|
|
Post by yioryos on Mar 27, 2015 2:21:34 GMT -5
Some other information I neglected to mention. I compared the sound from the macmini with Sonos. Same files from external hard drive to same dac, preamp,amps,speakers and hands down the mac mini in wins.
Sonos was connected to a Monarchy DIP reclocker for jitter removal.
The mac mini just works and gives a very musical satisfying sound, with Sonos I had a lot of drop outs and WiFi problems and it just didn't sound as good overall.
The mac mini is in my secondary system for party time and weekend summer good times.Preamp is an older Bryston BP-20 and amplifiers two Emotiva XPR-2.
Best
George
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike on Mar 27, 2015 9:28:24 GMT -5
Spike I am sorry for my delayed response. The Stealth DC-1 is digital to analog converter, that I own and find very enjoyable in my setup and I highly recommend to you since you are going to need a dac anyhow if you go forward with the mac mini,then get this one and it won't dissapoint in terms of sound. The JRiver is a third party developed music software that you need to purchase and install in your mac mini. Itunes is fine too but a little bloated. Last year I tested most music player software for Mac, Clementine,VLC,Audirvana,Decibel,Vox,Ecoute,Fidelia,Ammara,JRiver,Pure Music. I preferred the JRiver and Fidelia. But JRiver gives the user more options in settings and most importantly to me very nice sound as well as gapless playback that actually works as well as smooth transition to next song without a skip or click. In fact you can adjust the time from seconds down to milliseconds. The mac mini set up for me is very convenient and musically satisfying but not the best sound possible. My most resolving music server is the Bryston BDP-1/BDA-1 combo and also the Olive 06HD and 04HD in that order. Of course I haven't done any tweaking or other additional modifications to the mac mini as other people did so not sure how high you could take the mac mini in terms of sound quality. Also although I understand that a led display, a keyboard or mouse could degrade the sound by polluting the signal to me are essential in my set up. I constantly add / remove / change files and need to be able to see what's playing in my playlist and enjoy the artwork on the display. I hope my response will be of help to you. George Thanks George, I too will need to see a display as well, which will be a 60" LG Television. I plan on using an HDMI cable to connect the two. I had thought about Olive before, but I'm wondering if their hardware doesn't end up being too expensive for my budget. I may give them a quick look again, but if I remember (Which isn't easy for a CRPS patient) it was just too expensive. Do you download AIFF music files to your Mac, or what do you use? I found a site called HDTracks that has high quality music for purchase and downloading. |
|
|
|
Post by yioryos on Mar 28, 2015 2:11:57 GMT -5
Hi Spike
Yes it's true the Olive units are way more expensive but they are complete servers with on board dac,touch screen display,software,etc. The macmini could come close in price when you add the cost of display,keyboard,mouse,external drive,cables. You understand that all of a sudden the price difference between the two solutions is smaller when you factor all that extra accessories that Olive units don't require.
Also I find the Olive sounds phenomenal truly outstanding. But I am not here to promote the Olives,they actually have their problems too.
Back to the macmini,I think. 60 inch display would look awesome, your album artwork and songs info will be great,make sure though to look for and download the best resolution artwork you can find for your albums.
My own cds ,about 650 in total,were imported with itunes on my other computer upstairs, a mac pro machine,and in AIFF format.
My Olive stored music in in WAV by the way. The Olives have a cd tray build in. The macmini doesn't. So unless you buy a used macmini from 2009-2010, all other models forward need an external usb drive.
They only cost 80 dollars,so not a big issue.
I got about 1Tb of music,my own cd collection in AIFF is about 300 Gb,all other music is in mp3 at 320 or Flac.
I listen to music that HD Tracks don't have in their database,I really haven't looked to be honest. I like classic rock,disco,early pop,garage 60's,funk,oldies,rockabilly, music that is not often found in 24/192 resolution or was not recorded at best to begin with.To complicate matters further,I listen to obscure one time hit bands from the 60 ,s that are only in vinyl or cannot even be found at all unless collectors make the recordings available on the net. Greek rock 60,s-70,-80,s. Mod beat,shake,garage punk 60,s from Greece. I am Greek so a huge fan of these jems. This music can not be found on HD Tracks period.I also lime Euro Disco,Italo Disco,Ethnic Greek traditional and so forth.
Sure Jazz or Classical is recorded with best care on top studios but it's those unknown genres that give me the most musical enjoyment,really good rocking party music to set your mood.
Jazz I find a little boring and Classical too, not for me anyways but I do have some in my collection.
I have the Beatles (2009) reissue boxset,and man they sound sweet.!!!
One other good thing is JRiver will play Flac files on your macmini,as you probably know Apple doesn't support Flac files,so they use Alac instead.
Best
George
|
|
|
|
Post by frisco on Mar 28, 2015 12:23:33 GMT -5
On the topic of macs and audio, was it my imagination or did I hear the phrase "computer audio" uttered in the background of Tuesday's podcast when they were talking about unveiling new products. . Maybe it was just a figment of my wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by brand on Mar 28, 2015 12:31:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike on Mar 28, 2015 22:28:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike on Mar 28, 2015 22:29:39 GMT -5
On the topic of macs and audio, was it my imagination or did I hear the phrase "computer audio" uttered in the background of Tuesday's podcast when they were talking about unveiling new products. . Maybe it was just a figment of my wishful thinking. *Shrugs* You lost me. I don't have a clue what you are referring to. But thanks for the tease, *gulp* I hope? |
|
|
|
Post by Spike on Mar 28, 2015 22:33:18 GMT -5
I found this online. My goodness, does it ever have a lot of useful information on digital audio. I found it very helpful. Now, when I upgrade my AV receiver and add my mac mini, at least I will know the kind of music I'll be putting on the hard drive of the mac and what to look for in my new 2.2 HDCP 2.0 HDMI with on board DAC A/V receiver. *GRIN* I am learning, slowly.... but shirley!  www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-abcs-of-dsd-downloads/and, I know that almost all of you already know about this site, but for the sake of those like me that are just learning, this other link was also very helpful to me, when I found it: www.hdtracks.com |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Mar 29, 2015 9:37:08 GMT -5
I think the original point was that the mini comes with USB 3 interfaces, to take advantage of them you want to buy external devices that also use USB 3. This is especially important with external hard drives that transfer large amounts of data. For even more speed Thunderbolt 2 is available, but peripherals using this are more expensive than USB. |
|
|
|
Post by ncred02 on Mar 29, 2015 9:54:06 GMT -5
On the topic of macs and audio, was it my imagination or did I hear the phrase "computer audio" uttered in the background of Tuesday's podcast when they were talking about unveiling new products. . Maybe it was just a figment of my wishful thinking. *Shrugs* You lost me. I don't have a clue what you are referring to. But thanks for the tease, *gulp* I hope? I believe hes referring to the Emotiva podcast. I think |
|
|
|
Post by Spike on Mar 29, 2015 14:37:11 GMT -5
I think the original point was that the mini comes with USB 3 interfaces, to take advantage of them you want to buy external devices that also use USB 3. This is especially important with external hard drives that transfer large amounts of data. For even more speed Thunderbolt 2 is available, but peripherals using this are more expensive than USB. Thank you for that. Will the USB interface work without interruption in the listening of music? |
|
|
|
Post by yioryos on Mar 29, 2015 14:44:05 GMT -5
I think the original point was that the mini comes with USB 3 interfaces, to take advantage of them you want to buy external devices that also use USB 3. This is especially important with external hard drives that transfer large amounts of data. For even more speed Thunderbolt 2 is available, but peripherals using this are more expensive than USB. From my personal experience and from information I read, USB3 is not all that important for music. USB2 is plenty fast for music transfer, it certainly exceed expectations, this I mean for example when an external USB2 drive is serving music to a macmini. When copy from drive to drive on USB2, I don't mind waiting another two seconds to complete transfer. On the other hand, all dacs, and USB to SPDIF converters out there are designed with USB2 so I am not sure why USB3 is even needed. The preferred connection is external drive on USB and dacs on firewire or the other way around. In my set up both the drive and dacs are both on USB and to be honest,I don't think I miss anything.When I was shopping external drives I noticed firewire interface was expensive and few options,thunderbolt even more so, I got USB drives instead and never looked back. Regards George |
|
|
|
Post by yioryos on Mar 29, 2015 14:58:57 GMT -5
I think the original point was that the mini comes with USB 3 interfaces, to take advantage of them you want to buy external devices that also use USB 3. This is especially important with external hard drives that transfer large amounts of data. For even more speed Thunderbolt 2 is available, but peripherals using this are more expensive than USB. Thank you for that. Will the USB interface work without interruption in the listening of music? Yes, USB 2 interface is fine,no interruptions what so ever,unless something else is causing that. When you shop for a mac mini,try not to get the new 2015 models, their RAM is soldered on the motherboard. I hear,so that means you can't add more RAM later on. Of course you can order it with maxed out RAM at the time of purchase from Apple,but they charge more. Look for a macmini from 2011 (usb2 only) or anything after 2012 (usb3) but again not all that important to have usb 3 in my opinion and experience. George |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 29, 2015 15:11:26 GMT -5
The only benefit to USB 3.0 that I know of is that it will be a lot faster when you use it to copy a lot of music onto or off of the drive. (It won't make much difference for one song, but it could shave a few hours off of copying several terabytes from one server drive to another). However, the down-side is that there still seem to be some compatibility issues between certain USB 3.0 devices and the USB 3.0 ports on certain computers (USB 2.0 has simply been around a lot longer and most of the bugs have already been long since worked out). In principle, you can connect any USB 2.0 device (or even a USB 1.0 device) to any USB 3.0 port and it SHOULD work fine - it is claimed to be "100% backwards compatible). Note that the USB 3.0 CABLES are different, and you need the right cable, with the right connector at each end.... (The USB 3.0 "mini-USB" connector is different.) I think the original point was that the mini comes with USB 3 interfaces, to take advantage of them you want to buy external devices that also use USB 3. This is especially important with external hard drives that transfer large amounts of data. For even more speed Thunderbolt 2 is available, but peripherals using this are more expensive than USB. From my personal experience and from information I read, USB3 is not all that important for music. USB2 is plenty fast for music transfer, it certainly exceed expectations, this I mean for example when an external USB2 drive is serving music to a macmini. When copy from drive to drive on USB2, I don't mind waiting another two seconds to complete transfer. On the other hand, all dacs, and USB to SPDIF converters out there are designed with USB2 so I am not sure why USB3 is even needed. The preferred connection is external drive on USB and dacs on firewire or the other way around. In my set up both the drive and dacs are both on USB and to be honest,I don't think I miss anything.When I was shopping external drives I noticed firewire interface was expensive and few options,thunderbolt even more so, I got USB drives instead and never looked back. Regards George |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 29, 2015 15:12:55 GMT -5
Hmmmmmmm. Terms like "computer audio" conjure up thoughts like portable DACs with headphone amps, and other such interesting things.....  On the topic of macs and audio, was it my imagination or did I hear the phrase "computer audio" uttered in the background of Tuesday's podcast when they were talking about unveiling new products. . Maybe it was just a figment of my wishful thinking. *Shrugs* You lost me. I don't have a clue what you are referring to. But thanks for the tease, *gulp* I hope? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 29, 2015 16:04:29 GMT -5
That article is excellent - and it does provide the information in the most accurate and balanced form I've ever seen. There is an awful lot of mythology and hype about "DSD sounding better" - as usual, most of it delivered by a few "true believers" who are dead convinced that they hear a difference. I would just like to add a few small things to the conversation: 1) Early on in the article they mentioned a favorite argument of DSD fans - that "DSD playback requires a much simpler filter than CD playback" (near the end of page 1 - and worded somewhat differently). DSD fans like to suggest that, because the filter is simpler, it will probably alter the signal less; this is one of their favorite arguments in favor of DSD. The reality is that this statement manages to be technically correct yet also misleading. The process of converting a digital audio signal into analog results in the creation of a lot of extra "ultrasonic garbage" which has to be filtered out (the filter is actually part of the "math" that gives you back the correct analog signal in the end). The type of garbage that needs to be removed is slightly different for DSD than for PCM, and the filtering required to reduce this garbage to a safe level when decoding a DSD signal may indeed be somewhat simpler than that for PCM, but it isn't really any less obtrusive, or any less likely to produce an audible alteration of the signal. (In other words, to throw around a few adjectives, while the filter for DSD may be simpler, it isn't gentler, or less aggressive; it doesn't cost less, and it isn't especially less likely to slightly alter the sound of the signal going through it. It may be aesthetically more pleasant to imagine your music going through a "simpler filter", but it doesn't technically suggest that it's going to end up sounding any better.) 2) I think I might place even more stress on the fact that the mastering process is the major thing that determines how something will sound. Both DSD and PCM are capable of more accurate audio reproduction than most analog tape recorders. This means that, if your original master was made on tape, that tape is probably going to be the limiting factor (even the best analog mastering tape recorders have higher distortion, lower S/N ratios, narrower frequency response, and worse phase shift, than a good digital recording). Therefore, even though you might hear a slight difference between DSD and PCM digital copies made from the same analog master - quite possibly due to slight differences in the conversion process itself - the analog master you're starting from is much less accurate to the original sound than either the DSD or PCM version is to it. (So, when someone "opens up their vaults" and releases all those old analog tape masters, the choice between DSD and PCM is really just a matter of choosing the delivery format you prefer, and not a matter of somehow "getting significantly closer to the original".) At most, you might make an argument that, IF the recording was mastered originally in DSD, then delivering it to you is DSD requires one less conversion, and any conversion will probably produce some small difference in sound. The fact that it is almost impossible to edit DSD audio in even the simplest ways without converting it to some other format could be considered a limitation or a virtue (just like, in the old days, a "direct to disc" record couldn't possibly be "over mixed" or "over engineered"). 3) I think I'd also like to reprise something that they did mention - but perhaps glossed over a bit. Many modern DAC chips have supported direct playback of DSD for several years; it's literally been a matter of "connecting a few pins and running the wires"; the fact is that there simply wasn't enough interest for anybody to bother to do so. In fact, I find it somewhat humorous that Delta-Sigma DACs (which some purists seem to dislike quite irrationally) actually operate internally in a format quite similar to DSD, and so convert PCM signals into something quite like DSD internally as part of the conversion process already. And, finally, I might suggest that you should consider a few of the arguments about why a separate pre/pro and power amp usually give you better performance and greater upgrade flexibility than an AVR  I found this online. My goodness, does it ever have a lot of useful information on digital audio. I found it very helpful. Now, when I upgrade my AV receiver and add my mac mini, at least I will know the kind of music I'll be putting on the hard drive of the mac and what to look for in my new 2.2 HDCP 2.0 HDMI with on board DAC A/V receiver. *GRIN* I am learning, slowly.... but shirley! www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-abcs-of-dsd-downloads/and, I know that almost all of you already know about this site, but for the sake of those like me that are just learning, this other link was also very helpful to me, when I found it: www.hdtracks.com |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Mar 29, 2015 16:22:04 GMT -5
Thank you for that. Will the USB interface work without interruption in the listening of music? Yes, USB 2 interface is fine,no interruptions what so ever,unless something else is causing that. When you shop for a mac mini,try not to get the new 2015 models, their RAM is soldered on the motherboard. I hear,so that means you can't add more RAM later on. Of course you can order it with maxed out RAM at the time of purchase from Apple,but they charge more. Look for a macmini from 2011 (usb2 only) or anything after 2012 (usb3) but again not all that important to have usb 3 in my opinion and experience. George I agree that the latest mini's are less upgradeable, though the price is good for the base unit (if going used I'd get a late-2012). I'd also agree that you don't need USB 3 for playing music, but I end up copying files between drives or memory cards, the increased speed is noticable and appreciated. USB 3 devices aren't expensive and are rather the norm, not to mention you might want to use the drive(s) for other things (backups, photos, videos, etc). While I bought my mini primarily for use as a music server, I also find myself using it quite a bit for GarageBand and iMovie. Why limit the performance of your peripherals to save a few bucks, or under buy because you may not yet see what else you might also use it for. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Mar 29, 2015 16:24:07 GMT -5
Hmmmmmmm. Terms like "computer audio" conjure up thoughts like portable DACs with headphone amps, and other such interesting things..... ... woosh ... who was that stealth Ninja?  |
|
|
|
Post by Spike on Mar 29, 2015 17:15:16 GMT -5
That article is excellent - and it does provide the information in the most accurate and balanced form I've ever seen. There is an awful lot of mythology and hype about "DSD sounding better" - as usual, most of it delivered by a few "true believers" who are dead convinced that they hear a difference. I would just like to add a few small things to the conversation: 1) Early on in the article they mentioned a favorite argument of DSD fans - that "DSD playback requires a much simpler filter than CD playback" (near the end of page 1 - and worded somewhat differently). DSD fans like to suggest that, because the filter is simpler, it will probably alter the signal less; this is one of their favorite arguments in favor of DSD. The reality is that this statement manages to be technically correct yet also misleading. The process of converting a digital audio signal into analog results in the creation of a lot of extra "ultrasonic garbage" which has to be filtered out (the filter is actually part of the "math" that gives you back the correct analog signal in the end). The type of garbage that needs to be removed is slightly different for DSD than for PCM, and the filtering required to reduce this garbage to a safe level when decoding a DSD signal may indeed be somewhat simpler than that for PCM, but it isn't really any less obtrusive, or any less likely to produce an audible alteration of the signal. (In other words, to throw around a few adjectives, while the filter for DSD may be simpler, it isn't gentler, or less aggressive; it doesn't cost less, and it isn't especially less likely to slightly alter the sound of the signal going through it. It may be aesthetically more pleasant to imagine your music going through a "simpler filter", but it doesn't technically suggest that it's going to end up sounding any better.) 2) I think I might place even more stress on the fact that the mastering process is the major thing that determines how something will sound. Both DSD and PCM are capable of more accurate audio reproduction than most analog tape recorders. This means that, if your original master was made on tape, that tape is probably going to be the limiting factor (even the best analog mastering tape recorders have higher distortion, lower S/N ratios, narrower frequency response, and worse phase shift, than a good digital recording). Therefore, even though you might hear a slight difference between DSD and PCM digital copies made from the same analog master - quite possibly due to slight differences in the conversion process itself - the analog master you're starting from is much less accurate to the original sound than either the DSD or PCM version is to it. (So, when someone "opens up their vaults" and releases all those old analog tape masters, the choice between DSD and PCM is really just a matter of choosing the delivery format you prefer, and not a matter of somehow "getting significantly closer to the original".) At most, you might make an argument that, IF the recording was mastered originally in DSD, then delivering it to you is DSD requires one less conversion, and any conversion will probably produce some small difference in sound. The fact that it is almost impossible to edit DSD audio in even the simplest ways without converting it to some other format could be considered a limitation or a virtue (just like, in the old days, a "direct to disc" record couldn't possibly be "over mixed" or "over engineered"). 3) I think I'd also like to reprise something that they did mention - but perhaps glossed over a bit. Many modern DAC chips have supported direct playback of DSD for several years; it's literally been a matter of "connecting a few pins and running the wires"; the fact is that there simply wasn't enough interest for anybody to bother to do so. In fact, I find it somewhat humorous that Delta-Sigma DACs (which some purists seem to dislike quite irrationally) actually operate internally in a format quite similar to DSD, and so convert PCM signals into something quite like DSD internally as part of the conversion process already. And, finally, I might suggest that you should consider a few of the arguments about why a separate pre/pro and power amp usually give you better performance and greater upgrade flexibility than an AVR I found this online. My goodness, does it ever have a lot of useful information on digital audio. I found it very helpful. Now, when I upgrade my AV receiver and add my mac mini, at least I will know the kind of music I'll be putting on the hard drive of the mac and what to look for in my new 2.2 HDCP 2.0 HDMI with on board DAC A/V receiver. *GRIN* I am learning, slowly.... but shirley! www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-abcs-of-dsd-downloads/and, I know that almost all of you already know about this site, but for the sake of those like me that are just learning, this other link was also very helpful to me, when I found it: www.hdtracks.comKeith, Thank you so much. I learned a lot .. a TON from your post. I would like to respond to your final suggestion. I have a physically debilitating disability. At one time I owned an Emotiva 5 Channel amp, a pre/pro, etc. But, due to my disability and the extreme limitations of my disease, that option is almost impossible for me, unless, there are things that I don't know about, which is probably definitely true. *GRIN* |
|
HJ957
Minor Hero
Posts: 36
|
Post by HJ957 on Mar 30, 2015 21:17:16 GMT -5
Is there a reason for using HDMI? You could easily use a toslink connection.
I'm uncertain about how an HDMI connection will affect this, but on the Mac there's a MIDI utility, it has to be manually switched to 96/24 output. In my case if I unplug my toslink adapter and plug in basic computer speaker, the MIDI output switches itself back to 44/24.
Also, iTunes will play AIFF files if you want to go that route. I thought that iTunes will convert FLAC upon import, but I don't have any files onhand to see if I'm remembering that correctly.
Edit. Didn't notice the post that elaborates on HDMI, sorry about that.
|
|
