Music Server Newbie Experiences and Questions

[LuvMyQuad]

Where is your JRiver running? Is it on the NAS?

Yes. JRiver is running in the NAS, The QNAP NAS is also the server. And controlled either directly or via Tremote. Either way it acts the same way. It does seem to have improved some after I made the changes outlined above (increased buffering to the max, enabled read from memory, and maxed out the live playback latency). The problem is much worse when playing back multichannel SACD ISO's during which it typically stops and produces a few snippets of music now and then. Does much better with 24/96 multichannel Flac, where it has an occasional dropout. Anything in stereo is fairly good with only a rare dropout now and then, but it happens. I'm trying to get a gauge now on how much duress the processor and memory are under when it does this. I can monitor the QNAP performance when its playing. I'm beginning to wonder is the JRiver MC incarnation made for QNAP products might be a somewhat unfinished product. Maybe its time to look at running a virtual windows machine on the QNAP and using JRiver for windows or a different player altogether.

UPDATE: Monitoring the NAS system resources during play show both memory and CPU usage to be less than 10% when playing back 2 channel flac, less than 15% when playing back multichannel flac 24/96, and an increase to over 90% CPU usage but only 12 % memory when trying to play a SACD ISO. The SACD is being output at 1 bit 352.8 kHz . Im wondering if that isn't the problem. Im thinking the Emotiva pre pro cant handle that bitrate anyway. If I set JRiver to reduce the bitrate to 96K for anything greater than 96k the files play, although there are still dropouts. I've noticed other things too. Sometimes after playing 2 channel and then going back to multichannel it somehow sets itself to stereo in playback options. You have to go back in and reset it to number of source channels. Also, when I choose a track to play it momentarily displays the title of a track it played 10 tracks ago. It just seems so buggy.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The CPU usage numbers suggest that the CPU in the QNAP is under stress. What processor is it? With JRiver on my main server, I never get up to 10% even with 352.8kHz MCH.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

The CPU usage numbers suggest that the CPU in the QNAP is under stress. What processor is it? With JRiver on my main server, I never get up to 10% even with 352.8kHz MCH.

Quad core Intel Celeron 2.0 Ghz processor with 8 GB RAM. Note that what I am reporting as usage rates are momentary peaks, not averages.

What Processor is in your main server, Kal?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Quad core Intel Celeron 2.0 Ghz processor with 8 GB RAM. Note that what I am reporting as usage rates are momentary peaks, not averages.

What Processor is in your main server, Kal?

I am not at home now, so I do not have the particulars but it is an i7 with 16GB.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I ran an unofficial test. Using a 5.1 SACD ISO.

If I set JR to allow the bitrate to pass unchanged it extracts the audio stream as 352.8 kHz. The CPU resource meters max out with peaks in the high 90%'s and an average in the 70%’s. An occasional snippet of noise might come out of the audio system. The JR interface indicates the music is playing, but it does indicate frequent stops for buffering. I can understand this. The Emotiva Pre/Pro I am using can only handle up to a 192 kHz, so I shouldn’t hear much. But at this point, compared to Kal’s situation, the entire system, both at the server and at the pre/pro, have been brought to their knees.

So, I set JR to down convert everything that is 192 kHz and faster to 192 kHz. Makes sense. Upon playback the CPU resource meter shows peaks in the low 90’s with an average usage in the low to mid 50’s. There is recognizable sound however, intermixed with numerous dropouts. Bad dropouts with low level ticking. The JR display continues to indicate it is buffering. The memory usage when doing this never rises above 15%. Sounds like the processor can’t keep up. It seems like it should make better time filling that free 6+ GIG of free memory the system has available. I did set JR to draw from system memory instead of disc thinking it would be faster. Or am I misunderstanding that?

So lets take it a step further. I set JR to down convert everything that is 96 kHz and faster to 96 kHz. Audio performance is about the same. Maybe there are longer passages of music that provide 20 seconds or so of uninterrupted music. Peak CPU usage is still running in the low 90’s with averages in the low 60%. RAM usage at 12%.

One more step. I set JR to down convert everything that is 96 kHz and faster to 48 kHz. Audio performance is about the same. Peak CPU usage is still running in the mid 90’s with averages in the low 60%. RAM usage at 12%.

In each case with these “measurements” , I verified that the Pre/Pro was in fact receiving the bitrate I had asked for. Also the peak CPU values were generally equal across all four processor cores. Each core shows a large spike now and then. I am assuming this is buffering ?

My thought is, as I continue to lower JR’s output bitrate, it begins to use more and more CPU resources to perform the conversion I told it to do. So, there is no improvement in the actual audio stream because there is no improvement in the speed of the buffering.

I also “measured” performance with 24/96 Flac transfers from 5.1 DVDA. There is typically a spike in CPU usage in a core or two when a track first loads. There are other occasional spikes by individual cores as the track progresses. Again buffering? The CPU usage peaks in the low 20%’s with an average of 10% or less. RAM usage is between 15% and 20%. But there is still the occasional dropout, and with these low CPU usages I cant really blame it on the processor being overtaxed, and I wonder if something else isn’t going on. I’m going to try lowering the buffering limit to see if the dropouts disappear. Im also going to try allowing JR to read from disk instead of memory just to gauge the effect. I'll edit the post if anything significant comes of it.

Stereo playback of the same 24/96 tracks discussed above is pretty trouble free. Dropouts are rare, if at all. Peak CPU usage runs 10% or so with an average of 3-5%. RAM at 10-12%.

So, I’m coming to the conclusion that QNAP’s one box solution really won’t work if one wants to use it to process High Res Multichannel music files. It does a decent job with stereo, and can be useful for MC 24/48 playback, but it definitely seems to have performance issues starting with 24/96 MC tracks. I knew this could be the case when I decided to purchase it, but because it can serve as a high quality stand alone NAS, I knew the risk was pretty minimal. It does have the ability to run in a virtual mode, so conceivably I could load up a copy of Windows and run a full version of JRMC in a real windows environment, but I don’t see how that is going to help the wimpy processing. A dedicated server is probably the next upgrade once I’m fully confident in what is needed, and that’s not likely to happen until next winter. Spring is nearly here and the time is fast approaching when I need to direct all disposable income and time to my other passion... sailing. Until then I’m going to keep building the library. I have an awful lot of 2 channel material and plenty more DVDA’s to extract.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

So, I’m coming to the conclusion that QNAP’s one box solution really won’t work if one wants to use it to process High Res Multichannel music files. It does a decent job with stereo, and can be useful for MC 24/48 playback, but it definitely seems to have performance issues starting with 24/96 MC tracks. I knew this could be the case when I decided to purchase it, but because it can serve as a high quality stand alone NAS, I knew the risk was pretty minimal. It does have the ability to run in a virtual mode, so conceivably I could load up a copy of Windows and run a full version of JRMC in a real windows environment, but I don’t see how that is going to help the wimpy processing. A dedicated server is probably the next upgrade once I’m fully confident in what is needed, and that’s not likely to happen until next winter.

That is probably a reasonable interpretation. My only experience with using an ATOM processor with JRiver was using the Aria Server and saw similar issues: http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-71#mHR2HpVWZVYLztZ1.97

 

[HomerJAU]

I'm using a Synology NAS with Intel Atom 2.4KHz Quad core successfully but only as a file server. All my music-only discs have been converted to FLAC, so no heavy lifting required. Although it does handle Bluray 1080p with DTS-HDMA at 96kHz without any issues and can by used to serve multiple devices concurrently.

My media player has an Intel i3 dual core that does the video processing.

 

[DuncanS]

The i5 based NUCs have support for 7.1 audio through the HDMI port, as the i7 has been released, the i5 based products 'should' drop in price.

That is probably a reasonable interpretation. My only experience with using an ATOM processor with JRiver was using the Aria Server and saw similar issues: http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-71#mHR2HpVWZVYLztZ1.97

 

[HomerJAU]

I doubt an i7 is required for playing any audio and/or video. Each new gen Intel processor gets an updated video processor and codec (e.g. Latest gets some 4K video hardware decoding). My i3 Intel NUC in gen 4. Dual core but like all modern Intel processors, each core handles dual pipes/2 logical processes (4 concurrent tasks for the i3).

For play only you don't need heaps of RAM or even a large local disc if all your media is stored on a NAS or external drive. 4GB RAM and a 30GB SSD drive - about the smallest you can buy (for quick start) is all that's needed.

This is perfect:

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-BOXNUC6...c&ie=UTF8&qid=1456692842&sr=1-19&keywords=NUC

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I doubt an i7 is required for playing any audio and/or video. Each new gen Intel processor gets an updated video processor and codec (e.g. Latest gets some 4K video hardware decoding). My i3 Intel NUC in gen 4. Dual core but like all modern Intel processors, each core handles dual pipes/2 logical processes (4 concurrent tasks for the i3).

For play only you don't need heaps of RAM or even a large local disc if all your media is stored on a NAS or external drive. 4GB RAM and a 30GB SSD drive - about the smallest you can buy (for quick start) is all that's needed.

This is perfect:

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-BOXNUC6...c&ie=UTF8&qid=1456692842&sr=1-19&keywords=NUC

I'm trying to determine what IS actually needed in the way of processor power. Keep in mind, using JRiver to play back MC SACD requires processing power to:

1. convert the stored ISO image to 1 bit, 352.8 kHz
2. down convert the 1 bit 352.8 kHz to 1 bit 192 kHz for use at the pre/pro

that is exclusive of any other audio processing that might be selected like EQ, volume, etc (which I don't plan to use).

I would have thought the quad core Celeron in the QNAP NAS would have been able to handle a 24/96 5.1 flac since there is no additional transcoding required. But it seems to be just on edge of acceptability. Close but no cigar.

Unfortunately I'm not computer savvy enough to know the relative performance increase in going from a quad core Celeron at 2.0 GHz to a dual core i3 at 2.3 GHz. Can anyone shed light on that?

 

[HomerJAU]

I'm pretty sure the Intel i3, i5 and i7 series are all dual threaded (twice the logical processes) compared to Celerons. Try a Google search. So each core can do two parallel tasks.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I'm pretty sure the Intel i3, i5 and i7 series are all dual threaded (twice the logical processes) compared to Celerons. Try a Google search. So each core can do two parallel tasks.

IIRC, only the i3 and i7 are (or were) dual-threaded.

 

[HomerJAU]

All the i series are hyper-threaded so, for example, an i3 dual core has 4 threads (can run 4 parallel processes). Only a very few Celerons have hyper-threading. Quad core i7s can run 8 threads.

The i series also have more advanced and faster internal graphics processors which becomes important when using it for video and audio encoding/decoding.

 

[DennisMoore Jr.]

All the i series are hyper-threaded so...,.

Hi Homer & Kal, No, all the "i" series are not multi-threaded(ability to process two "process threads" per core).
For the currrent Skylake the i3 & i7 yes. The i5 no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_(microarchitecture)

The "i" series branding is confusing to everybody, even people who follow semi-conductors. Good news: Forget about it. Buy the most powerful CPU you can afford. All modern processors can handle HDMI & 4K H.265 processing fine. Multi-threading apps are relatively rare, but are largely in the "R&R" group: ripping & rendering. AutoCad still uses the CPU to render so a 4(8) CPU is ideal, however the non multi-threaded 4 (4) i5 series CPU performs just as fast with most all other apps.

If the application is not written for multi-threading you will not multi-thread!

If you are an Architect or you trans-code tons of video you want multi-threading, everybody else can save their $$$ for more 5.1 purchases. :music

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Hi Homer & Kal, No, all the "i" series are not multi-threaded(ability to process two "process threads" per core).
For the currrent Skylake the i3 & i7 yes. The i5 no.

That's what I meant.

The "i" series branding is confusing to everybody, even people who follow semi-conductors. Good news: Forget about it. Buy the most powerful CPU you can afford. All modern processors can handle HDMI & 4K H.265 processing fine. Multi-threading apps are relatively rare, but are largely in the "R&R" group: ripping & rendering. AutoCad still uses the CPU to render so a 4(8) CPU is ideal, however the non multi-threaded 4 (4) i5 series CPU performs just as fast with most all other apps.

The big problem for us is knowing what is enough because the processes we use vary. Some are only streaming stereo PCM at up to, say, 24/96 while, at the other end, some are streaming DSD256 multichannel and/or 24/192 multichannel PCM downsampled on the fly from up to 24/384 with room correction. At the moment, my i7 is just fine and an i5 does it, too. However, without some practical guidelines, users are in danger of finding out that they bought something underpowered (like the Atom in the QNAP or the Aria player).

 

[DennisMoore Jr.]

The big problem for us is knowing what is enough because the processes we use vary. Some are only streaming stereo PCM at up to, say, 24/96 while, at the other end, some are streaming DSD256 multichannel and/or 24/192 multichannel PCM downsampled on the fly from up to 24/384 with room correction. At the moment, my i7 is just fine and an i5 does it, too. However, without some practical guidelines, users are in danger of finding out that they bought something underpowered (like the Atom in the QNAP or the Aria player).

Fair enough, yes, there is no CPU guide for audio enthusiasts for sure and the Atom is a lovely low power part, but falls way short for our uses. I should think that one criteria would be good as a general rule:

Can the CPU process 4K H.265 decoding? If yes, that CPU would probably function well as the heart of a HTPC.

I have interest in this since I can't wait to downsize my "receiver size" HTPC. But we can't go down in ability to say a Rasberry Pi 2. So where is the sweet spot?

Intel have been putting out some very tempting NUC boxes (Next Unit of Computing)

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/39881-minix-ngc-1-passive-braswell-is-out

4/4 Celeron N3150 should be enough to do all we ask in the audio realm.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

That's what I meant.

The big problem for us is knowing what is enough because the processes we use vary. Some are only streaming stereo PCM at up to, say, 24/96 while, at the other end, some are streaming DSD256 multichannel and/or 24/192 multichannel PCM downsampled on the fly from up to 24/384 with room correction. At the moment, my i7 is just fine and an i5 does it, too. However, without some practical guidelines, users are in danger of finding out that they bought something underpowered (like the Atom in the QNAP or the Aria player).

Well said Kal. Like I explained previously, I expected to have to buy a server along with NAS storage from the start. When I saw the QNAP solution, especially seeing they offered RJiver MC as a native app, I thought, why not try that and see how it works out. Even in the worst case, I will still have a high quality NAS to add to the system. But now, after using it for a few weeks, I know that its quad core Celeron isn't gonna cut it. I have to eventually make a choice on purchasing a server. But I still do not really understand why the Celeron wont work. Ok, so it cant multi thread and even though it has 4 cores it can be outperformed by a dual core i-series processor which also cant multi thread. Others say, "you cant go by clock speed anymore either". Does it get more confusing than this? It reminds me of the situation back in the day when you couldn't figure out how powerful an amplifier really was. Test standards weren't in place yet and every manufacturer used their own standard.

Other than asking others what they are using to perform the same processing as I want to perform, I have no clue how to determine what is necessary. And the notion of buying the most powerful CPU you can afford is really somewhat of a gamble unless you know where to draw the line regarding what will actually do the job.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Intel have been putting out some very tempting NUC boxes (Next Unit of Computing)

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/39881-minix-ngc-1-passive-braswell-is-out

4/4 Celeron N3150 should be enough to do all we ask in the audio realm.

This is exactly the point. I'd be very leery about taking a chance with that processor. I cant see why the performance would be any better than the processor I already have in the QNAP. In fact based on what I read, it seems like a drop in performance from the Celeron in the QNAP.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Fair enough, yes, there is no CPU guide for audio enthusiasts for sure and the Atom is a lovely low power part, but falls way short for our uses. I should think that one criteria would be good as a general rule:

Can the CPU process 4K H.265 decoding? If yes, that CPU would probably function well as the heart of a HTPC.

I have interest in this since I can't wait to downsize my "receiver size" HTPC. But we can't go down in ability to say a Rasberry Pi 2. So where is the sweet spot?

Intel have been putting out some very tempting NUC boxes (Next Unit of Computing)

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/39881-minix-ngc-1-passive-braswell-is-out

4/4 Celeron N3150 should be enough to do all we ask in the audio realm.

"Should be" ain't good enough for me. I will overdo it rather than tempt disappointment.

 

[HomerJAU]

All I can add is that my room correction is done via my AVR, so that not being handled by my i3 NUC (which is Dual core/4 processes).

But I am running Kodi media software which reads the (up to 7.1 96kHz/5.1 192kHz/5.1 384.6kHz) FLAC files concurrently while downloading and displaying 1920x1080 artist photo slideshows (as well as downloading and displaying current lyrics, lists of similar artists and their album covers and current artist historical data).

That all happens in real time, no glitches/freezes or stutters. That is an older 4th gen processor. (5th and 6th are faster and use less power). 6th gen adds some hardware 4K video decoding, apparently mine will do so too (via software only) but I've never tried. (I should try though, maybe this week sometime...)

I went for the i3 after reading lots of info on the web, it worked. I went for Kodi because I wanted a great user interface that supported multichannel audio via HDMI Passthrough and had a iPad remote control app. that would allow me to browse my artist/albums while watching music videos or playing tracks. My previous media player would not let me browse for music while playing music videos.

This all works as I'd hoped. No problems at all for me. It's a perfect solution for me.