplicity of management of playlists and music files and the convenience of using keyboard and mouse for creating and editing (smart)playlists. Add AppleScripting to that and there is really nothing even close.

The only “crime” of iTunes is that it does not recognize high resolution and flac files. Being an Apple’s customer for nearly 20 years, I don’t hold my breath anymore…

I think that makers of music servers definitely should consider including playlists integrated from iTunes - just like Audirvana or PureMusic software does. So far, not much is going on in this area. Relying on Gracenote or other meta tag providers is such a problem, with automatically added tags being a shameful mess…

Mark Jenkins 01.27.14 at 3:38 pm

Apologies for the time taken to revisit this page, and the slow answers to your questions. I hear what you are saying.

Most, nearly all, music server efforts initially came from the perspective of features - the ease with which music libraries could be accessed. Some audiophiles found this to be intoxicating compared to fiddling with CDs, so they put up with the relatively poor sound quality on offer. Some tried it and found the sound quality inferior and went back to CDs and LPs. Some fell for the talk that you could use any old computer and their DAC would fix it all.

We come from the opposite direction - sound quality. What we have focused on is beating the CD player for sound. We are acutely aware that so far the vast majority of computer audio has been a backward step in terms of sound quality. We could make cheaper models of our servers but a decent CD player would beat them and we see no point in that. Others have been catering to that market for some time.

Our mission is to push the envelope on sound quality for digital music playback, and we won’t deviate from that. Providing greater ease of playback than using a CD Player is easy, but advancing that is a secondary consideration. For example, we could have decided to use Ubuntu Linux and a nice full-featured player such as Guayadeque, but we couldn’t get the same sound quality. Similarly we could be looking at a bloated bit of software like jRiver on Linux, but we aren’t (well we are, but don’t see it happening).

We certainly don’t see ourselves as a software firm trying to build a better iTunes. We have played with every iTunes variant (eg Audirvana, Amarra, etc), such as those based on modified Mac Minis, but we found that a decent CD player sounds better. We have even experimented with iTunes on very expensive Hackintosh builds, and that can yield some very good results. But we can beat that sound quality with our current Linux based machines, at a lower cost. There isn’t much we haven’t tried in this field, having had a full time R&D team working on music servers since 2009, and our decision to use Linux is quite recent, based on sound quality only.

This is not to say we won’t improve library management. We have three projects working on that now. But if you are in the market for a better tool than iTunes, then we are not catering or attempting to cater for that market. If you would like a music server that won’t sound worse than spinning CDs and LPs then we are targeted on that market.

We prefer to use MPD as our music player as it uses the absolute minimum of resources, quite the opposite of using something like iTunes, which is a huge program. But MPD just plays the music, that is it. This means you need to use a piece of client software on another device (so that it does not conflict with the resources on the server) to access the music database independently of MPD, receive info on what track is playing and what tracks are in the playlist, and issue instructions to MPD - such as to add a track to a playlist and what track to play. At the moment we rely entirely on MPD clients written by third parties. We find these to be more than adequate for playing music, but are no competition for iTunes. For library management, our servers are samba compliant so you can use any library management tool (even iTunes), such as dBpoweramp, MediaMonkey, XLD, Max, etc from your PC or Mac as if the music was on your PC/Mac. Additionally our servers have Bliss library management installed on them.

In a similar way, we are working on the ability for users to use almost any UPnP compliant player to manage what MPD (on our server) plays. You can do this today, but it has a couple of bugs that mean we have to fix how this works. For example, it is possible for a customer to have JRiver on a PC to manage their music library and use JRemote to control what MPD plays on our music server via JRiver.

We have other projects to develop our own MPD clients for iPad and Android, but our main emphasis with these is to be completely plug and play for new users with a completely intuitive interface for new users. Connect and turn on your new Antipodes server; download, install and open the player and begin playing music.

I see the answer to better/greater library management with our servers coming from integration with third-party software rather than software developed by us. One reason for this is that there are many different types of users. Some prefer iTunes, some prefer JRiver, some prefer dBpoweramp, etc and so we see the best solution as one that allows you to use whatever you want, in a way that does not compromise sound quality.

Mark Jenkins 01.27.14 at 4:49 pm

One more point for clarity. One of the key determinants of sound quality with a server is to use very low levels of power, as more power means more electronic interference, and the need for more noise filtering (which is best minimised). If we put a large complex music management system on the music server it would run slow or we would have to increase the power of the server. Programs like iTunes and JRiver are large.

This is the key reason why we believe the music management system is best to be one sitting on your PC or Mac. To that end, the key thing about the music server is that it is as open as possible. Our servers are about as open as anything can be for web-based and SMB sharing, for that reason - in contrast to some servers that are very closed.

Mike Lind 02.21.14 at 10:27 am

Hello,

As a pure cd-ripper and streamer (not interested in Bluray or DVD rips) what are the benefits of the DX as not much is stated in the information.
Can the DS or DX be bought with AES/EBU output instead of usb?

/Mike

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>