Request Audio's The Beast

[edorr]

They have apparently sold 60+ Beasts prior to the U.S. launch. If more serious users in U.S. start to get first hand experience of the UI then maybe Request Audio will do something. A review, or two, that mentions the bug filled UI would hopefully incentivise them to start fixing the problem! I can only keep my fingers crossed and wait for an update!

60 in the US? That would be a pretty shockingly high number. I'm in the wrong line of work.....

 

[pweg]

I had a Beast in my system for about a week and found it a joy to use - it only stayed a week as i couldn't get used to the sound. So i guess i can't help you in relation to your specific problems.

i ended up buying a Vitus MasterPiece DAC, and am waiting for their streamer to become available

 

[kheah78]

60 in the US? That would be a pretty shockingly high number. I'm in the wrong line of work.....

Sorry, what I meant was 60+ in the rest of the world outside the U.S.

 

[kheah78]

I had a Beast in my system for about a week and found it a joy to use - it only stayed a week as i couldn't get used to the sound. So i guess i can't help you in relation to your specific problems.

i ended up buying a Vitus MasterPiece DAC, and am waiting for their streamer to become available

The DAC in the Beast is a fairly low end version from MSB equivalent to their Analog DAC, at best, if the Galaxy clock is installed. The standard clock in the Beast is not even the Femto clock!

I agree that on the surface it is easy to use. However, once you delve a little more deeply into the system there are numerous issues. For example, on the iPad app, the default Covers display album covers sorted by artists appearing on the album, not the album artist. So for Lee Ritenour's 6 String Theory it is listed under Andy McKee! All compilation albums like some of the recent Grammy Nominee CDs are under Adele! The Beast doesn't support the metadata field Album Artist or use the Compilation flag.

Another crazy thing the Beast does is to list albums with the same name together even when they are by different artists. An album with the title Greatest Hits could have 4 or more albums merged into one.

The above examples could be called personal preferences. The real bugs are found when doing things like editing metadata and Album covers. Even when you select Now Playing from the Playlist button results in all the queued songs getting deleted and music play stops! There is also no way to search for a particular track unless you know it's Genre or the Artist! There is also the issue of thousands of duplicate tracks mysteriously appearing and no way to delete them but to go through my library manually deleting each one via a multiple keystroke process.

I could go on but I guess you get the picture! On the surface it looks great but the issues surface once you try to do a little more. The biggest concern I have is that there is no documented way to backup my library other than buying a second Beast! I have asked this question several times but have yet to get a reply. I will be trying to make a copy of the internal SSD as an image if I have the permission to access it.

 

[edorr]

The DAC in the Beast is a fairly low end version from MSB equivalent to their Analog DAC, at best, if the Galaxy clock is installed. The standard clock in the Beast is not even the Femto clock!

I agree that on the surface it is easy to use. However, once you delve a little more deeply into the system there are numerous issues. For example, on the iPad app, the default Covers display album covers sorted by artists appearing on the album, not the album artist. So for Lee Ritenour's 6 String Theory it is listed under Andy McKee! All compilation albums like some of the recent Grammy Nominee CDs are under Adele! The Beast doesn't support the metadata field Album Artist or use the Compilation flag.

Another crazy thing the Beast does is to list albums with the same name together even when they are by different artists. An album with the title Greatest Hits could have 4 or more albums merged into one.

The above examples could be called personal preferences. The real bugs are found when doing things like editing metadata and Album covers. Even when you select Now Playing from the Playlist button results in all the queued songs getting deleted and music play stops! There is also no way to search for a particular track unless you know it's Genre or the Artist! There is also the issue of thousands of duplicate tracks mysteriously appearing and no way to delete them but to go through my library manually deleting each one via a multiple keystroke process.

I could go on but I guess you get the picture! On the surface it looks great but the issues surface once you try to do a little more. The biggest concern I have is that there is no documented way to backup my library other than buying a second Beast! I have asked this question several times but have yet to get a reply. I will be trying to make a copy of the internal SSD as an image if I have the permission to access it.

No backup and not working basic library management functions? count your losses and try getting a (partial) refund. Not worth the aggrevation. I don't understand how a respectable outfit like MSB could get into bed with them without proper due diligence. You don't release beta versions of software on a $30K machine.

PS audio got burned big time trying to develop their own music server, and eventually threw in the towel. It is a massive undertaking and can only be done correctly when you have a large market / user base, or if you have a core competency developing this type of software.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

My take on this is that server-based audio is still in its infancy. Server software should be regarded like an OS that requires a large user base in order to assure continued development and support. Hardware should be modular because it is changing rapidly. You never want to have to re-rip or convert your library so it should be stored on external dedicated devices, e.g., NAS. Outputs should be digital and card-based to allow for changing communications technology. DACs should also be external because they, too, are changing rapidly. Perhaps, some time in the future, enough dust will have settled for a single box solution.

I was timid about the complexity of doing this until I borrowed and played with a PC-based server and it gave me the courage to go in that direction. It also inspired at least 2 of my friends to do the same. We now have libraries of recordings in many formats with resolutions up to 4xDSD in mono/stereo/multichannel with storage, renderer and DAC as independent modules affording the ability to track the progressing technology. Investing in an expensive, completely integrated and closed system is only for those with an irrational fear of anything hand's-on.

 

[kheah78]

No backup and not working basic library management functions? count your losses and try getting a (partial) refund. Not worth the aggrevation. I don't understand how a respectable outfit like MSB could get into bed with them without proper due diligence. You don't release beta versions of software on a $30K machine.

PS audio got burned big time trying to develop their own music server, and eventually threw in the towel. It is a massive undertaking and can only be done correctly when you have a large market / user base, or if you have a core competency developing this type of software.

The excuse given to me for the sub-standard software was that "we are not Apple"! That's pretty obvious....!

 

[kheah78]

My take on this is that server-based audio is still in its infancy. Server software should be regarded like an OS that requires a large user base in order to assure continued development and support. Hardware should be modular because it is changing rapidly. You never want to have to re-rip or convert your library so it should be stored on external dedicated devices, e.g., NAS. Outputs should be digital and card-based to allow for changing communications technology. DACs should also be external because they, too, are changing rapidly. Perhaps, some time in the future, enough dust will have settled for a single box solution.

I was timid about the complexity of doing this until I borrowed and played with a PC-based server and it gave me the courage to go in that direction. It also inspired at least 2 of my friends to do the same. We now have libraries of recordings in many formats with resolutions up to 4xDSD in mono/stereo/multichannel with storage, renderer and DAC as independent modules affording the ability to track the progressing technology. Investing in an expensive, completely integrated and closed system is only for those with an irrational fear of anything hand's-on.

Your approach to digital music is similar to mine in that the modules for storage, rendering and DAC are separate. However because of the Beast a copy of my music is on the internal SSD, albeit with heavily modified metadata to try to make browsing easier. Technology is improving so rapidly that the DAC and renderer/streamer become obsolete very quickly. This is one of the reasons I dec on the MSB Select DAC and the Beast. Both have a 10 year upgrade policy that gets me the latest model by paying the price difference. The upgrade is free in the first year for MSB so in theory I should be getting their new Select DAC free when it's release in April.

 

[edorr]

Your approach to digital music is similar to mine in that the modules for storage, rendering and DAC are separate. However because of the Beast a copy of my music is on the internal SSD, albeit with heavily modified metadata to try to make browsing easier. Technology is improving so rapidly that the DAC and renderer/streamer become obsolete very quickly. This is one of the reasons I dec on the MSB Select DAC and the Beast. Both have a 10 year upgrade policy that gets me the latest model by paying the price difference. The upgrade is free in the first year for MSB so in theory I should be getting their new Select DAC free when it's release in April.

You're basically locking yourself into a manufacturer for 10 years in a market where technology has a 2 year life cycle, and where price performance improves by an order of magniture in a few years. Bad idea.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

However because of the Beast a copy of my music is on the internal SSD, albeit with heavily modified metadata to try to make browsing easier.

How many Tb does it have?

 

[edorr]

How many Tb does it have?

There is a 1TB version and a 2TB version which costs $2,000 more. Given the price of 1TB storage of less than $100, this should set off all the I'm getting royally shafted alarm bells .....

 

[CKKeung]

There is a 1TB version and a 2TB version which costs $2,000 more. Given the price of 1TB storage of less than $100, this should set off all the I'm getting royally shafted alarm bells .....

Are the files inside The Beast stored in HD or SSD?
What grade of HD (enterprise grade?) or SSD (?SLC) are used?

 

[edorr]

Are the files inside The Beast stored in HD or SSD?
What grade of HD (enterprise grade?) or SSD (?SLC) are used?

Good point. Price of 1TB SSD is around 500, so if they use these, charging $2,000 for an additional TB of storage is more realistic....

 

[CKKeung]

Good point. Price of 1TB SSD is around 500, so if they use these, charging $2,000 for an additional TB of storage is more realistic....

There seems to be two OWC SSDs inside. If they are SLC SSD, the prices will be higher than the usual price of USD500x2.

 

[kheah78]

How many Tb does it have?

It only has 2TB but allows you to also store music on multiple NAS drives. You can choose where an album or song is stored but the process to change the default location is rather tedious. I have put my audiophile recordings on the SSD and the casual listening stuff on the NAS.

 

[kheah78]

You're basically locking yourself into a manufacturer for 10 years in a market where technology has a 2 year life cycle, and where price performance improves by an order of magniture in a few years. Bad idea.

I am fairly comfortable being locked into using the next few generations of MSB DAC as they have been able to improve their products with each new release. However I think I have put my money on the wrong horse with the Beast. I still see potential in their product. They just need software that's more intuitive and has been fully debugged to make playing music more fun!

 

[kheah78]

Good point. Price of 1TB SSD is around 500, so if they use these, charging $2,000 for an additional TB of storage is more realistic....

When I ordered my machine they had already stopped producing the 1TB option as the price of SSD was falling. Now they only make 2TB machines.

 

[edorr]

When I ordered my machine they had already stopped producing the 1TB option as the price of SSD was falling. Now they only make 2TB machines.

Something good (for me) is coming out of this. I am getting two additional 1TB SSDs installed in my a/v streamer. Apparently, this is the best sounding storage for critical listening applications. 2 x 6TB will stay inside for movies, concert DVDs and may (additional) back up of the SSDs.... 1TB SSD sells for $350, so this won't break the bank.

 

[audioblazer]

Your approach to digital music is similar to mine in that the modules for storage, rendering and DAC are separate. However because of the Beast a copy of my music is on the internal SSD, albeit with heavily modified metadata to try to make browsing easier. Technology is improving so rapidly that the DAC and renderer/streamer become obsolete very quickly. This is one of the reasons I dec on the MSB Select DAC and the Beast. Both have a 10 year upgrade policy that gets me the latest model by paying the price difference. The upgrade is free in the first year for MSB so in theory I should be getting their new Select DAC free when it's release in April.

Paying the price difference ? Not exactly correct . If u bought MSB Select at the retail price of USD75k , your next upgrade, Select (2) is worth USD90k . 1 year later, the next revolutionary discovery , let's call it Select 3 , eg worth USD110k , u will have to pay the latest price minus the price u pay for your Select ie USD110k-75k = USD 35k . Please take note the new DAC V ( USD40+k ) is better than Select 2014 + more ( as claimed in MSB website ) . In other words , you are paying USD 30k+ for a 1 year rental of Select .
Sorry out of topic but I thought this is an important info many MSB select purchasers over looked

 

[edorr]

Paying the price difference ? Not exactly correct . If u bought MSB Select at the retail price of USD75k , your next upgrade, Select (2) is worth USD90k . 1 year later, the next revolutionary discovery , let's call it Select 3 , eg worth USD110k , u will have to pay the latest price minus the price u pay for your Select ie USD110k-75k = USD 35k . Please take note the new DAC V ( USD40+k ) is better than Select 2014 + more ( as claimed in MSB website ) . In other words , you are paying USD 30k+ for a 1 year rental of Select .
Sorry out of topic but I thought this is an important info many MSB select purchasers over looked

As a former customer who was always treated very well by them, I reluctantly say this, but it is hard not to conclude that MSB's primary goal is to extract the maximum amount of revenue from their very affluent customer base, through complex pricing, marketing and product release strategies. Delivering innovation and improving price performance of digital technology is a remote second objective.

They completely lost the plot with their $40K servers, $90K select models and $185K MCH system (which is a complete function/feature joke), and extorionary pricing.