Keeping my options open as I take my first steps in DA
Posted by: novelty on 02 October 2009
Okay, I've had my Supernait for a few months now and think i'm ready to give streaming a go.
Since my collection is currently at 128K AAC I will need to reburn my collection (<1K CDs) at Apple Lossless.
I will be using a Macbook Pro via eSATA and plan to store the iTunes library on a Lacie 1TB External drive.
I plan to stream to the Supernait DAC via Tos Link Mini from an Airport Express (on Airport Extreme Network) and Macbook Pro/Lacie TB drive.
I also have a iPod Touch which i believe i can use as a remote.
Is this set up functionally correct? And do I leave myself options in the event I want to upgrade to a better DAC (HDX perhaps)??
Posted on: 05 October 2009 by likesmusic
Passing data via SPDIF isn't time critical if it is buffered adequately and the clocking at the other end is decoupled from the clock in the SPDIF stream, as the new NAIM DAC claims to do. Or you can drive both ends from the same master clock. There are other ways of sending data that are only time critical at a gross level; streaming for example. My point is that if I accept the things that Amarra say are true about their product - that it benefits from an SSD and is degraded by a NAS for example - then I am just not interested in that kind of a solution - it creates problems rather than solves them. Give me a better way of doing it entirely. Such as streaming for example.
Posted on: 05 October 2009 by js
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
I don't really fancy a system in which a spellchecker can affect the sound, for whatever reason!
Perhaps the spellchecker or battery monitor, wireless ethernet etc. isn't a problem in some players because they aren't informative enough in conjunction with a particular setup. Bit's may be bits but these processes are probably capable of introducing noise at a buffer output so even a good buffer may not be a solution here. Even a dedicated computer has an OS with background processes always running. How much they and their supplies effect things probably varies by unit, interface and system.
There's more to this than meets the eye. For instance, if DHT changes his DAC2's control panel main buffer setting from 512 to 1024 he'll probably notice a difference in his setup. Both are bit correct(probably including 256 with standard 44.1k throughput). The 512 setting is the one I usually prefer.
Posted on: 05 October 2009 by likesmusic
quote:
Originally posted by js:
.. these processes are probably capable of introducing noise at a buffer output so even a good buffer may not be a solution here.
A buffer could not conceivably be described as a "good buffer" if it's contents were affected by a spellchecker running on the same machine. Broken or useless maybe; "good" never.
Posted on: 05 October 2009 by james n
quote:
I don't really fancy a system in which a spellchecker can affect the sound, for whatever reason!
Sonic recommend turning off Spotlight which seems to be active all the time. No harm in trying it.
The Naim HDX for example, just uses a mini ITX board running streamlined code as its main task is audio. I'm sure if you loaded its processor with unnecessary tasks you could make it sound a lot worse. A Mac or PC as a music source works very well. The same, optomised for audio playback and nothing more is even better.
I don't know why the NAS is supposed to affect sound. The only thing i can think of (and i'm sure Linn DS owners notice this too) is the different RFI conditions the unit sees when tied into a home network via Ethernet.
James.
Posted on: 05 October 2009 by winkyincanada
quote:
Originally posted by avole:
Er, no, actually. Can't think of a better way to put it. How do you produce a noisy bit? The buffers store bits, thats all. Doesn't matter whether you run the office suite, Dreamweaver or Photoshop, they're not going to introduce noise in any shape or form.
This is easily demonstrable, by the way. Currently my mac is running Vmware with office, outlook and photoshop, plus, on the mac side Safari, itunes and mail. Guess what? Sounds just as good as it did when running itunes alone.
I run from a dedicated Mini now, but when I did use my Macbook for everything, I never noticed any difference in sound quality no matter what the computer was doing whilst paying music.
There is a lot of Voodoo in this game. The debates over what is and what isn't Voodoo are always entertaining. One of the reasons I keep coming back.
Posted on: 05 October 2009 by js
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
quote:
Originally posted by js:
.. these processes are probably capable of introducing noise at a buffer output so even a good buffer may not be a solution here.
A buffer could not conceivably be described as a "good buffer" if it's contents were affected by a spellchecker running on the same machine. Broken or useless maybe; "good" never.
You sure like your absolutes.
Posted on: 05 October 2009 by likesmusic
A bank could be described as a buffer for money. You put some in, and sometime later you take it out. Would you call it a good bank if you lost money every time they ran a spell checker?! Absolutely not!
Posted on: 05 October 2009 by Eloise
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
A bank could be described as a buffer for money. You put some in, and sometime later you take it out. Would you call it a good bank if you lost money every time they ran a spell checker?! Absolutely not!
Actually I think that does happen ... every time they send me a letter which is spellchecked I loose money!!
Posted on: 05 October 2009 by likesmusic
Maybe spellcheckers are to blame for the recession! It was really caused by an outbreak of pedantry! How many 'n's in Lehman?
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by novelty
So as i read more and more responses in the DA forum i can't help but wonder if reburning my library at Apple lossless is the best option.
Should i be considering WAV??
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by likesmusic
You should probably also be considering how you rip. If you use dbpoweramp your rips are verified against an online database of checksums, so you can be pretty confident that you have got a perfect rip. dbpoweramp can also convert between formats, again verifiably, so you don't have to commit to a particular one. Other rippers don't give you this level of confidence - you have to take what you get.
You might want to let your requirement for tagging and playback influence your choice too.
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by novelty
I didn't even consider those factors. I'm using iTunes and lossless.
is there better software for a Mac?
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by Peter Dinh
quote:
Originally posted by novelty:
is there better software for a Mac?
I suppose that you can try Amarra, but it is expensive.
For me, I just wait for the Naim DAC. Have already put down a deposit.
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by novelty
quote:
Originally posted by avole:
Yes, I'm waiting to demo the DAC, too.
I use Apple lossless and it seems fine to me, but I'm not really interested in the different ripping programmes, since I think you'd be hard pressed to pick one from another.
Mind you, software that didn't bung most of my classical music into the various artists category would be a godsend. Itunes biggest weakness, that.
I abhor Apple's sorting algorithm used in iTunes. i recently copied a library from PC to Mac and in doing so I can no longer sort my CDs in the order in which they were burned. iTunes changes the order on most of the tracks of my CDs, this is an epic failure imo.
That said, i assumed burning at lossless would be an ideal format for HiFi applications. I never expected so many variables to contribute to how a file stores a 1 or O.
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by garyi
Why does it matter when they were imported?
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by Eloise
What do you mean the track order changes? Is the "track number" not part of the tags?
What format are you files stored in itunes?
There was a problem sorting multiple-disc albums in iTunes 9 but 9.0.1 corrected the problem.
Eloise
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by novelty
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
Why does it matter when they were imported?
b/c i'm one of those crazy people who likes his albums to stay in the order intended by the artist. prior to moving my library i could easily sort on "date added" or "modified date" and i would have all my CDs as they were burned.
now, the only way i have found to accomplish this is sorting by "album" which is fine if you like your collection sorted alphabetic by album name.
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by novelty
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
What do you mean the track order changes? Is the "track number" not part of the tags?
What format are you files stored in itunes?
There was a problem sorting multiple-disc albums in iTunes 9 but 9.0.1 corrected the problem.
Eloise
the library in question is stored in 128 AAC.
if anyone knows how to sort a library alphabetic by artist AND maintain the order of the CD tracks, i'd love to hear it.
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by Eloise
Sorting in iTunes: I'm not 100% what you are tyin but hope this might help...
If you are trying to sort the albumns by a particular artist into the order they released them then you need to click the "Album" column until it reads "Album by year".
This only works if you jar entered details into the year tag.
In transfering your tracks from Mac to PC the create date and added to iTunes date will have been reset - this information is part of the filig system not the tracks. I'm unsure of blaming iTunes is valid as I think the same would be true of other music management programmes
Eloise
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by novelty
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
Sorting in iTunes: I'm not 100% what you are tyin but hope this might help...
If you are trying to sort the albumns by a particular artist into the order they released them then you need to click the "Album" column until it reads "Album by year".
This only works if you jar entered details into the year tag.
In transfering your tracks from Mac to PC the create date and added to iTunes date will have been reset - this information is part of the filig system not the tracks. I'm unsure of blaming iTunes is valid as I think the same would be true of other music management programmes
Eloise
all i wish to do is have my library sorted alphabetic by artist (ie the artist/band who released the album) and have those entire albums in tact (ie the tracks in order they were recorded on the album).
the date added/modified is most definitely a flaw in iTunes. the time stamps on each track are not sequential (ie for some reason iTunes burns track 7 before track 6). it's just ridiculous.
Apparently, I'm the only person in the world who likes to sort his library in this manner so I'll get over it.
I'm more concerned about the sonic qualities of Apple Lossless as they relate to HiFi at this point. But i will continue to rail on this particular shortcoming of iTunes as I find it absurd.
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by novelty
quote:
Originally posted by novelty:
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
Sorting in iTunes: I'm not 100% what you are tyin but hope this might help...
If you are trying to sort the albumns by a particular artist into the order they released them then you need to click the "Album" column until it reads "Album by year".
This only works if you jar entered details into the year tag.
In transfering your tracks from Mac to PC the create date and added to iTunes date will have been reset - this information is part of the filig system not the tracks. I'm unsure of blaming iTunes is valid as I think the same would be true of other music management programmes
Eloise
all i wish to do is have my library sorted alphabetic by artist (ie the artist/band who released the album) and have those entire albums in tact (ie the tracks in order they were recorded on the album).
the date added/modified is most definitely a flaw in iTunes. the time stamps on each track are not sequential (ie for some reason iTunes burns track 7 before track 6). it's just ridiculous.
Apparently, I'm the only person in the world who likes to sort his library in this manner so I'll get over it.
I'm more concerned about the sonic qualities of Apple Lossless as they relate to HiFi at this point. But i will continue to rail on this particular shortcoming of iTunes as I find it absurd and it makes me feel better.
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by Eloise
quote:
Originally posted by novelty:
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
Sorting in iTunes: I'm not 100% what you are tyin but hope this might help...
If you are trying to sort the albumns by a particular artist into the order they released them then you need to click the "Album" column until it reads "Album by year".
This only works if you jar entered details into the year tag.
In transfering your tracks from Mac to PC the create date and added to iTunes date will have been reset - this information is part of the filig system not the tracks. I'm unsure of blaming iTunes is valid as I think the same would be true of other music management programmes
Eloise
all i wish to do is have my library sorted alphabetic by artist (ie the artist/band who released the album) and have those entire albums in tact (ie the tracks in order they were recorded on the album).
the date added/modified is most definitely a flaw in iTunes. the time stamps on each track are not sequential (ie for some reason iTunes burns track 7 before track 6). it's just ridiculous.
Apparently, I'm the only person in the world who likes to sort his library in this manner so I'll get over it.
I'm more concerned about the sonic qualities of Apple Lossless as they relate to HiFi at this point. But i will continue to rail on this particular shortcoming of iTunes as I find it absurd.
What I'm not entirely sure if why you don't just let iTunes sort by the track number?
Eloise
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by novelty
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
]
What I'm not entirely sure if why you don't just let iTunes sort by the track number?
Eloise
all that does is put all the first tracks of every cd together and so forth.
am i understanding you?
Thanks for your comments btw.
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by Eloise
quote:
Originally posted by novelty:
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
]
What I'm not entirely sure if why you don't just let iTunes sort by the track number?
Eloise
all that does is put all the first tracks of every cd together and so forth.
am i understanding you?
Thanks for your comments btw.
I assume you are using iTunes in column view.
Find the "Album" column, an click the heading - this should sort the albums but the initial letter of the album title (and tracks within the albumn in track number order). Now click the same column heading again, the title should change to (something like - I'm not infront of computer) "Album by artist" this will order by first artist, then second album title. A third click changes the sort to "Album by year" which sorts by artist, then the "year" tag. Each time, within the album the tracks should be ordered correctly based on the "track number" tag.
Does this not work for you?
Eloise
Posted on: 11 October 2009 by novelty
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
I assume you are using iTunes in column view.
Find the "Album" column, an click the heading - this should sort the albums but the initial letter of the album title (and tracks within the albumn in track number order). Now click the same column heading again, the title should change to (something like - I'm not infront of computer) "Album by artist" this will order by first artist, then second album title. A third click changes the sort to "Album by year" which sorts by artist, then the "year" tag. Each time, within the album the tracks should be ordered correctly based on the "track number" tag.
Does this not work for you?
Eloise
i got you now, yes it works. i'm pretty sure this didn't work in previous versions of iTunes. this works for many albums. it still separates albums where you have different artists on tracks but it it's better than nothing. thanks.
