View Full Version : MacBook used in a Digital system
Just wanted to ask computer folk what they would recommend when using a MacBook Pro in a digital based audio system.
I am intending to use it hooked up directly to a DAC via USB or optical. What ripping software and file management software would you recommend on a Mac?
My Mac has a 320G HDD but was wondering if I could attach a 1TB HDD via USB and run files of this.
I intend to rip all CDs and only use a file based system.
Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.:cool:
Stratmangler
25-03-2018, 11:47
I've been using dbPoweramp for ages, and now they have a Mac version https://www.dbpoweramp.com/perfecttunes.htm
A HDD attached to the Mac via USB would be fine.
I've been using dbPoweramp for ages, and now they have a Mac version https://www.dbpoweramp.com/perfecttunes.htm
A HDD attached to the Mac via USB would be fine.
Would a SSD better a HDD for music files?
Would a SSD better a HDD for music files?
I find both work fine for playback ... but for shifting files and albums SSD is definitely much, much faster.
I would recommend Audirvarna Plus for playback - miles better than iTunes
Have no problem ripping with iTunes personally - and it's free. Audirvarna then piggybacks on iTunes library
I find both work fine for playback ... but for shifting files and albums SSD is definitely much, much faster.
I would recommend Audirvarna Plus for playback - miles better than iTunes
Have no problem ripping with iTunes personally - and it's free. Audirvarna then piggybacks on iTunes library
Is Audirvarna a one off payment?
Is Audirvarna a one off payment?
Yep - or at least it was when I got it a couple of years ago
dwhistance
25-03-2018, 16:12
I also use dBPoweramp and Audirvana on a Mac, in my case a dedicated Mac Mini.
I started ripping CD's with iTunes but switched to dBPoweramp as that allows me to rip as FLAC rather than ALAC. Whilst this isn't the least bit important while I'm using the Mac I wanted the ripped files to work with anything I might try later such as a PC or more likely a Raspberry Pi/Linux based system.
I'm very impressed with dBPoweramp despite the unlikely name. It uses a database to ensure you have a bit perfect copy of the CD and draws metadata from a reasonable number of sources which you can easily edit if you need/want to. It is also very quick at file conversions if you ever need them.
Before buying Audirvana I also tried Fidelio (which I still use on a MacBook as it has excellent mixing to reduce the stereo effect when using headphones) and HQPlayer. All three were miles better than iTunes. Of the three I slightly preferred the sound quality of HQPlayer but it potentially required more IT skills to use than Audirvana. At the time I was intending to try room correction software which was relatively easy to implement in Audirvana but much more difficult in HQPlayer, albeit several years on I still haven't tried it so in my case anyway the point is moot.
If you use either Tidal or Quobuz they both work well, and relatively seamlessly, with Audirvana.
David Whistance
Would a SSD better a HDD for music files?
No, however, I do like a silent PC, so use SSDs & no fans (passively cooled processor etc.) for this reason.
sq225917
26-03-2018, 12:38
2009 17" Macbook Pro here. It's been on 24/7 every single day since it was brand new. Never flickered, never skipped a beat. I use iTunes for importing and management and flick Audivarna+ on when I want to play DSD or high res. USB output to Mytek Brooklyn. It couldn't be any simpler, put the sleep app on it and you can use it with the screen closed- like a headless pc. The HD is getting rattle after all these years so it's time for a new one, 1TB SSD.
Having looked at Audirvana plus, I am pretty sure this will be the digital music management system I will use initially and output it via usb to a DAC.
Now I wonder which DAC I am going to use?:eyebrows::)
Bigman80
29-03-2018, 19:28
Having looked at Audirvana plus, I am pretty sure this will be the digital music management system I will use initially and output it via usb to a DAC.
Now I wonder which DAC I am going to use?:eyebrows::)If it's not a Chord I'll be very surprised [emoji6]
ianlenco
29-03-2018, 19:41
I've recently moved from a Vortexbox to a Mac mini for digital stuff. I spent a while trying different software with the mini and ended up paying the fee for Audirvana. It has good management tools that make it easy to make the music server function the mini's main occupation but I presume you are not going to dedicate your mac to this job. Still, Audivarna is still a good sounding, easy to use music server. Only thing I miss from Vortexbox is integrated access to internet radio.
I've recently moved from a Vortexbox to a Mac mini for digital stuff. I spent a while trying different software with the mini and ended up paying the fee for Audirvana. It has good management tools that make it easy to make the music server function the mini's main occupation but I presume you are not going to dedicate your mac to this job. Still, Audivarna is still a good sounding, easy to use music server. Only thing I miss from Vortexbox is integrated access to internet radio.
First step is Audirvana output to a DAC then probably ipeng on iPad used in conjunction with music server, ripper, NAS device output to a DAC. This will give me Internet radio and should also up the SQ for file based audio compared to MacBook and Audirvana.
First step is Audirvana output to a DAC then probably ipeng on iPad used in conjunction with music server, ripper, NAS device output to a DAC. This will give me Internet radio and should also up the SQ for file based audio compared to MacBook and Audirvana.
...it won't up the SQ.
If you are concerned about SQ, then what is way more important is that the DAC is galvanically isolated, and if you're using a USB to SPDIF converter, it's independently powered too. It doesn't matter whether I plug in my Macbook Pro, Media Server or ancient Netbook, it all sounds the same as it's all properly configured.
...it won't up the SQ.
If you are concerned about SQ, then what is way more important is that the DAC is galvanically isolated, and if you're using a USB to SPDIF converter, it's independently powered too. It doesn't matter whether I plug in my Macbook Pro, Media Server or ancient Netbook, it all sounds the same as it's all properly configured.
DAC will be Chord Qutest which is galvanically isolated. I will use my Macbook pro either via USB or Toslink. Dont think either makes a difference unless I want to play DSD.
I have a feeling that USB would sound a tad more open than TOSLINK, only one way to find out. And yes it’s the older Hugo and 2Qute that were not isolated, a bad move!
Thought I would get the ball rolling with my digital system so downloaded Audirvana Trial version which will give me about 15 days free use of their latest version. Very easy indeed to set up on the Macbook and transferred all my iTunes library in an instant. Some of the features are quite sophisticated so I am exploring the different modes you can run this software in. DAC not arrived yet so listening via headphones straight off the Mac with Audirvana surpassing all the internal operating systems and optimising playback. Sounds superb, way better than iTunes, I may buy this software just for this reason alone!
DAC arriving next week for full integration and assessment in my system via either Macbook USB or Optical (I will assess both) and then maybe via a music server /ripper/NAS. I am hoping the Macbook will suffice as it will be considerably cheaper.:)
Audirvana certainly shows up the huge differences between MP3 and Redbook recordings. May try some 24bit and DSD stuff if I use a NAS. Must admit it is doing a wonderful job of civilising my digital material compared to what I have heard previously.
If it sounds this good straight off the Macbook, whats it going to sound like through the Chord Qutest into my system!:eek: Bloody hell I might be a digital convert!:doh::lol:
Great stuff James, its good innit?
All that and you still have the vinyl to enjoy too.
You have PM by the way.
Firebottle
27-04-2018, 05:55
Bloody hell I might be a digital convert!:doh::lol:
The world is going to end, I know it :eek:
Jimbo a digital convert? :doh:
Great stuff James, its good innit?
All that and you still have the vinyl to enjoy too.
You have PM by the way.
Cheers Gary, I will give you a call over the weekend. Next week is going to be an exciting time!
The world is going to end, I know it :eek:
Jimbo a digital convert? :doh:
We will see!:) At least I am stacking the odds in favour of a decent sound with the stuff I am using.
Audirvana is supposed to be coming out with a Windows version
brian2957
27-04-2018, 07:34
The world is going to end, I know it :eek:
Jimbo a digital convert? :doh:
+1 :eek:
Audirvana is supposed to be coming out with a Windows version
IT is very good indeed Grant, certainly way better than iTunes. I have been listening mainly through headphones and sonically it has a smooth detailed sound. Very easy to listen too for long periods without fatigue.
With a high resolution system the benefits of lossless bit perfect audio are clear and apparent. There are many software routes to achieve this, glad that others find the same benefits, for me an eye opener when you get the front end right. [emoji4]
Trying to find the best lossless bit perfect front end it more complex than putting together a turntable,tonearm and cartridge!:) There are so many options and methods of supplying your DAC with a high quality signal. The DAC is the fairly easy bit. It is everything that a happens before this that needs thought and careful application.
As I mentioned before I am going to try two established routes. A MacBook Pro running on battery and running Audirvana and an Innuos server/NAS/ CD ripper. These are two simple and fairly straightforward routes. It will be interesting which one delivers the goods!
Jimbo, before you buy your innuos server, if you can, give the Melco servers a listen. I have A/B'd those two in a demo and (to my ears) the Melco was far superior. In isolation I think I'd have been happy enough with the Innuos but being able to directly compare the two was very revealing. Mine is one of the first generation N1A's, they have released an updated version now which is supposed to be an upgrade. I haven't heard one though. I think the Melco looks nicer too.......which doesn't hurt the cause ;)
Jimbo, before you buy your innuos server, if you can, give the Melco servers a listen. I have A/B'd those two in a demo and (to my ears) the Melco was far superior. In isolation I think I'd have been happy enough with the Innuos but being able to directly compare the two was very revealing. Mine is one of the first generation N1A's, they have released an updated version now which is supposed to be an upgrade. I haven't heard one though. I think the Melco looks nicer too.......which doesn't hurt the cause ;)
Hi Dave, I have heard the Melco and although I agree it is good, it is too expensive and its software is not as good as the Innuos.
Agreed it is relatively expensive. I got lucky and dropped on an ex demo unit that was significantly cheaper than the rrp. Good luck with your search.
Agreed it is relatively expensive. I got lucky and dropped on an ex demo unit that was significantly cheaper than the rrp. Good luck with your search.
Thanks Dave, I am lucky enough to have heard a lot of equipment in the last few years and lots of configurations using DACs, servers and NAS. I know some folk run MacBooks with Audirvana into DACs and get very good results and would like to compare this set up against a dedicated music server and see if there is a big difference.
I like the idea and convenience of products like the Melco and the Innuos servers and again wonder if they are a better digital audio implementation rather than a more complicated separate music server, router, music player and NAS or hooked up via Ethernet cables. An all in one server gets rid of a lot of connections and possible routes for RFI!
I like the idea and convenience of products like the Melco and the Innuos servers and again wonder if they are a better digital audio implementation rather than a more complicated separate music server, router, music player and NAS or hooked up via Ethernet cables. An all in one server gets rid of a lot of connections and possible routes for RFI!
My thoughts exactly. I used to use a pc as a music server running through a hard wired home network. The thing that struck me most was how much better sounding a dedicated (built purely for audio) system was/is. That's not to say that the pc solution was bad sounding (it wasn't)...just that the melco/innous products give noticable improvements.
Going back to your comment about using Macbooks into DACs. I heard a system like that at Scalford about 3 years ago, and that sounded very very good.
So over the bank holiday weekend I will now be able to evaluate a MacBook Pro running Audirvana vs InnOs Zen server with IPeng 9 on the iPad both running through a Chord Qutest DAC. I am expecting the InnuOS to sound the better of the two but we will see. USB connection will be used for both, decided to forget optical.
brian2957
04-05-2018, 07:06
I look forward to your feedback James . Make sure you are using a good USB cable :)
I look forward to your feedback James . Make sure you are using a good USB cable :)
The cable I am using costs more than the Dac:)
The cable I am using costs more than the Dac:)
And will sound the same as a Lindy one for £15. Same as a properly set up media server i.e. a fanless one, it will sound the same as any expensive ‘audiophile’ media server as long as both are outputting bit perfect files, with no resampling.
The issues with digital file transmission are associated with the clock, data is very very easy to get through perfectly, and RFI issues are associated with a lack of galvanic isolation on the input, or a USB input powered by the incoming power line rather than inside the unit itself. In the case of your Chord DAC, it is isolated, self powered and handles the clocking of your digital signals. I expect it to sound identical with any bit perfect input, and so would the designer.
I have a cheap freebie USB cable aswell so we will see.
I have a cheap freebie USB cable aswell so we will see.
Didn’t say cheap freebie, a properly specified / certified USB 2.0 cable, like from Lindy, will guarantee the proper data transmission, a cheap freebie may not.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the Qutest Jimbo.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the Qutest Jimbo.
I have a feeling quite a lot of music is going to be played this long weekend :)
And will sound the same as a Lindy one for £15. Same as a properly set up media server i.e. a fanless one, it will sound the same as any expensive ‘audiophile’ media server as long as both are outputting bit perfect files, with no resampling.
The issues with digital file transmission are associated with the clock, data is very very easy to get through perfectly, and RFI issues are associated with a lack of galvanic isolation on the input, or a USB input powered by the incoming power line rather than inside the unit itself. In the case of your Chord DAC, it is isolated, self powered and handles the clocking of your digital signals. I expect it to sound identical with any bit perfect input, and so would the designer.
What about the analogue domain?
Differences in impedance between inputs, cable topology effects between inputs?
More to Media servers than just outputting bit perfect, they CAN sound different. Always curious about why...
Never black and white (or even 1 and 0) in this game.
Just my humble experience of course.
What about the analogue domain?
Differences in impedance between inputs, cable topology effects between inputs?
More to Media servers than just outputting bit perfect, they CAN sound different. Always curious about why...
Never black and white (or even 1 and 0) in this game.
Just my humble experience of course.
It may be digital code being transmitted but it is still just electricity going down a wire the same as analogue is, so noise can travel along with that from transport to DAC to amp to speakers.. The better engineered the transport/server is, the less noise it will create and transmit.
The whole 'bit perfect' thing is a red herring, errors in the code will never be audible unless they are bad enough to leave gaps.
(I still think someone must have hacked James's log-in).
Bit perfect is not a red herring, as discussed some software resamples the audio, which is audible.
What about the analogue domain?
Differences in impedance between inputs, cable topology effects between inputs?
More to Media servers than just outputting bit perfect, they CAN sound different. Always curious about why...
Never black and white (or even 1 and 0) in this game.
Just my humble experience of course.
I think RFI is the culprit into why this stuff sounds different, or jitter, or clock drift. I use a self-powered USB to SPDIF converter into my DAC, which caters for all three.
USB inputs can be done badly, which can allow noise into the system, or can be well sorted, so the differences disappear.
I have an optical out on my motherboard, but it would be of higher jitter than my Halide Bridge.
Bit perfect is not a red herring, as discussed some software resamples the audio, which is audible.
Don't use re-sampling software then. My point is tiny inaccuracies/ differences in the file will not be audible, and audiophiles have a habit of obsessing about the irrelevant stuff whilst completely ignoring what is relevant.
Don't use re-sampling software then. My point is tiny inaccuracies/ differences in the file will not be audible, and audiophiles have a habit of obsessing about the irrelevant stuff whilst completely ignoring what is relevant.
I totally agree. ;)
Don't use re-sampling software then. My point is tiny inaccuracies/ differences in the file will not be audible, and audiophiles have a habit of obsessing about the irrelevant stuff whilst completely ignoring what is relevant.
That maybe but how the files are handled before they get to your DAC is paramount.
That maybe but how the files are handled before they get to your DAC is paramount.
The problem is that is a big black hole. The computing side isn't the issue, that works on mathematics so the outcomes are certainties, we can tell exactly what is happening. That's why you never have any problems with printing that Word document and all the letters are in the wrong place.
But with digital audio we are listening to the outcome so different standards apply. It isn't a question of getting the data from one place to another 100% intact, that's easy. It's what you transmit along with the data - i.e electronic noise and interference piggy-backs along with it. The subjective result is a 'thickening' of the sound, hash, glare and general unpleasantness.
Mostly this is a result of the power supply in the transport or streamer. The better the power supply, the better the sound. This is why your dedicated streamer sounds so much better than your MacBook. It's also why the top of the line cd players I have sound better than my budget players. This is no secret, the Japs knew this right from the start and used it differentiate their product lines; as you went up the range, the power supplies in a given unit multiplied and became more sophisticated.
Compared to this what chip set the DAC uses or what methods of processing it uses, what bandwith it will handle etc etc is neither here nor there. You have the option to play with different filters and said you found next to no difference.
That's also what I have found with a Sony I have with 4 filter settings. The sound difference between them is not identical but I would not want to put money on being able to reliably identify the difference if I was listening to them blind. And the very subtle differences are presentational, they are not differences in the quality of the sound.
The quality of the sound is entirely dependant on the quality of the engineering, and not on anything that is happening in the 'digital domain'.
Marketing departments would have you think otherwise because quality power supplies are not cheap to implement and not something that will capture the imagination of the typical punter.
Whereas tell them it uses the latest whiz bang DAC chips and upsamples to 384 KHz (big numbers are always better then small numbers) and they will be all over it because, although they don't really understand it, they can relate to this sort of talk from their home/work computing experience where the latest processor and a larger memory is demonstrably superior.
Like I said its how the information is handled before it gets to the DAC. Not sure any CD player has the ability to stop noise getting into the system, that is why FBA has been adopted by most digital audiophiles using steamers rather than noisy CD players.
Like I said its how the information is handled before it gets to the DAC. Not sure any CD player has the ability to stop noise getting into the system, that is why FBA has been adopted by most digital audiophiles using steamers rather than noisy CD players.
Adaptive USB never sounded quite as good as asynchronous, and many USB front ends are EMI transmitters or receivers. Look inside the Berkeley Alpha USB insides for an interesting take on controlling this. As an early adopter of the technology with a trusty HagUSB, things have moved on.
We now have lower jitter and clock drift than the best CD transports available from asynchronous USB front ends, which is where the audible differences lie. The data bit is easy, you could use salty string!
I won't say to makes no difference whether you are using a hard drive or an optical drive to store the file but I think it unlikely that it would make a significant difference. if you consider that the signal is a varying voltage how well the power supply differentiates between voltage steps is what will be critical. That function is entirely independent of what form of data storage is being used.
A CD player is just storage - reader - DAC the same as any digital set up. However despite reading extensively on the subject I've not seen any research that looks at whether a hard drive to DAC over optical drive to DAC is inherently superior or not. Neither have I heard that subjectively demonstrated (which would not be straightforward as there are a lot of variables). So I'm not committing on that either way. If someone reading this knows of such research please post a link.
Adaptive USB never sounded quite as good as asynchronous, and many USB front ends are EMI transmitters or receivers. Look inside the Berkeley Alpha USB insides for an interesting take on controlling this. As an early adopter of the technology with a trusty HagUSB, things have moved on.
We now have lower jitter and clock drift than the best CD transports available from asynchronous USB front ends, which is where the audible differences lie. The data bit is easy, you could use salty string!
I'm pretty sceptical as to the audible effects of jitter, even in poor implementations the distortion is way below the noise floor. Timing errors with vinyl LP playback are orders of magnitude worse and no-one complains about that.
There is actually a documented experiment where they progressively increased jitter distortion to see at what level people actually started to hear it. It was way higher than the worst commercial implementations exhibited. But very early on jitter was jumped on by the non-technical reviewers as being 'The Reason' why their cd players did not sound as good as their record players, marketing departments picked up on that and we've been stuck with the bullshit about it ever since.
The simple fact is that unless you know what you are about, a transport/server - DAC combo will have higher level of jitter than an integrated CD player, although neither will have audible levels of jitter.
And before anyone writes in to say ' I had a fancy clock put in my cd player and it sounded much better', consider that there are other factors that might affect the presentation when making significant changes to the circuitry, and consider that a change in how it sounds does not necessarily equate with improved sound quality, even if you prefer the new presentation to the old.
Get whoever put your new clock in to show you their before and after jitter measurements. At best the jitter will have been reduced from non-audible levels to even lower none audible levels. It's another red herring.
I'm pretty sceptical as to the audible effects of jitter, even in poor implementations the distortion is way below the noise floor. Timing errors with vinyl LP playback are orders of magnitude worse and no-one complains about that.
There is actually a documented experiment where they progressively increased jitter distortion to see at what level people actually started to hear it. It was way higher than the worst commercial implementations exhibited. But very early on jitter was jumped on by the non-technical reviewers as being 'The Reason' why their cd players did not sound as good as their record players, marketing departments picked up on that and we've been stuck with the bullshit about it ever since.
The simple fact is that unless you know what you are about, a transport/server - DAC combo will have higher level of jitter than an integrated CD player, although neither will have audible levels of jitter.
And before anyone writes in to say ' I had a fancy clock put in my cd player and it sounded much better', consider that there are other factors that might affect the presentation when making significant changes to the circuitry, and consider that a change in how it sounds does not necessarily equate with improved sound quality, even if you prefer the new presentation to the old.
Get whoever put your new clock in to show you their before and after jitter measurements. At best the jitter will have been reduced from non-audible levels to even lower none audible levels. It's another red herring.
It's not just jitter that is a problem but noise you can't hear that corrupts the sound quality which only aware of when you remove it from the audio chain. You can hypothesis and speculate all you want with theoretical aspects of digital audio but when you actually hear what digital audio can sound like once it has been sorted and delivered to your DAC noise free you then begin to understand.
If you read my digital audio experiences at the weekend you may have seen I proved to myself what constitutes as important in digital audio playback in order to get a great sound. I did not mention but I also tried a CD player in the system aswell. All I can say from a listening experience was that the CD was tragic, Laptop with bit perfect rips to audirvana was ok and the optimised Innuos server was stunning. It was so far ahead of everything else I heard it was untrue!
It's not just jitter that is a problem but noise you can't hear that corrupts the sound quality which only aware of when you remove it from the audio chain. You can hypothesis and speculate all you want with theoretical aspects of digital audio but when you actually hear what digital audio can sound like once it has been sorted and delivered to your DAC noise free you then begin to understand.
If you read my digital audio experiences at the weekend you may have seen I proved to myself what constitutes as important in digital audio playback in order to get a great sound. I did not mention but I also tried a CD player in the system aswell. All I can say from a listening experience was that the CD was tragic, Laptop with bit perfect rips to audirvana was ok and the optimised Innuos server was stunning. It was so far ahead of everything else I heard it was untrue!
We completely agree about the bit in bold, that is exactly what I am saying.
Where I suspect we disagree is on the reason for that. But I'm unclear as to what reason you are ascribing to this? You have not said on this thread or on the other one.
Regards the cd player you can't compare just one cd player to a file system and pronounce file as superior to CD. You could if all CD players had equal levels of sound quality but they don't so I think you are jumping to a conclusion there. (It might be the correct conclusion, I don't know, but your one comparison isn't proof of that).
We completely agree about the bit in bold, that is exactly what I am saying.
Where I suspect we disagree is on the reason for that. But I'm unclear as to what reason you are ascribing to this? You have not said on this thread or on the other one.
Regards the cd player you can't compare just one cd player to a file system and pronounce file as superior to CD. You could if all CD players had equal levels of sound quality but they don't so I think you are jumping to a conclusion there. (It might be the correct conclusion, I don't know, but your one comparison isn't proof of that).
I have heard other CDP in similar systems but at a much higher price point and they were also trounced by FBA, you should try a comparison yourself Martin and you will hear the difference. Unfortunately I dont think any CDP on the planet can compete with a good FBA set up, they are just too noisy.
I have heard other CDP in similar systems but at a much higher price point and they were also trounced by FBA, you should try a comparison yourself Martin and you will hear the difference. Unfortunately I dont think any CDP on the planet can compete with a good FBA set up, they are just too noisy.
I have done more than one comparison and I've not heard any significant differences (except for one that used the free Spotify service and that was quite obviously poorer than the cd player). But there are just too many variables here to jump to the conclusion that FBA is automatically superior to all cd players by its very nature. Certainly some FBA implementations are not much cop as you found out when using the MacBook. And we agree that there are plenty of cd players that are not much cop.
I would certainly take a cd player with good power supply regulation over a poorly implemented FBA system any day. However if we were comparing best possible cases - best possible cd player vs best possible FBA set up - I'm willing to accept that the FBA could have the edge; although my bet would be that they would be indistinguishable. (Assuming they were both using the same DAC of course).
I have done more than one comparison and I've not heard any significant differences (except for one that used the free Spotify service and that was quite obviously poorer than the cd player). But there are just too many variables here to jump to the conclusion that FBA is automatically superior to all cd players by its very nature. Certainly some FBA implementations are not much cop as you found out when using the MacBook. And we agree that there are plenty of cd players that are not much cop.
I would certainly take a cd player with good power supply regulation over a poorly implemented FBA system any day. However if we were comparing best possible cases - best possible cd player vs best possible FBA set up - I'm willing to accept that the FBA could have the edge; although my bet would be that they would be indistinguishable. (Assuming they were both using the same DAC of course).
Yes I agree Martin FBA is not automatically better than a CDP if you simply run it off a Computer unless you go to great lengths to optimise it. What I should have said was FBA is better than CDP via the server route and separate DAC. I have heard many combinations of this route with different servers and DACs etc and they have all surpased CDP sound quality. The computer route is simply fraught with too many problems associated with noise and poor routing of the audio signal.
.
Would be interesting to do a comparison, my high-end cd players vs your sorted streaming set up. I take it you can copy cds to the streamer so that we would be using the same mastering?
The DAC won't be the same of course but that shouldn't really affect sound quality.
If the streamer kicks the cd players arses I will be happy to say so. And buy one. :)
Would be interesting to do a comparison, my high-end cd players vs your sorted streaming set up. I take it you can copy cds to the streamer so that we would be using the same mastering?
The DAC won't be the same of course but that shouldn't really affect sound quality.
If the streamer kicks the cd players arses I will be happy to say so. And buy one. :)
Haha, we should sort it Martin. Yes I can rip CD to the streamer. Do you have a digital out on the CDP then we could use same DAC?
Haha, we should sort it Martin. Yes I can rip CD to the streamer. Do you have a digital out on the CDP then we could use same DAC?
One does, one doesn't. But I'm happy to put the DACs in the CD players up against anything made today. If they lose, they lose.
Don't use re-sampling software then. My point is tiny inaccuracies/ differences in the file will not be audible, and audiophiles have a habit of obsessing about the irrelevant stuff whilst completely ignoring what is relevant.
Martin,
There’s a saying in the trade..
never go full Serge... :)
I won't say to makes no difference whether you are using a hard drive or an optical drive to store the file but I think it unlikely that it would make a significant difference. if you consider that the signal is a varying voltage how well the power supply differentiates between voltage steps is what will be critical. That function is entirely independent of what form of data storage is being used.
A CD player is just storage - reader - DAC the same as any digital set up. However despite reading extensively on the subject I've not seen any research that looks at whether a hard drive to DAC over optical drive to DAC is inherently superior or not. Neither have I heard that subjectively demonstrated (which would not be straightforward as there are a lot of variables). So I'm not committing on that either way. If someone reading this knows of such research please post a link.
The type of hard drive you store Flac files can make a difference!
mightymonoped
10-05-2018, 20:02
The type of hard drive you store Flac files can make a difference!
How?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
How?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Fair question. :)
Cos it does.
Keywords:
SSD vs mechanical hard drives in file based audio, shielded SATA cables, linear vs switching rail supplies.
(ps I’m not talking out my arse)
mightymonoped
10-05-2018, 20:16
Cos it does.
Keywords:
SSD vs mechanical hard drives in file based audio.
(ps I’m not talking out my arse)
I'm not being dismissive, I'm genuinely curious about how an SSD and HDD medium of storage makes a difference?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Martin,
There’s a saying in the trade..
never go full Serge... :)
:lol:
I'm not being dismissive, I'm genuinely curious about how an SSD and HDD medium of storage makes a difference?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I hear ya. Me neither Tony.
In my experience, the difference in the way SSDs work compared to mechanical hard drives can make a difference to the final sound quality.
Depends on how deep your willing to go into the rabbit hole...even different types of power supply to your hard drive can have an impact.
*Disclaimer* This isn’t a precursor to flogging any new digital audio gear, just passing on experience. (Sorry :))
mightymonoped
10-05-2018, 20:39
I hear ya. Me neither Tony.
In my experience, the difference in the way SSDs work compared to mechanical hard drives can make a difference to the final sound quality.
Depends on how deep you want to dig into the rabbit hole, even different types of power supply to your hard drive can have an impact.
*Disclaimer* This isn’t a precursor to flogging any new digital audio gear, just passing on experience. (Sorry :))
I guess the bit I'm having trouble with is the perceived lack of physical connection between my storage medium and the rest of the chain. In a NAS connected only by Ethernet cable to the audio system, would the difference between SSD and HDD be audible from the packets being transmitted?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm not being dismissive, I'm genuinely curious about how an SSD and HDD medium of storage makes a difference?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Adds noise, I suppose. Electrical rather than mechanical. Never done the comparison myself mind. I'd be surprised if I could hear its sole contribution but when you consider that every device involved has the potential to add noise to the signal it can all add up unless steps have been taken to ensure they don't.
Get enough of it and your sending that out with your noughts and ones, into the DAC which adds a bit more, the signal is converted to analogue but it is still just current in a wire and it keeps all that noise with it, through the amplifiers and out of the speakers along with the music. Result is you get a stodgier sound, flatter soundstage, nothing sounds 'real' anymore. Not unpleasant to listen to but not special either.
I'm theorising here, you understand. Based on my own experiences and what I've read. Don't take that as gospel.
I guess the bit I'm having trouble with is the perceived lack of physical connection between my storage medium and the rest of the chain. In a NAS connected only by Ethernet cable to the audio system, would the difference between SSD and HDD be audible from the packets being transmitted?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
On paper...yes.
But?
I dont pretend to know all the variables, but from having tried different combinations (actually, a fair bit...) its my experience it subjectivly makes a difference.
mightymonoped
10-05-2018, 20:47
Adds noise, I suppose. Electrical rather than mechanical. Never done the comparison myself mind. I'd be surprised if I could hear its sole contribution but when you consider that every device involved has the potential to add noise to the signal it can all add up unless steps have been taken to ensure they don't.
Get enough of it and your sending that out with your noughts and ones, into the DAC which adds a bit more, the signal is converted to analogue but it is still just current in a wire and it keeps all that noise with it, through the amplifiers and out of the speakers along with the music. Result is you get a stodgier sound, flatter soundstage, nothing sounds 'real' anymore. Not unpleasant to listen to but not special either.
I'm theorising here, you understand. Based on my own experiences and what I've read. Don't take that as gospel.
It is an interesting one! I'm certainly not going to dismiss it either. I did wonder if noise could act as a troublesome unwanted guest in the chain [emoji4]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
mightymonoped
10-05-2018, 20:48
On paper...yes.
But?
I dont pretend to know all the variables, but from having tried different combinations (actually, a a fair bit...) its my experience it subjectivly makes a difference.
Fair do's [emoji106]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
HDD are a fair bit noisy compared to SSD. They are both electrical but HDD is also mechanical so this probably increases the electrical noise when the drive is operating.
https://quietpc.co.uk/sotm-sata-noise-filter
Primalsea
11-05-2018, 06:24
Whether the DAC has a data buffer will go some way in mitigation of any difference in any storage types as the data is stored in memory and clocked out to the DACs D/A chip. There was some tests published in a review of Chords DAC 64 and a clear difference in performance was measured when the buffer was activated.
I think also noise passed on down the chain can make a difference, less noise = better performance. One thing I done was to cut the power wires in my USB cable so that the only connection was the differential data wires. This seemed to help quite a bit.
Stratmangler
11-05-2018, 07:08
I'm making it up as I'm going along, you understand. Based on my own experiences and what I've read. Don't take that as gospel.
I'd never have guessed :eyebrows:
I'd never have guessed :eyebrows:
So what's your take on it then, Chris? Personally I've no doubt that 90% of the things people think matter in digital audio make no difference whatsoever. 'Jitter', 'Bit perfect', 'high resolution' and so on. The things that do matter, like the power supply regulation, no-one seems to be interested in.
https://quietpc.co.uk/sotm-sata-noise-filter
Actually made the sound worse in my system! I use a fanless PC with solid state drive now, no filters, and my USB output has its own independent power supply, outside of the PC.
Actually made the sound worse in my system!
quite.. it just proves every system is gonna be different. what works here might be worse elsewhere. then you have to take the environment and the listener into account.
all you can do is offer options; its up to people to try them and see i guess.
many folk saying a pc based system is crap, but ive found it to be fine.
horses for courses imo.:)
So what's your take on it then, Chris? Personally I've no doubt that 90% of the things people think matter in digital audio make no difference whatsoever. 'Jitter', 'Bit perfect', 'high resolution' and so on. The things that do matter, like the power supply regulation, no-one seems to be interested in.
If your DAC uses a USB powered connection then this is a great piece of kit:
http://www.aqvox.de/usb-power_en.html
Makes the computer side a lot less relevant, as you get independent, galvanically isolated power for the USB device.
Stratmangler
11-05-2018, 08:34
So what's your take on it then, Chris? Personally I've no doubt that 90% of the things people think matter in digital audio make no difference whatsoever. 'Jitter', 'Bit perfect', 'high resolution' and so on. The things that do matter, like the power supply regulation, no-one seems to be interested in.
My take on it is that power is everything.
Clean the mains up effectively and you'll get tangible gains in sound quality.
The main culprit is switching noise from SMPS, and they're all pervasive.
TVs, DVD/BDPs, central heating, fridges, washing machines - the list goes on and on - they all have SMPS, and they're all chucking switching noise onto the mains.
Reduce all that switching noise, inaudible though it is, and your audio equipment will sound better.
Primalsea
11-05-2018, 09:09
I think that things like mains filters are ferrite beads are somewhat effective at stopping noise from the mains getting into your equipment, but are can be much more effective if you use them to stop noise generated by equipment getting onto the mains. This is why instead of using a large mains filter block I use single filters primarily on anything with a switchmode supply including the wifi router, which is close to the HIFI. Ferrite beads are on the fridge and CH boiler mains cables instead on the HIFI mains leads.
Stratmangler
11-05-2018, 09:16
I think that things like mains filters are ferrite beads are somewhat effective at stopping noise from the mains getting into your equipment, but are can be much more effective if you use them to stop noise generated by equipment getting onto the mains. This is why instead of using a large mains filter block I use single filters primarily on anything with a switchmode supply including the wifi router, which is close to the HIFI. Ferrite beads are on the fridge and CH boiler mains cables instead on the HIFI mains leads.
That's what I did too.
Ferrite clamps on everything but the audio system. The audio system doesn't need filtering because all the PSUs are linear, and don't exhibit the high frequency switching noise.
I'd avoid these tbh.
Made my servers sound worse and weren't even compatible with certain hard drives.
Actually made the sound worse in my system! I use a fanless PC with solid state drive now, no filters, and my USB output has its own independent power supply, outside of the PC.
My take on it is that power is everything.
Clean the mains up effectively and you'll get tangible gains in sound quality.
The main culprit is switching noise from SMPS, and they're all pervasive.
TVs, DVD/BDPs, central heating, fridges, washing machines - the list goes on and on - they all have SMPS, and they're all chucking switching noise onto the mains.
Reduce all that switching noise, inaudible though it is, and your audio equipment will sound better.
That's external to the equipment, though. I'm talking about noise generated within the audio equipment itself, which is an entirely separate issue. I'm theorising that this is the reason that cd players with high quality power supplies outperform those with 'just adequate' supplies.
The only smps I have that is active when the hi-fi is on is the router.
That's external to the equipment, though. I'm talking about noise generated within the audio equipment itself, which is an entirely separate issue. I'm theorising that this is the reason that cd players with high quality power supplies outperform those with 'just adequate' supplies.
The only smps I have that is active when the hi-fi is on is the router.
Yeah I agree with this, there's only a certain level of performance you're going to get with a couple of regulators feeding multiple chips.
Also how the equipment deals with the noise coming in is important, and in digital, how RF return currents / ground bounce are controlled is paramount. As an example my DAC has balanced mains built in, 9x transformer windings feeding 9x supplies, and each of those supplies is zero feedback and uses 3 stage (passive) common mode filtering. Overkill? I don't think so...
That's what I did too.
Ferrite clamps on everything but the audio system. The audio system doesn't need filtering because all the PSUs are linear, and don't exhibit the high frequency switching noise.
What about all the RFI that rides on the mains?
Stratmangler
11-05-2018, 13:54
What about all the RFI that rides on the mains?
The SMPS noise is RFI, just with a limited range of frequencies.
The local problem is the amplitude of it, and ferrite clamps improve the situation.
The SMPS noise is RFI, just with a limited range of frequencies.
The local problem is the amplitude of it, and ferrite clamps improve the situation.
Ah now the increased amplitude of in home RFI vs. the AC lines makes sense to me. Thanks. [emoji4]
Have been looking into lining my DAC and server with ERS paper from Stillpoints, anyone tried it?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.