+ Reply to Thread
Page 19 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 218

Thread: Audiophile output on Mac OSX

  1. #181
    Join Date: Jan 2010

    Location: Phoenix, Arizona

    Posts: 51

    Default Mac Experiences

    I have used a Mac for the basis of an audio system for the past 6 years. My current configuration is a 2010 Mac Mini with 8GB RAM running the latest version of Mac OSX. I use iTunes as my library manager. My library resides on a 2TB external HDD with a second daisy chained via FireWire 800 as the back up. The majority of my library (1700+ albums) were imported from my CDs with less than 10% (but growing) being purchased high resolution downloads. I use XLD with AcuurateRIP to extract AIFF files from the CDs to my library. I have used several playback softwares which I find exceed the performance of iTunes and provide additional beneficial features such as auto sample rate switching. These include Pure Music, Audivrana +, Amarra and now JRiver for Mac. Audivrana is my preferred player of choice for now. Long term, as it continues to develope JRiver For Mac may be my choice because it is not only a player but a complete media management system that replaces iTunes. I output this via USB to a T+A DAC8 and then to Dynaudio Focus 110A powered monitors.

    I don't thing I have ever been happier listening to my music based on the quality of output, accessibility and functionality.
    (2) Lacie Quadra2 HDD>(2) Cardas Clear USB Cables>Mac Mini (AIFF-iTunes-Pure Music)>Cardas Clear USB cable>Bel Canto DAC 1.5>Cardas Clear Light XLR interconnects>Bel Canto 500S amp>Cardas Clear Sky Speaker cables>Dynaudio Chorus 220 MKII speakers

  2. #182
    Join Date: Feb 2012

    Location: Falun, Sweden

    Posts: 2,245
    I'm Mike.

    Default

    You have almost exactly the same setup as i do!
    Only difference is that i store my music on a NAS and use Amarra for the output.

    We're in agreement on the acessibility and sound quality side of this i full. My computer does act as as a secondary source today as i mostly play files from a USB drive or via DLNA to my Bladelius Embla, when nor spinning vinyl.

    Best regards / Mike

  3. #183
    Join Date: Feb 2011

    Location: South Wales

    Posts: 7,487
    I'm the'greatunwashed'.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mwheelerk View Post
    I don't thing I have ever been happier listening to my music based on the quality of output, accessibility and functionality.
    Nice one and I'm not personally an Apple user, but I have heard some mighty sweet music coming from a MacBook Pro once iTunes was binned and it was configured for audio only. And your above statement matches my experience too, since I committed 100% to file based audio. In fact I have never, ever been happier since I first started listening to music and I play so much more than I ever did now too - in fact I don't even own a CD player any-more. For me its a marriage made in heaven.

    "People will hear what you tell them to hear" - Thomas Edison

  4. #184
    Join Date: Jun 2013

    Location: Rayson, Birmingham, UK

    Posts: 12
    I'm Paul.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mwheelerk View Post
    Long term, as it continues to develope JRiver For Mac may be my choice because it is not only a player but a complete media management system that replaces iTunes.
    I'm new to Audirvana, but it already feels as though it'll continue to be my main player. The idea of something in addition to this to replace iTunes for library management is heavenly, though.

  5. #185
    Join Date: Dec 2010

    Location: Paisley

    Posts: 14
    I'm Brian.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlfaGTV View Post
    Why would you want you want to interpolate/pad bit depth? It's not like you are adding anything to the original files, i surely hope?
    And in my opinion you are leading people astray by recommending them to NOT store bit perfect copies of their precious music files.

    Please note! I'm not saying it doesn't sound better in your current config, but that would be IN YOUR CURRENT CONFIG!
    Why do i even bother commenting them? Well, i'm on a mission to rescue people from having to rip their CD's over again!

    SNIP!
    I think I may be able to shed light on this. In a nutshell - Digital Volume.

    I'm sure the Linn Akurate DS rips CDs to 24 or 32 bit. All the extra bits are used for volume only. i.e. there is no distorting of the PCM waveform. The graph just moves wholesale up the Y axis.

    This allows a huge range of volume change in the digital domain without distorting the original signal. Which is how the Akurate DS does it's volume AFAIK.

    If something in Rob's chain is doing digital volume it would make a big difference to his sound quality.

    It is worth noting that 16/44.1 rips could easily be converted to 24/32/44.1/88.2 and back again without any loss.

    I know this is a MAC thread but I'd like to add a very short comparison with my Windows experiences in case anyone might find it interesting.

    In XP there is the same issue with a fixed output sample rate that needs switched manually for different source material.
    In Win 7 a digital out can be set to just spew out the digital file as-is. Which is nice. Vista and 8 are presumably the same as 7 but I have no interest in either.

    I have an ubuntu samba server with all my FLACs on it. This is then accessed by all the PC in the house, which are legion. There is a load of other stuff on the server also.

    There is a dedicated silent AMD fusion based thingy running Win7 with MediaMonkey WASAPI output > Beresford Bushmaster >Linn Kairn > Homemade Tunebox > 2 x Linn LK280 (1 with SPARK) > Linn Keilidhs with Ninka tweeters.
    This is controllable from an Android tablet or phone. So similar functionality as the MAC. In fact as MACs also use DNLA I could even use an ithingy to control it.
    The kids and wife also run MediaMonkey on various laptops and small PCs connected to Televisions in various parts of the house so everyone has access to all the music from everywhere. This. for me, is the most compelling advantage of computer based audio.

    I agree that you should ideally rip everything bit perfectly UNLESS you intend to do volume control in the digital domain. In that case you may want to up the bit depth.

    All my FLACs are 16/44.1 if I ripped them and there is a small selection of higher res stuff. When I compare SACD rips to CD versions it often sounds re-mastered in some way so I find it difficult to decide if there really is any difference due solely to sample rates.
    Logic tells me SACD COULD sound "better" or "more analogue due to less aliasing" but my knowledge of physics and psychoacoustics tells me I'm probably imagining most of the difference. It all sounds pretty damn nice anyway so I try not to worry about the often tiny subtle differences I can or can't hear and just enjoy the great sound.

    Anyway, I hope I haven't offended anyone, I basically think you are both right.

    Brian

  6. #186
    Join Date: Mar 2010

    Location: Sheffield

    Posts: 2,898
    I'm Simon.

    Default

    Its pointless ripping 16 bit data in 24 bit any 24 bit volume control will include zero stuffing of the lower bit vdepth source material anyway. Do any of the Linn DS units have a CD slot, i didnt think they did.
    Kuzma Stabi/S 12", (LP12-bastard) DC motor and optical tacho psu, Benz LP, Paradise (phonostage). MB-Pro, Brooklyn dac and psu, Bruno Putzeys balanced pre, mod86p dual mono amps, Yamaha NS1000m

  7. #187
    Join Date: Dec 2010

    Location: Paisley

    Posts: 14
    I'm Brian.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sq225917 View Post
    Its pointless ripping 16 bit data in 24 bit any 24 bit volume control will include zero stuffing of the lower bit vdepth source material anyway. Do any of the Linn DS units have a CD slot, i didnt think they did.
    I'm sure that is true of anything purporting to be hifi. Probably is how the Linn stuff works. Don't know for sure as it is way out of my budget. There are however many low end systems that do not bit stuff and just mangle the data to reduce volume. Windows certainly does this if you use the volume control when using a digital out (sounds really terrible). From all the advice to set volume controls to a particular level on the Mac for best results then it seems likely that MacOS also doesn't bit stuff if you use the volume control on the Mac with a digital out. I'm not saying I know for certain what is happenning, I'm just offering a possible explanation of why filterlabs system sounds better to him when ripped to higher bits. It may equally be all in his head. Ultimately since he prefers it that way, I don't think it matters if the difference is real or not. Also as I said above, he should be able to convert his 32/44.1 to 16/44.1 without losing anything from the original CD. So unlike ripping to a lossless format, he isn't losing anything by doing what he is doing. The only debate is whether he is gaining anything. I think he "might" be, but I'm not claiming I know for certain either way. My mind is open on the matter. Until someone can confirm how every piece of equipment in his digital chain actually works, I can only speculate.

    Brian

  8. #188
    Join Date: Mar 2013

    Location: London , UK

    Posts: 18
    I'm Richard.

    Default COG ?

    Sperts !

    I just imported my iTunes library to COG and ended up with duplicate tracks ..... I just dropped my iTunes folder into COG . What did I do wrong . By the way , to my ear COG sounds better than Bit perfect ....

    MBP via USB to M2Tech Young to Pass Labs B1 , ALEPH 30 , to K2 clone !

    TIA

  9. #189
    Join Date: Feb 2010

    Location: Moved to frozen north, beyond Inverness

    Posts: 2,602
    I'm Dave.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpcairns View Post
    So unlike ripping to a lossless format, he isn't losing anything by doing what he is doing. The only debate is whether he is gaining anything.
    Ripping to a lossless format shouldn't lose anything - by definition. Lossless formats allow the original data to be reconstructed, though we have had discussions round here about playback of different lossless formats - for example whether players for WAVs do better than players for FLAC etc. If there are any benefits in using different lossless formats for playback then these can only be due to side effects. I'm not denying that side effects may exist, or that they may be significant.

    I assume you really meant "lossy formats" -
    Dave

  10. #190
    Join Date: Feb 2012

    Location: Falun, Sweden

    Posts: 2,245
    I'm Mike.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpcairns View Post
    I think I may be able to shed light on this. In a nutshell - Digital Volume.
    ...

    It is worth noting that 16/44.1 rips could easily be converted to 24/32/44.1/88.2 and back again without any loss.
    ...
    I agree that you should ideally rip everything bit perfectly UNLESS you intend to do volume control in the digital domain. In that case you may want to up the bit depth.
    ...
    Sorry Brian, have completely missed your input on the subject!

    I would be very surprised, if you could change samplerate on a file, from say 44.1 into a 88.2khz sampling, and then back again without changing the content?
    Have you tried this?
    IMO an identical file MUST have the same CRC as the original file.

    I do agree that in most cases adjusting bitdepth only "pads" the file with zeroes, which should mean that content is not changed. If you actually re-sample the file the content will not be bit perfect....

    My first rule when ripping has not changed; Keep the original file state and sampling, store in a lossless format.
    Any changes can be performed on copies of these rips, while keeping strict backups of the original rips.

    ATB Mike

+ Reply to Thread
Page 19 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •