Which playback software do you recommend?
Posted by: novak on 04 March 2012
Happy Sunday, folks!
I have just been looking into various forms of 'audiophile' playback software for Mac.
I use a 2011 Mac Mini, Wireworld Supernova Cable into a Naim Dac, onto a Supernait. I currently play tracks through Enqueue, which is easy to use. My files are FLAC.
I have read up on Amarra, Fidelia and others, but I'm just not clear on whether these offer any improvements?
What are your recommendations and thoughts on the best software to use?
James,
Just out of curiosity, what is the problem with a double-click? Maybe I am misunderstanding but you choose the track with your mouse then use the keyboard to start playback? Or you dont even use a mouse unless required?
Does it allow you to map any command anywhere on the keyboard?
-Patrick
Patrick
Prefer not to use a mouse where possible.
Would rather use the up/down keys to scroll through the list and then Enter (or space-bar) key to start the track. You can do this in iTunes, BitPerfect, Cog....but not Fidelia.
Will look harder for a shortcut/key command...
I am still waiting to get the ALAC support hardware upgrade for my UnitiQute (still isn't available in the U.S.), but once I do I plan to try out Channel D's Pure Music with iTunes.
Will look harder for a shortcut/key command...
Gotcha.
How about a remote? Does the little Apple Remote work? I think you can make that thing control anything.
Look for XML files in the install folder that could be easily modified to map things. Maybe called "Resources"?
-patrick
Fidelia has it's own Remote app; it costs US$10.00.
Fidelia has it's own Remote app; it costs US$10.00.
there you go!!! You dont have it?
Graham,
Yes, still using Fidelia.
However I have a USB to S/PDIF adaptor on the way as I feel the (current) optical connection has a flavour/character all of it's own (which changes depending on the cable used) which makes everything sound 'same-y'.
Will advise how the new hook-up goes!
I understand from your "Homogenised" post you're getting a Halide Bridge. I'll be interested in how you find it compared to optical. There seem to be many opposing views on the Forum.
Which post will you advise us on? This post or the above?
Other than CD what is your digital source?
Hi Graham
The Bridge arrived....
Only a couple of hours in but it's certainly far better than the optical connection.
It relays the respective recordings character as opposed to the optical which tended to paint everything with the same brush strokes...
The Bridge brings the drive/verve I was enjoying with the CD5XS (as a transport) but with better resolution.
So far it's been a most worthwhile upgrade to my Mac>Fidelia>nDAC set up.
Graham,
Yes, still using Fidelia.
However I have a USB to S/PDIF adaptor on the way as I feel the (current) optical connection has a flavour/character all of it's own (which changes depending on the cable used) which makes everything sound 'same-y'.
Will advise how the new hook-up goes!
I understand from your "Homogenised" post you're getting a Halide Bridge. I'll be interested in how you find it compared to optical. There seem to be many opposing views on the Forum.
Which post will you advise us on? This post or the above?
Other than CD what is your digital source?
Hi Graham
The Bridge arrived....
Only a couple of hours in but it's certainly far better than the optical connection.
It relays the respective recordings character as opposed to the optical which tended to paint everything with the same brush strokes...
The Bridge brings the drive/verve I was enjoying with the CD5XS (as a transport) but with better resolution.
So far it's been a most worthwhile upgrade to my Mac>Fidelia>nDAC set up.
Thanks for the update James. I play Fidelia through an M2Tech Hiface. I use a homemade, good quality, BNC/BNC 75 ohm coax cable. At the moment computer playback is more of a casual use than my CDX2.2. Hence so far I reserve my DC1 cable for the CDP. I wasn't aware of the Bridge at the time of purchase. Although more expensive the Bridge has an integral connecting cable as you're aware. Wonder if anyone has compared the two products.
Graham,
Yes, still using Fidelia.
However I have a USB to S/PDIF adaptor on the way as I feel the (current) optical connection has a flavour/character all of it's own (which changes depending on the cable used) which makes everything sound 'same-y'.
Will advise how the new hook-up goes!
I understand from your "Homogenised" post you're getting a Halide Bridge. I'll be interested in how you find it compared to optical. There seem to be many opposing views on the Forum.
Which post will you advise us on? This post or the above?
Other than CD what is your digital source?
Hi Graham
The Bridge arrived....
Only a couple of hours in but it's certainly far better than the optical connection.
It relays the respective recordings character as opposed to the optical which tended to paint everything with the same brush strokes...
The Bridge brings the drive/verve I was enjoying with the CD5XS (as a transport) but with better resolution.
So far it's been a most worthwhile upgrade to my Mac>Fidelia>nDAC set up.
Thanks for the update James. I play Fidelia through an M2Tech Hiface. I use a homemade, good quality, BNC/BNC 75 ohm coax cable. At the moment computer playback is more of a casual use than my CDX2.2. Hence so far I reserve my DC1 cable for the CDP. I wasn't aware of the Bridge at the time of purchase. Although more expensive the Bridge has an integral connecting cable as you're aware. Wonder if anyone has compared the two products.
One reservation about the Bridge is that it seems to be limited to 24bit/96kHz.
Maybe not as future proof as the HiFace?( Can't vouch for relative SQ though)
Graham,
Yes, still using Fidelia.
However I have a USB to S/PDIF adaptor on the way as I feel the (current) optical connection has a flavour/character all of it's own (which changes depending on the cable used) which makes everything sound 'same-y'.
Will advise how the new hook-up goes!
I understand from your "Homogenised" post you're getting a Halide Bridge. I'll be interested in how you find it compared to optical. There seem to be many opposing views on the Forum.
Which post will you advise us on? This post or the above?
Other than CD what is your digital source?
Hi Graham
The Bridge arrived....
Only a couple of hours in but it's certainly far better than the optical connection.
It relays the respective recordings character as opposed to the optical which tended to paint everything with the same brush strokes...
The Bridge brings the drive/verve I was enjoying with the CD5XS (as a transport) but with better resolution.
So far it's been a most worthwhile upgrade to my Mac>Fidelia>nDAC set up.
James L - are you using the latest 2011 Mac Mini (Without the CD drive) ?
I heard the optical on this was as good as using as USB convertor that's all.
James L - are you using the latest 2011 Mac Mini (Without the CD drive) ?
I heard the optical on this was as good as using as USB convertor that's all.
Novak,
I believe he uses a Mac Book Pro as I do. No doubt he can confirm.
Here's a link to his original(post) query regarding playback quality.
https://forums.naimaudio.com/di...nt/13956224331062256
Yes, Mac Book Pro.
I had read the new MacMini has a low(er) jitter optical. But I'd be surprised it's massively better than the Mac Book given the huge improvement (I don't say this lightly) The Bridge has brought.
The latest Mac Mini is just as good as an old MBP using a device like the Halide Bridge. I agree with you on any old Mac, a good USB to S/PDIF makes a big difference. On the new Mac Mini though a Wireworld Supernova 6 is all you need
I wouldn't expect you to hear a big improvement by switching from your MBP/Halide to a Mac Mini - in fact I doubt there would be any. If you want to get the most of your HB then see if you can try an external power supply.
In terms of measured performance and what I can hear, the new Mac Mini's optical out is as good as any of the convertors I've tried both with a Naim DAC and a BAD Alpha DAC. However, I stress that is only with the latest MM - the one with no CD/DVD drive.
However, different folk may hear differently, as to me all players on the Mac set for bit perfect replay sound the same; they certainly produce identical bitstreams and the measurements are the same too. The jitter is the same, the bits are the same, the noise level is the same. (This is with my Mac Mini and a colleagues test equipment).
So accept this is my view and try it yourself to see what you think/hear. I do not for one minute say somebody else cannot hear a difference in their system - this is entirely possible.
When it comes down it you should always use what suits you best. I'd would also bit perfect replay is not essential, a W4S Sonos ZP90 is not bit perfect, but it sounds pretty special. Shame it won't do hi-resolution.
Still when we get our NDSs we can forget all this and get back to enjoying the music 
I wouldn't expect you to hear a big improvement by switching from your MBP/Halide to a Mac Mini - in fact I doubt there would be any. If you want to get the most of your HB then see if you can try an external power supply.
Hi Guido
Do you mean rewiring The Bridge to run with an external p/supply?
A couple of relevant questions....
I was encouraged by the thread to buy Bit Perfect, it is only £3.00 after all, to run with my MacBook Pro. It definitely sounds better than AirPlay, which I have been using exclusively for many years.
I am finding a couple of painful bugs with BP though and would like to know if anyone the experienced them and managed to fix them. Firstly, at the start of a new track it appears to play another track for a second before locking onto the correct track. Secondly, had a problem with a newly ripped track in alac that would skip at the beginning for a good 10 seconds. The same track ripped to wav gave no issue.
Many thanks
Jay
The 2011 mac mini is nothing like the earlier models, nor is the Lion OS. (New "Mountain Lion" being released later this year) Lots of complaints concerning the Lion's inability to put out 16 bit integer data, thereby bypassing certain elements of the Core Audio in Mac to achieve the closest possible raw data feed to a dac.
My research has turned up that the new Mac has a highly refined optical output which is nothing like the previous models on other versions of the OS. According to the Audio MIdi settings it does do 24 bit integer at varying sample rates. It seems though that it's native preference is 32 point float. The test data I've seen on the optical out indicates very low jitter specs, significantly lower than those meausred for the output of the Halide Bridge. The noise floor on the optical output is quite low too, but only working at higher sampling rates. IIRC, it was 98 db @ 16 bits, but rose to 140 db on higher bit rates. To me, that says that Apple believes that is the way forward for them.
The internal handling of a signal by the ndac is less than straight through too. With it's various clocks, 40 bit buffer, etc., it pretty much does what it does internally regardless of what one feeds it, to achieve what Naim believes is the best output for any given input signal. There is lots of DSP going on in there.
Having listened to all the various software players on two different outputs (USB and optical) I am comming to the conclusion that although the players are subtley different, not one of them has distinguished itself as being clearly better. A bit disheartening for my time investment.
In the context of my system (which is not all Naim), there are bigger differences between the Halide Bridge and the glass tosslink than between the various players. From a technical standpoint, the Bridge has higher jitter specs and more noise. Plus, no matter what one sends down the USB pipe, when it comes out it is going to be 24 bits from the bridge. The Bridge is also static sensitive in my system. A carpet shock will cause it to lose connection with the ndac and require restarting the Mac.
On paper the optical output should be superior if one were to go based on specs alone. This hasn't been borne out in listening to music. The optical out is demonstrably better in some respects. It IS quieter. It presents a more convincing soundstage with objects in the soundfield having a more clearly realized location in space. Timbrally it is slightly richer than the Bridge.
The Bridge is less dimensional, presenting a flatter soundstage. It's presentation is more forward and somewhat brighter in an illuminating way. I can see where one would prefer the canvass for some types of music over others. I also think some of it is due to artifacts of it's technology. On a purely statiscal basis, my notes indicate that I listen to the glass/optical more often than the Bridge ------- but the Bridge isn't bad, it is good, edgy and gives the appearance of having better attack . (I think it is an artifice of the jitter, but it's graceful and could very well be more appealing in some systems.)
After putting all the time and research into this over the last five months it may be the optical is a winner by a nose. It is that close. But I'm not done yet. With both the Mac and the ndac performing so much DSP I have come to wonder if the path to bliss might be to allow both components to operate in their natives modes, completely ignoring sampling rates and word lengths. Currently I'm letting the Mac run in it's default settings. The ndac can do with that what it will, since internally it does lots of DSP regardless of the those two criteria. As I go back to the Bridge again, I will feed it a 24 bit signal because that is what it give to the ndac anyway. In short, I'm now going to let the hardware do the work and see if there's more music to be had. I'll keep you posted.
Nice work Bob.
The latest Mac Mini isn't on my shopping list so I'm pleased to hear your findings that The Bridge (which I've recently installed) is close/equal to the optical output of the MM.
Have you compared the optical performance of the new MM with a Mac Book Pro by chance?
In my case the results from the MBP and optical connection was causing me to question Computer Audio due to a lack of connection with the music, however The Bridge has now changed that.
MBP optical out has a jitter performance > 200 ps, which is not good (about the same as an unmodified Sonos which enjoys the same a chip from the same family), the new Mac Mini is < 20 ps, which is excellent - the HB is around 25 ps (the W4S Sonos os < 10 ps). The difference between the new MM and HB is negligible in terms of jitter, both are a much better than the MBP.
I prefer optical connections to coaxial because there is no RFI/EMI and interesting Naim has used optical links within the NDS to assure isolation.
However, in terms of measured performance the MM and HB are very close and there should not be much difference.
One way I have read to improve the bridge is to use the AQVOX USB power supply, but I think you can go over the top with such things. I think the original hiFace is better than the EVO version for example.
My take on this is that most of these are much of muchness and once you got one making a nice sound then stick with it. The Naim DAC will equalise the small differences. Get that sync light shining brightly and there is little to lose sleep over.
Save your pennies for the NDS, which, if the demo I went to was an example of its performance, is rather better than anything digital I have come across before.
UnitiServe or HDX
Serve, HDX, NS0x
By the way, any feedback experiences similar to mine re: Bit Perfect?
Kind regards
Jay
The measured jitter of the Halide Bridge is over 10 times higher than the optical output on the 2011 Mac mini. I'm not sure what member Fawkes is refering to, since the Bridge is powered by the usb supply and has no upgrade options. It is simply a cable w/ chips and transformer on the dac end.
I am not prepared to dismiss or sell on the Halide Bridge yet. Things are changing too fast and one or the other may yield the best synergy as computer audio evolves. They both sound good. The overall value to any given listener may well be system dependent, which in my view is perfectly legitimate.
I have not done any comparisons or evaluations with any other Macs, I only own the mini and a few i-pods. I did however come to one definitive conclusion. In my (not all Naim) system, using a din to rca connection from the ndac is clearly better than the rca to rca option. One need not be a seasoned listener to hear the cohesive improvement using the din output