PC and MAC Rips: PC Superior?
Posted by: JBGood on 10 May 2011
Evening all,
I've been busy experimenting and comparing various digital sources in my current system. Tonight I compared lossless iTunes files between (1) custom built PC running Windows XP and (2) MacBookPro (both streamed via Apple TV2) into a Bryston BDA-1 DAC/XS/NACA5. To my ears, the PC files were clear winners.. and by a significant margin. I'm aware that rips can sound different, but I wasn't prepared for the magnitude of this difference.
I was hoping to use my MBP as a source. I am growing increasingly frustrated by digital audio. In my relatively old age, I just don't have the time or patience for tweaking that I once had.
Another comparison: MBP optical out (stock Belkin cable) into the BDA-1 is fair-to-good, but PC files through the ATV (stock optical cable) are downright excellent! Warm, involving, and great dynamic range.
I've been playing with a M2Tech HiFace on the MBP, not satisfied at all. Now I'm wondering if the problem might be the MBP. An old NAD C541 CDP through the BDA-1 also trumps the MBP.
Thoughts on this? I know many folks happily use a MacMini as a digital source. I must be doing something wrong...
Thanks in advance.
JB
Thats right PC rips are superior, it more cleanly writes the same ones and naughts to the harddrive. They are some how fresher and brighter.
JBGood -
Assuming you ripping to the same lossless format, you could always to a binary compare of the two RIP's to satisfy your curiosity. But it would seem highly unlikely that the RIPs have anything to do with what you are hearing.
You could, as was done in the Stereophile BDA-1 review, buy a Bel Canto USB Link 24/96 adapter. This would eliminate a lot of variables. Or you could buy a good sound card for your PC (RME 9632, Juli@) for your PC.
My guess is that the BDA-1 is going to be a lot more sensitive to source quality than, say, the Naim DAC with its buffering/reclocking architecture.
Hook
Personally I ave found the same with OSX - hence I run Win7 on my Mac Mini.
Win 7 on a MacMini like using a Maserati Quattroporte as a skip.
Tog
JBGood -
You could, as was done in the Stereophile BDA-1 review, buy a Bel Canto USB Link 24/96 adapter. This would eliminate a lot of variables. Or you could buy a good sound card for your PC (RME 9632, Juli@) for your PC.
I have compared Bel Canto USB Link to ESI JUli@ PCI sound card and couldn't tell a clear difference between these two. I was disappointed with USB Link's performance. It's clearly overpriced IMO. I haven't directly compared HiFace with USB Link, but out of my memory I'd say that HiFace is much better option than USB Link.
JB,
What file type are you streaming? I have a feeling my own Mac has issues when I rip directly to Apple Lossless (ALAC) and subsequently play back these files from laptop or ipod. Could be an issue on the playback side, but conversion of ALAC to AIFF didn't help. On the other hand, ripping straight to AIFF sounds better. Never did a proper follow-up analysis, YMMV.
EJ
Sorry if my original post was confusing. I am comparing all my existing digital source options, with the ultimate goals of staying with the one that will have the highest SQ and allow me to use high res files.
To clarify, I have ripped CD's to Apple Lossless/ iTunes on a PC and a MBP. One of the comparisons involved streaming these files to AppleTV(2), same Toslink cable to Bryston DAC, into XS. There is a significant difference between the streamed PC and the MBP files, favoring the PC. This was unexpected.
Please understand. I have no PC vs MAC agenda. I am also not against making a new purchase that will allow me to better achieve my goal. I am starting with my existing gear, to see if I can be satisfied with what I already own- prior to upgrading. Since I do own a MBP, I am trying to get the most music possible from it.
My additional comments were that I am currently preferring the PC/AppleTV/Bryston/XS combo over everything I have tried with the MBP. This includes both (1) MBP optical out, and (2) HiFace USB out. This surprises and confuses me. I was considering picking up a MacMini as a source, but now I am pausing. I know this is a common strategy which many have been happy with, so I am not discounting it yet. I usually assume that most problems are probably user error- me!
As stated in my OP, I also found that my NAD C541/DAC combo was more pleasing than everything I have tried so far with the MBP.
This is not a bad story, of course. While I am not done trying to optimize the MBP as a source, I currently have two digital source options that I find very pleasing- both PC/ATV(2) and the NAD.
JB
@EJS: these comparisons were all Apple Lossless
@plinko: I understand there could be many things influencing what I am hearing. I'm not concluding that this is all about PC vs MAC rips. I don't know enough about all this digital stuff to come to any valid conclusions. I am reporting my finding that iTunes files ripped on MAC vs PC streamed through ATV into a DAC really don't sound the same.
If the rips of a good quality CD on a PC and Mac are different then something is wrong - I've done comparisons of both and found the AIFF files to be identical (i.e. bit comparisons) - indeed I found a Mac iTunes rip was identical to rip from what some consider to be the best domestic ripping system in the known universe. If the CD is damaged then some CD drives are better at dealing with this than others so there may be differences, but they are likely to small. I've never found any on files I've tested when I decided on a way to rip my CDs.
However, if you the same rips play them back on different systems then you'll hear differences for all kinds of reasons. There is no real reason why in to a device like the Naim DAC you should get anything less than excellent results from both a Mac and a PC; I much prefer the Mac as a computer and find it perfect for for organising my digital music collection, but I could not deny that other computer systems might do an equally fine job. I removed all the superfluous stuff from my Mac so it only ran essential processes for audio - what improvement did I get? ..... well err, erm none that I could hear, but it seemed like a good idea until it confused Software Update.
I do have reservations about the quality of the Mac's digital out and that's why I use the MF VLink async USB to S/PDIF convertor. I'm convinced I hear an improvement. I'm also sceptical about the quality of SMPS that Apple uses for it's portables though they have improved; consequently I'd avoid plugging the computer into the same mains block as the audio kit.
The new iMac would make a good music server with SSD for the OS and a separate 2TB disk for music files. A DIY Soloos .... not tried it though.
All the best Guy
Guy,
Thanks very much for your detailed post and suggestions. So it is highly unlikely that the different rips would explain what I am hearing. I naively thought that wirelessly streaming these rips to the ATV2 would minimize any playback differences between the Mac and PC.
I have a few more experiments looming in the near horizon including:
(1) a better Toslink cable from MBP to DAC,
(2) a suggested modification (attenuator) for the HiFace. A guy named John Kenny is well-regarded for his HiFace modifications. Exceptionally nice and responsive fellow.
Just for grins, I may also experiment with the HiFace on my PC.
-- JB
JB,
What file type are you streaming? I have a feeling my own Mac has issues when I rip directly to Apple Lossless (ALAC) and subsequently play back these files from laptop or ipod. Could be an issue on the playback side, but conversion of ALAC to AIFF didn't help. On the other hand, ripping straight to AIFF sounds better. Never did a proper follow-up analysis, YMMV.
EJ
My experience exactly but on PC.
The variables start with converting that into SPDIF / USB and sending and receiving that bit stream and/or loading the data into the registers on the DACs.
Variables include powerline noise from CPU running algorithms affecting clocks, reflections on the SPDIF/USB signal/characteristic impedance mis matches, RF harmonics from the square waves contaminating and causing intermods in the analogue electronics, and of couse clock jitter.
Quite a lot to get right.
Simon
The variables start with converting that into SPDIF / USB and sending and receiving that bit stream and/or loading the data into the registers on the DACs.
Variables include powerline noise from CPU running algorithms affecting clocks, reflections on the SPDIF/USB signal/characteristic impedance mis matches, RF harmonics from the square waves contaminating and causing intermods in the analogue electronics, and of couse clock jitter.
Quite a lot to get right.
Simon
Hi Simon -
What variables are left if a Toslink cable is used for the S/PDIF connection?
Also, by jitter, are you refering to the inherent jitter in the data stream that occurred during recording? Obviously, no playback technology can undo that!
Given the Naim DAC's buffering/reclocking architecture, I have never understand how S/PDIF-related jitter could remain an issue. I do wish you had been around during the "Why is the nDac so cheap?" thread and its successors, where this topic was debated to death. The end result, persuasively argued against all comers by a forum member named AndyS (who said he was an engineer in a related field) was that S/PDIF-related jitter was 100% eliminated by the DAC. Naim remained silent during this debate, so those of us who were interested tried to dissect the white paper in order to understand how the DAC really worked.
Do not want to reopen a big can of worms, but I am very interested to read your thoughts on this subect. Thanks a lot!
Hook
Hi Hook
You don't mean this thread per chance.
It is a shame Andy left as his views were refreshingly different and difficult to dispute.
All the best, Guy
Toslink cables still have reflections, often associated with non ideal ends to the fibre. Fibre also issues with light bouncing off the sides that can add and subtract the harmonics. There are also non linearities in the diodes and receivers. The big advantage of Toslink is that it eliminates ground loops and common mode RFI.
A square wave is as we know just an attenuated series of odd harmonics, but interestingly so is a triangle wave, the only difference is the rate of attenuation of the harmonics. Reflections in the fibre or copper wire will affect the level of different harmonics. What does this mean? Well the square waves will have varying rise times. Therefore the threshold of going to a 0 to 1 will vary, ie jitter. Now of course SPDIF is asynchronous and the clock has to be recovered, so clearly here you can see in some certain situation how errors will occur.
Now other than the above errors, ie within a particular time slot where the wrong level is measured, these bits can be buffered up and the square wave 'sharpened' up and reclocked. In theory this looks ideal, in practice this process is going to produce it's own noise, on power lines etc, As Powerline noise affects clocks and causes intermods in analogue electronics. As I discussed on another forum recently, as audio reproduction is a compromise these low level artefacts generally add to the sonic signature of a device.
Simon
But Simon, how many of those artefacts are significant in the particular case of the nDAC, which buffers the data and reclocks it? All the reasons you give for SQ differences with s/pdif are the very reasons Naim cite as why they never made a separate DAC, until they figured how to circumvent them with the design of the nDAC.
class="quotedText">
Thats right PC rips are superior, it more cleanly writes the same ones and naughts to the harddrive. They are some how fresher and brighter.
Funny, I thought it was because Windows always writes everything at least twice over to help it recover when it inevitably crashes. Sorry. My bias is showing.
Seriously, the optical output on the Mac is definite no-no. To get any real benefit from the Mac, some might say to enable it to achieve it's full potential, you really must use an asynchronous to Sp/Dif convertor. The standard HiFace is not, so I understand, asynchronous. Try the EVO. I am awaiting a demo of the Weiss 202 running from a MB.
Therefore I would recommend a good quality source and use a correctly specified interconnect when using the nDAC (or ant DAC). Also it's worth pointing out the SPDIF bit stream jitter, is separate from the jitter from the sample words entering the DAC, (which contains the recorded jitter as well, which oversampling can reduce) The bits have to be recovered to build the sample word, so the bits effectively need to be buffered what ever you do, and when simplistically the sample register is full it is clocked using another very low jitter clock to the DAC. There are effectively two different clocks, albeit one is a ratio of the other.
Simon
Hi Hook
You don't meanthis thread per chance.
It is a shame Andy left as his views were refreshingly different and difficult to dispute.
All the best, Guy
Thanks Guy, that's the one!
And yes, I think it would have been interesting to see AndyS and Simon go a couple of rounds!
Hook
Come on guys - the quality of the rip is dependant on the software, optical drive amnd original media - whether it is PC or Mac is irrelevant.
Using PC or Mac as a transport or server is a different matter. In most cases a Mac makes for a better platform providing you consider the output options - however, if you are streaming files Asset UPnP for the PC beats anything currently available on a Mac.
Tog
Come on guys - the quality of the rip is dependant on the software, optical drive amnd original media - whether it is PC or Mac is irrelevant.
Using PC or Mac as a transport or server is a different matter. In most cases a Mac makes for a better platform providing you consider the output options - however, if you are streaming files Asset UPnP for the PC beats anything currently available on a Mac.
Tog
Hi Tog -
I see no inherent advantage in PC or Mac, for ripping or for playback.
All depends, IME, on the software apps and the add-on 3rd-party hardware, and how well they support, and or substitute for, Windows, Linux and/or MacOS functionality.
Have directly compared these two connected to the Naim DAC:
1) DIY Atom-based PC, RME 9632 PCI card, FLAC rips, J River MC V15, BNC output
2) Macbook Pro, M-Audio Transit USB, ALAC rips, Itunes/Pure Music, Toslink output
and thought both produced beautiful music. If I said I favored one over the other, I would be lying. If there were any differences in sound quality, they were too miniscule for me and the Mrs. to hear.
Given you say you prefer Mac over PC for playback, was this because you had a bad experience with some particular PC software or hardware?
Hook
> Come on guys - the quality of the rip is dependant on the software, optical drive amnd original media -
Don't forget magic potions - they have a part to play too.
To the point about rips from pcs and macs, indeed there should be difference if there is fault, and earlier we looked at rips from both platforms and Naim, and the PCM data was identical.
Simon