The Linnofil Super NAS!

Hardware and software, modifications and DIY

Moderator: Staff

k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

Here comes a short summary of experiences with the digital world gained in the meantime.

The main conclusion is that it is very difficult to compare things: Software, hardware, music. This is due to the fact, that we recognized musical differences depending on the way of downloading (single file vs. multiple files using download manager) and also on the copy process of files. Even a recording (SonarX1, W7) on a Intel 320 SSD sounds different to a copy on the same (!) SSD. The original recording file being further away from the LP12 than the copy, in this case. Up to date it was impossible to fully conserve the quality of the digital throughput (LP12 AD/DA Orpheus) by a PC playback. From these experiences I suspect that also EAC rippings sound different depending e.g. on the speed of the rip (clean CD vs. compromised CD, EAC settings). Remember, tests here use hires material only.

A few days ago I wrote into my records:
From the boards used, an E35M1-M is at present liked best, next to the E2KM1-I (others were E45M1-I, P8P67-M, P8B75M, all ASUS boards), all tried with the Seasonic PSU and I320s and Deltacos. It was the E35 that gave an immediate impression of musical correctness. It was the last board on the agenda, and the result was not due to planned testing but rather to trial and error (with emphasis on error). Still I have no idea which component characteristics are beneficial or adverse to the music. Surprisingly, recording directly to the I320 is worse (a bit lame and congested) than a record on a Constellation and subsequent copy to the SSD. Subsequent copy to the SSD, however, was mostly better than playback from the HDD.

Now it turned out, however, that the evaluation of the boards might have been biased. This is caused by the CPU fan. The E35 was initially used without any fan, while the E35-Pro board came with a tiny ASUS mini fan. The sound of both boards degraded when a high quality Scythe fan was installed in place of the ASUS mini or no fan. But exactly this Scythe fan had been used to check the start board E45, thus most likely deteriorating its performance. The E2K uses a build on fan by ASUS. The Intel boards use the processor’s retail fan. I think that the power consumption is the decisive parameter (100 mA mini ASUS, 240 mA Scythe fan). The conclusion is that unless the optimum fan for each board is used, it makes little sense to give general statements about their sound quality. The fan can severely limit the performance.

Can someone with a Fractal 80 mm fan report what power consumption it takes?

It has also been further checked whether a more convenient HDD than the tractor 3.5 inch Constellation could be used. My 2.5 inch HDDs do not give the same quality, regardless how they are connected (Sata, USB2 or 3). Playback directly from the Constellation without copying files to the SSD sounds also markedly worse (empty Constellation, treated with wipedisk and newly formatted, Deltaco cable). An early Constellation marked Barracuda ES is used. People who are not completely satisfied with the I320 should have a try with: 1. simply copy a file and 2. download to a Constellation and copy to the SSD (I remember Nicolav reported shortcomings of his SSD). Record to the Constellation and copy the file to the I320 is the best I could achieve up to date. Much better than to record on the SSD.

It would be interesting whether the newer generations of the Constellation HDDs provide similarly good results (ES.2, Constellation.2). Anyone tried?

BR, Klaus
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

Q1 answered:
The Fractal 80mm fan takes 0.1A, so this is just equal to the mini ASUS fan that comes with the E35 pro.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Thanks for sharing your experiences with digital file transfers, Klaus!

I know that some will regard the contents of your post as madness, but I can confirm some of the things you mention. Ripping to one drive and moving the file to a second can sound different from ripping directly to the second. The resulting two files are bit identical, so there is something else at play. If I had the time, I'd look closely at the analogue waveforms of the digital stream and which, if any, signatures can be traced to storage on specific hardware.
SaltyDog
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 359
Joined: 2008-09-11 18:34
Location: Chicago suburbs

Post by SaltyDog »

Could it be that the files are fragmented when ripped, but are more continuous (not a techie here) when transferred?
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

lejonklou wrote:I know that some will regard the contents of your post as madness,
No doubt, possibly include myself.... It's similarly 'ridiculous' as changing Sata cables, directions, etc. etc.
If I had the time, I'd look closely at the analogue waveforms of the digital stream and which, if any, signatures can be traced to storage on specific hardware.
A second issue would be whether there is meta info coming with the file content and how this is stored. (No idea.)
SaltyDog wrote:Could it be that the files are fragmented when ripped, but are more continuous (not a techie here) when transferred?
This was my first thought. The ripping (or recording) is comparatively slow while the copy process is very fast. Does this result in differences? Obviously, the digital world is even more of a mystery than the analogue...
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

A couple of fans have been tested, all of 0.1 A power rating:
- Asus mini (coming with the E35 Pro)
- Fractal R2 80 mm
- BeQuiet Shadow Wings 80 mm
Run on a E35 board as CPU fan.

In my setup, the Asus sounded well structured, but overly bright and harsh. The Fractal made a complete mess of the music, fast passages sounding messy, slow passages falling completely apart. The BeQuiet sowhere inbetween, not harsh, but lacking structure and fun. All of them not really enjoyable. Asus Q-Fan enabled, Profile 'Standard' chosen.
It is amazing to what degree the fan can alter (and deteriotate) the character of the music reproduction. The actual power used to drive the fans has not been determined. So it remains an open question, whether the power or some other characteristic is causing the differences.

A friend had a BeQuiet ShadowWings 92mm (PWM) at hand, so we tested this, too, a day later. This sounded much better than all of the above. It turned with about 1300 rpm, but is rated with a higher current (iirc 170 mA). Being tired of having to shut down and restart the PC for every change, I decided to give the Asus FanXpert (vers. 1.x) a chance. We do have the Asus boards, so why not take advantage of this programme. With this, it is nicely possible to tune the fan rpm by keeping its speed fixed over the entire temperature range (three points can be set for the temp-speed relation; simply set all of them to the same speed). This is the main message here: Use this tool to check the best fan speed. The standard fan profiles will change the speed with varying temperature and alter the sound hereby. My understanding is that this programme hands over the adjustments to the BIOS (Q-Fan being disabled there (I don't know if it is disabled automatically by FanXpert)) and can be shut after the adjustments are made. You definitley have to check fans and speeds for your particular setup.

Checks were made using mainly Bach Three Part Inventions (piano) played by T. Nicolaeva. The tension in the slower inventions is very fragile and when kept up by the equipment, it belongs to the better half. Loosing it is a KO-criterion for me.
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

Short message only:

1. The Constellation.2 (2.5'') unfortunately is not an equally good replacement for the I320. Schade.

2. On my ES.3 2 TB, cluster size does have en effect. I like the bigger better, tried only the extremes, however: 4 kB and 64 kB.
flojo
Member
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 2007-02-01 18:34
Location: Netherlands

Post by flojo »

After some setbacks with the motherboard, I finally got my LS-NAS up and running.

Image

The setup:

• Case: homebrewed 5 mm aluminium plates on MDF base
• PSU: Seasonic Platinum 400FL 400W
• Motherboard: Asus E35M1-I Pro
• RAM: Kingston 2x4 GB DDR3 PC10600 1333MHz KVR1333N9/4G.
(KTH9600B/4G available for testing)
• Music storage: Intel SSD 320, 2 * 160 GB
• OS storage: Samsung SSD 840, 120 GB
• Additional storage: WD Green Caviar 1TB
• SATA cable: Deltaco
• Cooling fan: ASUS fan
• Power cord: Kemp Elektronics Hi Powercord
• OS: stripped Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit)
• Mediaserver: Asset UPnP
• Anti-virus: AVG Anti virus 2012
• Switch: Netgear GS108
• LAN cables: Audioquest Forest (5 m)

Some explanation:
1. Homebrewed case: I like building thinks. This one I could place in
the living room according to my girlfriend
2. Asus E35 instead of E45: because I couldn’t get an E45 as fast as I
wanted
3. PSU: I found this 400 on eBay and it should do the job
4. OS: W7 Ultimate as I want RDP for remote management. I’m still
stripping the OS in order to get a bare OS

Cheers,

Florens
Last edited by flojo on 2013-10-07 15:53, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

flojo wrote:After some setbacks with the motherboard, I finally got my LS-NAS up and running.

Image

Cheers,

Florens
Now that's what I call Open Source! ;-)
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

While this isn't the more comprehensive update I want to post I thought it was time for a little update. First off, the digital part of my system is sounding better than I have ever heard it in my home. In part this is due to my getting an ADS/0/D for my system which certainly beats up on the MDS I had and sold about 6 months ago. It also means I don't have to keep borrowing an ADS from the store to listen and optimize the LS-NAS. Secondly, I finally got all the parts for a demo Harmoni rack so I could put the one in my system in the configuration I had originally intended. This has all the Linn components on Mimer shelves except the LP12 which is on the Archidee. Third, along with that I built a custom Yggdrasil rack for my digital feed components. I made it a little different by making the bottom shelf a Tor. SInce this improves the performance of the full size racks I reasoned it would as well here. It is sized perfectly for the LS-NAS at 12" x 16" and has the LS-NAS on top, the ripping CD/DVD in the center and the GS108T on the bottom. As soon as I moved the LS-NAS by itself from a Quadraspire Midi rack to the Yggdrasil all I could say is "Wow!". The Yggdrasil made a substantial improvement in the musical quality of the LS-NAS and I also noticed an improvement when I moved the GS108T200 from on top of the NAS (where I had it for easy cable changes) to the bottom shelf. So these structural changes have moved music forward even further.

Then we come to the cables. I received a batch of Deltaco SATA cables thanks to Fredrik and got a couple hooked up and burned in. I did some comparisons yesterday and found that the Deltaco was definitely better than the cables that came with the ASUS although not as much better as the ASUS were over the Rosewill I had bought from Newegg. So I now have Deltacos in place internally and I also tried the different SATA connections on the motherboard and plugged the SSD and HD into the best sounding (although the differences were small they were still there). I also have a Deltaco eSATA cable for the CD ripper but I haven't been able to test it yet. Then, since I had to open the unit up anyway I decided it was time to torque the case precisely. After trying torques ranging from .4Nm to .8Nm I found that the most musical torque for the case screws for the top, bottom and side panels (which all fix the same way) was dead on .6Nm. This made yet another improvement in the musical performance. So you can see why the system is sounding so musical.

At this point the LS-NAS is getting pretty close to optimum in performance. I have what appear to be all the best components installed and have optimized a fair bit of things like torques and connections. I still need to determine the best torques for the motherboard, power supply and front and back panels and I will play around with the drives (I have an internal 1Tb Seagate ES2 as well as the 600GB 320 - a brief listen yesterday had me feeling the SSD was a touch better but it wasn't a completely accurate test). I'm also working with the RJ45 cables but that is for a different thread. Overall, it is close and sounding quite fine.

So, as a recap and update, here is my current configuration:

• Case: BZ06l aluminum Mini-ITX NAS case (no brand name from China)
• PSU: Seasonic Platinum 460FL 460W
• Motherboard: Asus E45M1-I DELUXE mini-ITX / AMD E-450 / HD 6320
• RAM: Kingston 2x4 GB DDR3 PC10600 1333MHz (KTH9600B/4G)
• Music storage: Intel SSD 320, 600 GB
• OS storage: same disk
• Additional storage: Seagate 1TB ES.2 HD
• SATA cable: 2 Deltaco 30cm 3Gbps SATA II
• Cooling fan: Fractal Design Silent Series 140 mm
• Power cord: Linn Longwell
• OS: Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit) (OEM DVD)
• Mediaserver: Linn Songbox (preferred) and Asset UPnP
• Anti-virus: AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition 2013
• Switch: Netgear GS108T-200NAS
• LAN cables: MicroConnect (testing 2 & 3m)
• Rack: Yggdrasil with 3 shelves, Tor base

Also have the following for ripping:

• Drive: Samsung SH-224BB DVD drive
• Enclosure: Vantec NexStar DX Model NST-530SU USB 2.0 & eSATA
• eSATA Cable: Deltaco eSATA 1m cable
• Power cord: Linn
• Ripping software: iTunes (tested EAC, db Poweramp)

At this point I don't expect the configuration to change much except for the drives. I may end up pulling the Seagate out (or I may not if I need to rip to it and copy to the SSD) and I have a 300GB SSD 320 I may end up putting in as well. But overall the config is solid and performing quite well.
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

Flojo, nice to see.
From testings of a number of boards, I congratulate to the purchase of the microATX. In my setups, this format (E35, E45) works better than the small miniITXs (E45, E2K). Both the E35 and E45 mATX gave an immediate feeling of sounding right, while the mITXs lacked energy and timing. (Of course, one should treat such statements with care with respect to generalization, and perhaps not take them as absolute, as synergy seems what is at work, not absolutely best mosaic pieces.)
With the E35-mATX, both Pro and standard, the BeQuiet 92 mm fan improved things here greatly. Asus in-box better than Fractal, all bettered by the BeQuiet Shadow Wings PWM. As it is not expensive, I recommend to test this. I run it now with a E45-mATX, which I like a tad better than the 35, so finally (?) arriving at the start point provided by Linnofil.... It seems that my initial purchase of a E45 mITX caused quite a deviation. I unfortunately preferred it because of its small dimensions. The E45-mATX can at present be purchased in Europe!

Right now, the RAM drives me crazy. Up to date I used a G.Skill, which was superiour to many others. Switching to some 4GB Kingston recently showed, that things can be improved here, BUT the conclusions about recording, HDD, copying before playing, etc. are all obsolete by this. The RAM seems to affect also what is found on the disc after recording/downloading. Strange again. (Certainly in the focus of Linn and the Exakt team!) Another 8GB Kingston was a complete mess musically. Should one consider to record with one type of memory and playback with another?
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

k_numigl wrote:Right now, the RAM drives me crazy. Up to date I used a G.Skill, which was superiour to many others. Switching to some 4GB Kingston recently showed, that things can be improved here, BUT the conclusions about recording, HDD, copying before playing, etc. are all obsolete by this. The RAM seems to affect also what is found on the disc after recording/downloading. Strange again. (Certainly in the focus of Linn and the Exakt team!) Another 8GB Kingston was a complete mess musically. Should one consider to record with one type of memory and playback with another?
Does anyone have any theory as to what might be going on here? When the first reports came on forums that the type of Ethernet cable made a difference, then there was the idea it might be picking up RFI and somehow impacting the analogue elements of a DS player. But what you guys report now seems way beyond that. And just to clarify, I don't doubt any of your findings.
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

Personally, I don't even have a clue what pieces/clusters/chunks are transported in one go over the Sata, Firewire, Ehternet connections, not to speak of how a PCIe bus or HDD/SSD or memory is organised. Thus, my basic understanding (?) is that 'digital is lossless', and the purely subjective judgements and conclusions by inferiour devices (ears and brains) can't matter too much.....
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

k_numigl wrote:Personally, I don't even have a clue what pieces/clusters/chunks are transported in one go over the Sata, Firewire, Ehternet connections, not to speak of how a PCIe bus or HDD/SSD or memory is organised. Thus, my basic understanding (?) is that 'digital is lossless', and the purely subjective judgements and conclusions by inferiour devices (ears and brains) can't matter too much.....
I just think that once the science is understood, there would be scope for even greater progress. Rather than trial and error, which is very time consuming, it would be possible to theorise possible improvements and home in on key factors. Maybe the understanding would spark other ideas that lead to radical changes.
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

Have to correct myself:
It is not the RAM, but the location of the OS what makes the difference whether a copy sounds better than the recording file in my system.
With the OS on the I320 SSD, the copy sounds better. Thats my normal setup. Running short of SSDs (one for each mainboard), I thought it coudn't make a difference to use a 2.5'' HDD for the latest mainboard. I should have known better.....of course.
With the OS on the HDD, the recording file sounds better than the copy.
With the OS on the I320 SSD, it is vice versa.
Similarly strange, but it was not the RAM!
Perhaps someone can test, whether it makes a similar difference when using a Samsung instead of a Intel320 as the OS location?

Of course, to understand all this would be preferable to trial and error.
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

Klaus, are you saying, in effect, that the recording sounds better if it is on a different drive than the OS? Or is this something different? Just trying to wrap my head around what seems the best way to proceed.
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

I always use a separate disk for the sound files, with the OS on another. The OS was mostly on a smallish Intel 320, 128 GB or so. The sound files are on 300 and 600 GB Intel320. This is to be able to compare several mainboards without the need to copy the sound files. For each mainboard I use a dedicated OS disk. This allows to swap mainboards quickly without the need to setup the W7 anew.

As I wished (and still wish) to get rid of the OS-HDD with their noise and low speed, I used small Intel SSDs for the OS. Only when I ran short of them (too many mainboards), I changed to a 2.5'' HDD for the OS. Right now I run the ensemble from an old Seagate Momentus 500 GB 5400 rpm. It is with this setup, that the recorded files (on I320, 300 and 600 GB) sound best, while they did not with the OS on an I320.

This indicates that the type of HDD/SSD where the OS sits on makes an effect. It is a very clear effect in the setups described. Therefore there is a chance, that different SSDs for the OS also sound different, i.e. it may not be unimportant whether it is a I320, Samsung, Adata, etc. etc.. If so, comparisons make sense only when the same OS drive is used.

With the OS on the conventional HDD at present, the fun factor is so much better that I doubt to get rid of it. Whether this is a general characteristic of HDDs, or specific to the used item, is an open question. As mentioned, I was surprised that the OS drive makes an effect at all, but should have known better as we all experienced that there is obviously no component change that makes no effect.
flojo
Member
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 2007-02-01 18:34
Location: Netherlands

Post by flojo »

k_numigl wrote: (...) the BeQuiet 92 mm fan improved things here greatly. Asus in-box better than Fractal, all bettered by the BeQuiet Shadow Wings PWM. As it is not expensive, I recommend to test this.
Thanks for this idea. I've just ordered the 92 mm BeQuiet fan.
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

My confusion with respect to where the OS should be placed (SSD/HDD) for best results has decreased a little. The key seems to be power consumption and not the fact alone where the OS is located.

I simply tested the OS an a SSD (I320, separate from data SSDs) and rechecked its performance when an additional 2.5'' HDD (Constellation.2, 7200 rpm) is added to the same power line. The performance is getting markedly _better_ with this additional load. (The same power line serves also two data SSDs in all my tests.) It seems that this power consumption is the decisive factor, and not the type of the OS disk.

If you have the OS an an SSD, I recommend to check the difference an additional HDD makes (and give feedback).
David Neel
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 975
Joined: 2008-02-08 23:17
Location: The Magical Forest

Coolermaster case

Post by David Neel »

I've just got the Coolermaster case to replace my Node 304. I've done this primarily for ease of use, as I can mount my ripping drive in the case, but it will also mean that the internal power cord extension of the Node 304 is eliminated.

I've only just un-boxed, but need to tell people that the Fractal design side fan recommended will not fit. It's 25mm thick, and the coolermaster fan is only (at a guess) 15mm.

Is anybody running this case without any fans? I might try that.
David Neel
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 975
Joined: 2008-02-08 23:17
Location: The Magical Forest

Post by David Neel »

Built it this afternoon, now playing. Hadn't listened for a week prior, so no A/B comparison. I needed the inbuilt ripping drive, as taking off the case and wiring it in each time means I haven't bothered to rip anything in months, and a queue is building up....

First impressions are that there is an improvement in both sound quality and musicality. There are three changes I can think of that might cause this:
1) The case is has changed - is the new one intrinsically better sounding?
2) The power cord is now straight to the PSU, not via the Node 304 internal extension - I've tried this before with the Node 304 case open, and while there is an improvement, it's not as big as this
3) As the Fractal Design fan did not fit, I decided to build it fanless, and physically removed the fans

So I expect to be listening (and ripping) a lot this weekend.
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

Fractal Design fan did not fit, I decided to build it fanless

Why not connect the fan and let it blow to anywhere, in order to profit from its sound improvement?
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

As some others here I felt that existing case designs do not meet our requirements for the LSNAS too well. A possible solution is below.
An important requirement is to have the mainboard horizontal and also to be able to operate it upside down or not. The need for structural rigidity is self evident. Accessibility of the mainboard is also necessary to swap parts easily.
My solution is a ‘two floor’ three plate design made of 1.5 mm brushed stainless steel for the case shell (perhaps a bit exaggerated) and a better type of aluminium (5083) for the three 4 mm plates. In addition to the upper and lower case wall there is a plate in the middle of the case that supports the mainboard and the SSDs/2.5''HDDs. This allows easy access to the mainboard by simply detaching the cover plate. The same is true for the PSU/DVD drive ‘floor’ - just take off the cover plate to service the parts there. I wanted integrated Linn trampolin feet, too, as they may improve the sound.

The case (not upside down here):
Image

Raw parts:
1) MoBo support plate:
Image

and 2) special small pieces to fix the SSDs from above, not from below:
Image

3) the empty case consisting of two half shells:
Image

The back shell looks like this (PSU can be turned by 180 degrees, depending whether the MoBo shall run upside down or not. Vertical cutouts in the ‘PSU floor’ are for controlled ventilation of two optional 3.5’’ HDDs that can find their place at the side the PSU.):
Image

The front shell has to look good either side up. I wanted a CD drive; if not needed it is easy to plug it off.
Image

Base plate with Trampolins:
Image

Mobo and SSDs/HDDs mounted (the 92 mm BeQuiet fan is still lacking in this pic):
Image

And a detail of the SSDs mount plates. The screws can be accessed while cables are mounted.
Image

There’s definitely a con to this construction: The stainless steel surface is terribly sensitive to fingerprints…. The from other applications well known Bergeon Rodico helps ))
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

Very interesting build. You seem to have covered all the bases. I'll be interested to hear how it turns out and how well the Trampolin feet work.

I am wondering if you, or anyone, has tested orientation of the PSU or the SSDs. Do the SSDs sound best mounted vertically as opposed to horizontally? It appears you prefer a solid mounting for them instead of the kind of rubber standoffs of some mounting rails.

Also one thought has been bothering me for a little bit and I wondered what everyone feels about this. Since HDDs and SDDs don't last forever it is always good to have a good backup strategy. But if music sounds different when ripped to one drive and then copied to another drive (as has been suggested, but may have been reversed) aren't you changing and possibly losing musical quality by transferring the music to a backup disc and then to the current working drive? Any thoughts or solutions on this (hopefully other than ripping and downloading the entire collection again)?
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover »

Sweet!
It's all about musical understanding!
Post Reply