dannycanham said:
Design wise putting everything into the same box is a compromise. However when money comes into play you get more bang for your buck. At the price range you are talking about you should have no problem finding devices you are vey happy with doing the usual going and listening.
In what way would you consider this type of design a compromise? The way I see it, you actually pay for better quality components and design because the manufacturing costs of several boxes have been reduced down to one box.
Basic audio engineering. Anyone who has built audio equipment will tell you that (unless they are selling a combination system of course). If you use the same quality components and build completely seperate pre/power etc etc you come across alot less design problems with components. People including myself who have listened to said systems are pretty much unanimous in the belief that a seperates design will more often than not sound better. I haven't the time to explain it all to you when I clearly have to start from such a low level.
Here is one of many places on the internet with interesting views on the subject:
http://www.dnm.co.uk/materials.html
I already mentioned bang for your buck as the other side of the coin and that for £2500 the op would find something they were happy with. I don't own true seperates. My budget doesn't stretch to the kit I would ideally like. I am aware that the designs of my kit is a compromise. It is audible. For my budget I have found kit I am happy with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezebox_Server
And a pair of active with DAC inside speakers as you have mentioned.
There are not many options for speakers with incoporated DACs and initially, if going down the squeezebox route, I'd be inclined not to bother with an additional DAC at all. Better to wait and see how the set up sounds before adding something potentially unneccessary.
So when spending £2500 on a system you would recommend no DAC past the internal squeezebox DAC? I have heard the internal squeezebox DAC. It is OK. When spending £2500 on a system it isn't hard to do better. I have never heard anyone else who has heard said kit disagree with my view on this.
There are not many options for DAC speakers but as the OP wanted reduced boxes and already mentioned them. I happen to agree he should look down this route.
You don't have to worry about the problem of polution from a computer near to hi fi.
The squeezebox nas should use even less power than low power computers.
It is very few boxes.
A small form factor Pc works as storage and media player in addition to normal Pc duties, it is therefore far better value being more flexible. The power consumption of my ASRock is around 24W, granted, more than my NAS at 11W, but add the Squeezebox and the difference is negligible. There is also the benefit of not having to stream the files between devices and having the ripping and metadata software in the same location as your media.
If the computer in question is a Mac, then the remote could be a number of mobile Apple devices, also being multi functional and not simply a remote.
It is even fewer boxes.
I own two mac mini's and a netbook. I have a phone that can be used as a remote. They are awkward without a tv/screen and keyboard trackpad. As a pure audio device more dedicated kit is much more convenient.
After setup it would be
Speakers, Squeezebox, NAS, remote.
Speakers, computer, keyboard, trackpad, remote, screen.
Pollution? Have you honestly listened to a similar system of the type we are discussing? It does seem that your suggestions are based on anecdotal evidence.
Yes. I have. My suggestions are based on a combination of a degree in electroacoustics, building audio equipment, being a member of an acoustics society for many years, listening to thousands of pieces of kit often with like minded enthusiasts AND anecdotal evidence.
When building hi fi it would be easy to use a computer processor rather than a dedicated audio processor. Dedicated processors are used for a reason. Dedicated processors are fit for purpose using the lowest power and creating the lowest pollution for other components. Obviously a squeezebox is neither but it is a step in the right direction from a multi puprose computer.
Half of your arguments are akin to arguing with reality and the whole industry itself. Are you just trolling or clueless when it comes to hi-fi?