96kHz/24 bit v 192kHz/24 bit from Mac Mini?
- Thread starter wilsonlaidlaw
- Start date
So many assert. I had Tidal on trial for three months & to my surprise, iTunes sounded better on certain songs or no different. iTunes, like Spotify has a vast selection where Tidal doesn't.
Apple update Core Audio regularly & Audirvana can be set to bypass it. Although I find iTunes' UI very dated & Apple keep on changing it, all my ripped & streamed music is seamlessly available without having to change apps.
I use Audirvana + to play the few hi-res & DSD coded music I've recently bought. My Mac Mini (via USB) feeds an M-Dac+ that I prefer over the Hugo TT I had for a short while. The TT has what I considered to be a wilfully obtuse UI, a fixed output that wasn't & a horrid cheap PSU that didn't just get warm but hot! As for the SQ, It just didn't gel with me, a tad unnatural to my ears but NOT bass-light as some have stated. I also didn't dislike the Hugo TT's remote. Back it went, along with a £2k2 refund in return!
Both my + & the Hugo made my std M-DAC sound bass-light & lacking in resolution. I expected the + to sound better than the std version but not by a mile. The + has plenty of punch when the music calls for it, as did the std version.
Julf
Facts are our friends
Probably because of early versions, but once something becomes part of the audiophile folklore and myth, it is hard to change.
wilsonlaidlaw
pfm Member
It was set to "off" on the trial download. However what I need to find is how to turn off the reverberation, which I could not find in admittedly just a few minutes playing with it earlier this evening. I will also need to try Amarra on a better recording. I was playing volume one of the complete Beethoven sonatas played by Daniel Barenboim, made at Abbey Road in 1962. Not very well recorded and it sounds like he was having to play the beat up old studio Steinway as it goes a bit honky tonk on some notes. A pity about sound quality and piano because of all the times he has recorded these sonatas, I think his piano playing was at his very best on these recordings.
tuga
Legal Alien
tuga
Legal Alien
I've tried Amarra, Audirvana+, BitPerfect, Fidelia, HQPlayer and JRiver using my Macbook Pro as a file server.
Sound wise my preference went to HQPlayer (with NAA in a Raspberry Pi) closely followed by A+.
But my favourite browser is iTunes, which I use to manually tag and organise my mainly classical music library.
Since HQPlayer doesn't work with an iTunes integrated mode I use the later to browse and then drag and drop into HQPlayer. Not perfect but it works.
R
Sound wise my preference went to HQPlayer (with NAA in a Raspberry Pi) closely followed by A+.
But my favourite browser is iTunes, which I use to manually tag and organise my mainly classical music library.
Since HQPlayer doesn't work with an iTunes integrated mode I use the later to browse and then drag and drop into HQPlayer. Not perfect but it works.
R
muzzer
Numb Nut
muzzer
Numb Nut
There is no reverb setting in Amarra.
wilsonlaidlaw
pfm Member
But it won't play Flac
I already have Bit Perfect. I gave up using it because of its refusal to play certain files, which when I send a support request, I was told was due to DRM issues. That is as may be but it is not a very helpful response. I also found that my Mac Mini seemed to crash about once a day with a kernel panic, when running Bit Perfect.
I have had a very helpful response from Sonic Sales on the reverberation I seem to be hearing when playing through Amarra. I will try their various suggestions later today.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
I can't comment on Mac or Windows as I've not used either for many years now. But I always set up my systems so that what comes from the file goes to the DAC. No changes on the way apart from unpacking flac to get the contained LPCM.
I bypass any audio 'mixers' precisely because they add a reprocessing I can avoid. Means I don't have to worry about the 'OS mixer' messing things up.
BTW I was listening to some of the Barenboim a few days ago and it sounded good to me. Main problem was the tendency to cut back the low bass which EMI tended to impose. That said, lots of sonatas, so maybe we listened to different ones.
Jim
I bypass any audio 'mixers' precisely because they add a reprocessing I can avoid. Means I don't have to worry about the 'OS mixer' messing things up.
BTW I was listening to some of the Barenboim a few days ago and it sounded good to me. Main problem was the tendency to cut back the low bass which EMI tended to impose. That said, lots of sonatas, so maybe we listened to different ones.
Jim
wilsonlaidlaw
pfm Member
Setting the room node on Amarra to 50hz, as suggested by Sonic Sales, seems to have cured the resonance/reverberation.
Jim,
I wonder if it is EMI's bass cut back that is making the lower register on the piano sound metallic. In other words, you are hearing more of the higher order harmonics than you would normally hear. I would guess that even if Abbey Road had kept the original studio master tapes, after over 50 years, there would be so much print through, that they would be unusable.
Jim,
I wonder if it is EMI's bass cut back that is making the lower register on the piano sound metallic. In other words, you are hearing more of the higher order harmonics than you would normally hear. I would guess that even if Abbey Road had kept the original studio master tapes, after over 50 years, there would be so much print through, that they would be unusable.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Afraid I don't know enough to comment on the tape print though.
However in general I've tended to find that EMI classical recordings often benefit from something along the lines of the QUAD 34 pre-amp's 'Bass lift' control being switched up one (or two) steps. The extent to which this is the case depends on the recording, and - of course - the user's speakers, room, and preferences. (I'm using ESL2805s.)
FWIW I did modify my 34 to tweak the bass lift for this sort of reason.
The Barenboim set I have is the boxed one from 1998 (5 72912 2) The recordings are, of course, much earlier. I'm noit sure when the ADC for these was done, but would presumably be between 1986-ish and 1998 sometime.
I've not checked, but it may well be affected by the way they used to use lousy ADCs for transferring. However in general the results sound OK to me. I tend to find the poor ADCs they used show up most to my ears on string tone sounding like the players are using scouring pads in their bows! That's when a presence dip would be handy. But modern control/pre amps never have anything like that.
I do also have the relatively recent Beethoven cycle on DVD he did. There the main audio problem is a tendency to hear 'thumps' via the floor into the mics. But TBH I prefer his early EMI versions anyway. Maybe because I got used to them.
However in general I've tended to find that EMI classical recordings often benefit from something along the lines of the QUAD 34 pre-amp's 'Bass lift' control being switched up one (or two) steps. The extent to which this is the case depends on the recording, and - of course - the user's speakers, room, and preferences. (I'm using ESL2805s.)
FWIW I did modify my 34 to tweak the bass lift for this sort of reason.
The Barenboim set I have is the boxed one from 1998 (5 72912 2) The recordings are, of course, much earlier. I'm noit sure when the ADC for these was done, but would presumably be between 1986-ish and 1998 sometime.
I've not checked, but it may well be affected by the way they used to use lousy ADCs for transferring. However in general the results sound OK to me. I tend to find the poor ADCs they used show up most to my ears on string tone sounding like the players are using scouring pads in their bows! That's when a presence dip would be handy. But modern control/pre amps never have anything like that.
I do also have the relatively recent Beethoven cycle on DVD he did. There the main audio problem is a tendency to hear 'thumps' via the floor into the mics. But TBH I prefer his early EMI versions anyway. Maybe because I got used to them.
Strictly Stereo
Trade: Strictly Stereo
Are you sure about this? Mac OS X has a Core Audio subsystem which provides several layers of hardware abstraction. Most of the specialist players like Amarra and Audirvana can be configured to bypass some if not all of these layers, but I am fairly certain that iTunes relies on Core Audio quite heavily.
There is an inexpensive app available on the Mac app store called BitPerfect, which can be configured to automatically switch the Mac's output to match the content's native sample rate. This effectively sidesteps the Core Audio resampling. It is discrete (a toolbar icon is all you see during normal operation) and it plays nicely with iTunes.
wilsonlaidlaw
pfm Member
If you look at one of my earlier posts I already have Bit Perfect but have had problems with digital rights and with kernel panics.
As I understand it, the operation of Core Audio sub-system is I believe hardware based, although of course controlled by the operating system. I understand it sits as an additional layer on top of the hardware abstraction layer (HAL). It acts to pass audio in and out of hardware via HAL.
Pedro83
pfm Member
it does if you want to over sample, which IME brings a smoother sound. not to my taste but many do it.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
If upsampling like this brings a "smoother sound" I'd be worried that something was wrong with either the source material or the DAC. The implied alternative is that you prefer the sound being altered for some reason.
tuga
Legal Alien
If you wish to upsample I suggest you choose a high performance music player programme like HQPlayer or Audirvana (which uses iZotope) ; Mac OS's Core Audio upsampling and filtering performance is mediocre:
http://src.infinitewave.ca
Even Foobar is nothing special...
R
Julf
Facts are our friends
But... but... doesn't upsampling give you smaller staircase steps - so a less digital sound?