I have been using Moode for many years. My main system source consists of an RPi Zero W/Kali/ProtoDAC running Moode via weak Wifi (-65dBm) with the library (140,000+ files) on a Windows i7 computer. The problem was that library updates could take 6 or more hours.
If the library is on an i7 Windows instance, I have no idea why a library update would take so long, what is the server software in use on that computer, Foobar 2K?
You should not be trying to catalog a large library with the RPi Zero W, at a minimum you'd want to upgrade that to the Zero 2W, but better yet don't use the RPi at all for cataloging and indexing the library, have the Windows computer handle all of that, and just use the RPi as an endpoint/player.
Someone suggested trying pCP/LMS, because it sounded better than Moode.
Subjective take and prone to a ton of variables.
LMS/pCP also makes more sense with a Zero W.
It does, pCP is even slimmer than Moode, though Moode does run perfectly well (as an endpoint) on the Zero W.
Library management on an i7 computer, the RPi just plays files.
Yes although if you ditch the Zero W in favor of an RPi 3B+, 4B, or RPi 5, then you can easily have pCP act as both LMS (local library) and Squeezelite renderer (endpoint/player) simultaneously. That instance can serve files to itself for playback, or to any other Squeeze endpoint that you have.
Unfortunately, sound quality of pCP/Squeezelite is not as good as Moode MPD.
I would say that has not been my experience, and though a lot of this is very subjective, you also need to take great pains in making sure it is a level playing field for the comparison. For example, many folks mistakenly leave the digital volume control active or just fail to fully address all of the relevant settings that allow for pCP to produce bit perfect output. In theory if both MPD and Squeezelite are setup to produce a bit perfect output, there should be tiny (some would say infinitesimal) differences between them when using the very same DAC. YMMV of course, but there shouldn't be any big sonic difference unless a setting such as digital volume control is preventing bit perfect output.
The ES9023 setting has a more forward sound. The perceived loudness is higher than MPD. MPD has a more realistic 3D perspective. The TI5102 setting was less forward sounding, but less hall reflections even when the loudness is compensated. These findings could be system (DAC) dependent.
They are definitely going to be at least somewhat system dependent, and I'm not familiar with that DAC's sound. I also don't really get how both the TI5102 and ES9023 Linux drivers could work with that DAC as they are two very different chipsets, and that could also definitely produce a different sonic flavor. What does the ProtoDAC designer recommend using, either/or?
Comparing MPD to pCP requires some time to switch the SD cards and restart the system, but the difference is apparent in just a few seconds.
You don't want to be in a hurry comparing anyway, fast switching back and forth is not the way to go, you want to carefully address all settings and then leave one instance in place and let both it and you settle in for days or even weeks. Then make the switch back and repeat the same careful attention to settings, and once again let the changed system settle back in over days and weeks to form your judgement. I'm not a "bits are bits" type of guy at all, and I'm aware of various folks feeling Moode just has that certain something extra sonically, and I don't necessarily disagree, but preconceived notions (expectation bias) are a very powerful thing.
