Bit Perfect/MacMini issues

Jason,

What are the model identifiers of your mini?

Craig

The guy that wrote the BitPerfect App is very helpful. Email him with your query.

support@bitperfectsound.com

You can check what mode iTunes is running in by running 

Applications::Utilities::Activity Monitor 

It will tell you in the kind column 

If it does not say 32 bit then try this 

Move Itunes out of the applications folder to the desktop <you need to supply password to allow the move> open it and allow it to connect to software update and update libraries then quit and move it back to applications. 

Then install BP and see if you have any luck .... 

BitPerfect requires a 64-bit Intel CPU and OS X 10.6 (as minimum).

From Jason's post, it appears that he is running 10.6 Snow Leopard. What we need know now is whether Jason's mini is Core Single, Core Duo, or Core 2 Duo; the latter of which can allow iTunes to run in 64bit mode on OS X 10.6 or later.

Craig

Hi all,

Thanks for the replies.

The model ID is MB139xx/A which is a 2007 vintage. C2D 2Ghz with 1Gb ram at the moment.

Running OSX SL which is bang up to date.

When i open activity monitor, it shows all processes at 64bit apart from itunes which shows nothing.

Guido..

I did try that, although i did it after i installed BP.

Maybe i should uninstall it and try again?

Well, talk about service......

And so the case for keeping it simple is made.

Plain iTunes is perfectly fine without additives!

ATB from George

I think i may agree!

Yet, if I hadn't installed Playback (or the Squeezeserver, for that) on my MacBook (or my MacMini, for that), it would not be visible in UPnP..

ATB from Max

I would agree if I had not heard the enormous sonic differences with different players/add-ons. I am using Audirvana with iTunes and find it very convenient to use. (It also requires OS X 10.6)

Dear aysil and Max,

In my use of iTunes as a bare unmodified player [and CD ripper], the things that appeal to me over CD replay are,

Better definition of timbres, so that one may accurately perceive musical balances, and articulation and dynamics that are at least the equal, and occasionally seeming revelatory in their greater lucidity. 

My method of deciding on a method or component in replay is use it. [Or dem it]. And if I find it satisfactory - in other words it brings focus onto the music without me having to worry about the replay distraction aspect - then I adopt it. I am not much worried about differences or even something potentially more refined. Provided what I am using does the trick on its own, and daily!

As you both suggest that additive to iTunes improve things, please would you be so kind as to explain in terms of musical reproduction what the improvements actually are?

The trouble is that just saying there are differences or improvements  but not explaining what they are in musical terms, really leaves me none the wiser. It is a little like me saying that the modern Bentley is better than the modern Rolls Royce without at least giving a hint of what this "better" means. 

Unless the improvements are described, then I tend to the view that they are merely differences without an obvious or significant musical improvement at all.

If a musical improvement is found, I have never thought it was that difficult to describe. Here are a few heading that you could start with. Articulation, Dynamics of the phrase and notes. Timbres of the instruments, and ability to define musical expressive changes of tone such as the strings playing sul ponticello or su la touch etc.

I have heard enough difference in replay, particularly with Turntables, and could only describe these as differences, because musical values remained remarkably unaltered between differences of hifi presentation such as stereo pin-point [or not], more or less bass in the balance and so forth.

Please excuse my reply on this, but the differences in replay fall into two almost completely distinct categories - ones that are directly musical and make a persistent improvement in one's comprehension of the musical thrust, as I have mentioned above, and those that are merely sonic and will discounted in three minutes of listening without altering one's musical appreciation one iota beyond that.

ATB from George

George,

I take the opportunity of replying to you to post my last post on this forum for a while because I think that grownups must occasionally find themselves again, and virtuality is not food for the adult's mind.

First, an important point: I didn't say that iTunes sounds better with additives. You wrote that it was perfectly fine without additives (not that it sounded perfect as it was), so I added that if you don't install Playback or another proper software on the Mac you can't stream wi-fi because the Mac has no internal UPnP facility.

It was half serious, but a simple reply to your statement that iTunes didn't need any additive. It may be, if you connect the Mac via cable to a DAC. But wi-fi streaming needs an additive...

Then: I couldn't agree more on your taking music (I know you are a musician, we have had an exchange of emails about it) as first and only parameter in judging what is good and what's not. A very good thing that you are familiar with real music (string music, what's more), a happy condition that I share, luckily.

But then yours is not a defense of iTunes as standalone media player, but a manifesto about how better HD replay is in comparison to CD replay. Ok, good for you.

My own experiences haven't so far demonstrated that a MacMini, optimized for music ripping and replaying (btw, BitPerfect just does a couple of things automatically that iTunes needs being done by the user, so a mere facility), into the home web and into a Squeezebox into my Supernait's DAC is comparable to my CDX2; and believe me, after 30 years up and down the Music Conservatory and concert halls, I too think I know how music sounds. But perhaps in the future, with a better streamer.

So, I have no intention to try and explain why any additive (or addictive) software makes iTunes sound better because:

a) it was not my intention to make any such statement;

b) I am still not very interested in streaming and was only jokingly correcting a remark you made (that turned out having been made incorrectly);

c) I know - as you know - that after all variables have been amended into absolutes (timbres are better, music flows better - and, btw, a system must be really crap if you can't hear the difference between a bow being used sul ponticello or normally - etc.), still your ears are your ears and mine are mine.

That said, I am sure that iTunes is good software. If it's perfect for you (meaning that you don't listen to so called HiRes files, or, if you do, each time you do you have to open preferences and a few folders to reach the point where you tell the Mac to output another bit rate than the standard one, which BitPerfect would automatically do for you  through the USB port), I am happy for you.

But if you addressed me as one of those who speak absolutes in totally subjective terms, without taking the pain to elaborate, I think you have written to the wrong Max.

Friendly,

Max

The BP guy is legend. I had a small configuration problem (self inflicted as it turned out) when I first tried to use BP. He replied promptly and guided me through fixing my rookie mistake in a very professional and friendly manner.

Dear George

On your Mac is a utility called Audio Midi Setup ... what do you have it set to .... it does make a difference to what your Mac sends to your DAC .... Bit Perfect does what it says on the tin and makes sure what is in your ripped file is what goes to your DAC (you do not have to change a thing). 

Audrivana goes further, it gets it bit perfect and it uses integer arithmetic for higher accuracy ... it use Izotope as the playing software rather than Apple Core Audio. 

These methods provide different output and so could sound different ... I have no idea how this relates to technical musical terms (sorry I just don't understand them). The best I can do is to say that with a DSD ISO image of a SACD version of the Moody Blues I'm Just A Singer In A Rock and Roll Band played through Audrivana it is easier to hear the words and the tune that it is if you convert to 16 bit PCM and play through iTunes. If you convert to 24 bit and play through iTunes/BP then the difference is very small though I believe I can discern one.

So these things can make a difference just as playing with the iTunes Equaliser does.

From a computing point of view ... stopping unnecessary process, playing from memory, matching the sample rate all make perfect sense to me ... whether they are truly beneficial is subjective. If these in any way change a listeners enjoyment of the music only the listener can say.  

I must say I'm impressed with DSD Moody Blues, but the Audrivana interface is not to my liking at all ... iTunes is better by far .. however the SQ of Audrivana makes it worth the while I think. 

To be honest, as your music is all 16/44.1 .. you shouldn't find any differences between iTunes and some of the cleverer programs - at least not ones to worry about and I would guess you disable the equaliser (as indeed I do).  

So I think that is why some folk like other players on the Mac. 

All the best, Guy 

Dear Guy,

When the Mini was set up using iTunes alone, the sales team was aware that I had about 330 Gig of AIFF files. They were kind enough to load these onto the Mini in the shop, when I suggested that it would be quite awkward for me to do this as a complete MAC novice ...

I told them that all I wanted to do was to use the Mini for music into the [USB] rDAC, and would they make the correct settings on it for optimal quality.

They seem to have managed the trick! It is a better listen - using the MAC compared to my previous little PC, which was running XP Windows,

It is marginally more enjoyable sonically, but much better for stability. So far in more than six weeks it has not missed a beat! It is totally stable on internet Radio Three [HD stream] and Radio Four [LW HQ stream, except when cricket gets in the way].

So I cannot say what the settings are, as I have not changed a thing since the machine was set up by people who know ...

Strangely at the change from iTunes 10.70 to 11.01, it was you who found what none in the shop knew about how to set the preferences in the "search engine," which is amazing and they soon knew what you explained to me! They were very grateful.

Even if I found my way into Audio Midi Set-up, I would not have the first idea what to set it to! I imagine that the shop did know, because it goes very nicely! I am not a computer competent, and like the way the MAC just works superbly, boots up so very quickly, and is totally stable.

If you ever wanted to visit me, and show me the "secrets" that you know, I only live at Worcester about two miles from the Worcester South exit of the M5. You might enjoy the ESL 57s as a nice contrast to your Ecclipse speakers!

If that is of interest to you, then Stu [Munch] has my email address ...

Thanks for you post above and superb help earlier!

ATB from George 

PS: All my music is from CDs and I would never ever buy so called "Hi-res" files, because CD quality is ideal. The best CDs are superb, and the worst suffer from a basic quality from the master or poor remastering, but poor remastering is extremely rare for classical releases, where the CD re-issues always show a great advance over what used to be achieved on LPs for reasons that are too involved to go into here.

I don't see how a "Hi-res" remastering could possible be better at fixing a basically poor original recording or incompetent remastering [however rare that is with classical music], simply by increasing the dynamic range [greater bit depth] or increasing the sampling rate [higher top frequency cut off point]. Indeed it might make poor things worse by being "more" revealing!

I'll continue to buy music on CDs even if CD standards become the norm for downloading ...

ATB from George

I have bought a few hi res files (listening to Fred Simon at 24/96 as we speak), but I know what you are saying. The good recordings are good anyway. Hi-res doesn't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. I confess to not really being able to tell much difference in quality between CD-quality and hi-res on my system with my ears. 

Compressed, "lossey" files are another matter. Both my wife and I can A/B identify these pretty well, including levels of compression I don't know that my world would end if all I had was 320kbs files, though. They're OK, really (burn the witch!) whereas 128kpbs are pretty dire.

George

I don't recall if you have a "mono" switch on your Nait, but I came across this alternative in Mac today that might be a substitute for that function.

In System Preferences, go to Universal Access and click on the "hearing" tab, select change stereo to mono.

Jeff A

Sorry folks - total misinformation from me - I'm grateful to a fellow forum member who told me just click the Integrate with iTunes option on the main menu and the interface is iTunes ... so I can now say Audrivana interface is  to my liking at all ... it is just the same iTunes 11. 

Dear Winki,

The very best quality I have ever heard in reproduced music in the home is the Radio Three 320 AAC stream, when they make a live broadcast. No recording seems to have the immediacy of this. Unlike VHF it is not "automatically" compressed, and has also a vanishingly quiet background level. The result is that one can here so much more of the tiny details of expressive music making than seems to come from any but the very best recordings, and it's only 320 KBPS in AAC format!

So fancy what could be done in the future?

I think it gets a bit complicated with "Hi-res" for recordings, and until it get to be simple, then I'll give it a wide birth ... only to be considered if there is no alternative way of getting the music in the recording that I am seeking.

At the moment EMI are releasing their complete archive of Otto Klemperer recordings at something like £2.10 per CD. I have a few long since wanted recordings that have not so far come on CDs, and as the price is so kind, then I'll buy the whole series even though I already have four fifths of them already as this means the precious gaps will only be at about £9 per CD. Still not excruciating for such music making!

I suspect there next incarnation will be in "Hi-res" so I had better seize the moment!

Similarly I have a collection of Bach performances on recordings that I want to get while still easily available on CDs, and also Haydn ...

After that I doubt that I'll be buying any recordings, and instead augment my own library with excellent broadcasts for things still beloved, but not so much that I want to be able to listen to them at any time, rather than when broadcast. The Radio iPlayer is fantastic as one can listen later within a a week of the broadcast.

ATB from George

Dear Jeff,

I have fixed the mono issue mechanically. In stereo presentation this gets a sense of minuscule directionality that is quite vague, and therefore natural. There is no mono button on the Nait 5i-2, nor actually much control at all, except volume, on/off, and four inputs, of which one may be made unity gain. All that I need .. nothing spare or redundant really.

ATB from George

Hello George,

First of all, thank you for reminding us again, that sonic benefits do not necessarily mean "bringing more focus onto the music". Some of us must have made the experience of getting fully excited about a music from the simple radio in our car and then not having the same satisfaction listening to the same music on our home system, because it does not have the same subversive acoustics of a small car. I enjoy some of my noisy 78rpm records more than some recent interpretations of the same music on technically and acoustically faultless recordings. It is also true that many allegedly high-end systems simply fall short of conveying the soul of the music.

There are sonic atributes which are very important for the enjoyment of the music. For me, faithful reproduction of the fine dynamics of the music is one of the priorities, because it is about delivering the real intention of the musicians and their emotional states. If you can feel the flow and the swing (meaning literally swinging of a clarinettist on his feet) that's certainly very precious.

There are other sonic attributes which are less about enjoying the music. For example, getting as much information about the acoustics of the recording space as possible is very interesting and enjoyable, and many of us in this forum are certainly pursuing such attributes, accepting that this is more of an "audiophile" quest and it is not necessarily for the sake of "music".

In one of your earlier threads, you had claimed that stereo is not necessary for the appreciation of music, and I had fully agreed. I have experimented quite a lot with mono systems. In fact, recently, I installed a single speaker mono system at a friend's small studio apartment. She was going to buy a mini-stereo system, and I convinced her to go for a superior mono system instead. Now, she agrees that better tonal separation of instruments is more important than the horizontal-linear separation of stereo.

The sonic differences between "pure" iTunes and player "additives" in Mac are not subtle. You can hear it on the simple speakers of your MBook, without even connecting to a music system. It is very straightforward (and free) to install and try Audirvana (or BP, or others). You can try and decide for yourself if it improves YOUR enjoyment of the music. I just liked what I was hearing and kept it. Sorry for not being able to describe this in more detail. I am using both mac and windows, and iTunes was also not rating well in sonic qualities (for me) also not in windows, worse even than the other apple player QuickTime. So, I believe it is worth mentioning, discussing different player/add-on/setting alternatives for computers.

Dear aysil,

One day I may experiment, but only when I am feeling adventurous! As it is I love what is being done, even by forum standards with a quite modest replay set.

Of course Forum standards and the wider world are different. Most people would rate even my modest set as being immensely expensive!

Thanks for your reply. I expect you can almost imagine how two ESL 57s, standing exactly in line, though not parallel to the wall behind, and with no gap between them produce a very clear quality with virtually no "stereo" effect at all.

ATB from George

Dear George,

I'm glad you're enjoying your system; and I am not surprised, it is certainly a very good one.

...and I totally understand how eliminating the stereo "effect" is giving you fuller satisfaction and better piece of mind, especially with these ESLs!

Dear aysil,

I think the ESLs make more difference to my contentment than any else ever has in my forty year experience. Not using physical media is not far behind ...

Very different from 99 per cent of others, they must be the ultimate "Marmite" speaker. But they do need feeding well in quality terms, and that's for sure. Not forgiving at all.

ATB from George