Maybe, but Raid10 is uneconomical - your capacity is (n/2)*drive capacity.
(Where n is number of disks - let's assume here that all drives are the same capacity and that there's no partition jiggery-pokery going on).

Raid5 gives you (n-1)*drive capacity.

If this was mission-critical (which it is not) then yes, Raid10 would be ideal.

But the reality is that the redundancy of Raid5 should easily suffice for a home media server, and at the same time, 160GB drives are $215 a pop, you're looking at $860 for 480GB of RAID5 vs $1290 for 480GB of RAID10