Digital Music with Apple
Posted by: Mike in PA, USA on 25 October 2008
Hey gang,
I'm new to this distributed audio thing and have been reading some of the relevant posts here, as I have recently purchased a MacBook and am planning to stream through Airport Express to a DAC and then my 202. I have also spoken with some of the techs at Apple, who are very helpful (if you get the right one on the phone). I will share some of my learnings below. Some of you may already know this, others may have comments which I would love to hear, others may find this information useful.
1) AIFF and Apple Lossless both pull tags (album info) down from iTunes. AIFF is uncompressed (10MB per minute of music) while AE is compressed to about half-size (5MB/min). An MP3, for comparison is 1MB per minute.
2) Going direct from a mac to a DAC with AIFF through a toslink will give the best sound. Airport Express automatically converts to Apple Lossless. The point here is that if you plan to use AE exclusively, you may as well skip AIFF and used Apple Lossless to economize on storage space. So theoretically:
Mac -> AIFF -> Toslink -> DAC -> Preamp
will sound better than
Mac -> Apple Lossless -> Toslink -> DAC -> Preamp
but
Mac -> AIFF -> Airport Express -> Toslink -> DAC -> Preamp
will sound equivalent to:
Mac -> Apple Lossless -> Airport Express -> Toslink -> DAC -> Preamp
3) Airport Express and Apple TV will have the same audio quality. The fact that ATV has an OS and hard drive have nothing to do with how it streams data. ATV contains an AE (essentially) for this purpose.
4) There is third-party software available that will stream AIFF files, however this program (forget the name) is about $500.
5) If you want to be able to control a large collection of music wirelessly, the "suggested" solution is to set up a dedicated music server hardwired to the DAC, which is then controlled by a separate computer on the wireless network. The server would likely be connected (hardwire) to a large hard drive to store AIFF files. This would look like:
MacBook -> Airport Express -> Mac Mini -> 1TB external drive (AIFF files) -> Toslink -> DAC -> Preamp
Given that a Mac Mini and external drive can be had for about $1000 combined, this doesn't seem like a bad way to go if you're pretty serious.
So, this is how I see it and how my system may in fact evolve. I'm currently ripping CDs onto the MacBook in Apple Lossless, and plan to go AE to a Beresford DAC for now. I'll probably experiment with some AIFF files and going toslink direct to the DAC before I rip my whole library, and make a determination on whether it makes sense to evolve the system sooner rather than later, as AIFF files will quickly fill up the 250GB drive on the laptop. I may also see if differences in sound quality between Apple Lossless and AIFF are more evident with a higher end (i.e. higher cost) DAC and if I care.
I hope this post was helpful and look forward to others' comments.
Cheers,
Mike
Posted on: 25 October 2008 by garyi
Thanks Mike.
There is however a diffrence between an express and ATV, in that the atv is capable of 5.1 surround sound and an express is not.
This will be largely due to the OS capabilities of the ATV and the simple nature of an express.
Now if your opinion is all computers sound the same then perhaps they sound the same. However all evidence would point to the two devices being quite different. If for no other reason then local storage capabilities of the ATV and its implementation.
Finally if you listen to the two, as I have done you will find that all in all an ATV is significantly better than an express for delivering audio.
Posted on: 25 October 2008 by Mike in PA, USA
Garyi,
I take your point about the 5.1 thing. I was thinking of 2-channel audio specifically.
I also believe you if you are storing the audio on the ATV locally. If you are streaming from a laptop, though, I would expect it sounds the same as ATV. Since the hard drive on the ATV (even the larger one) is only 120GB (same as ipod classic) there is not much space for high-res files. Not sure if you can add an external HD to the ATV.
Posted on: 25 October 2008 by paremus
Mike,
Interesting post.
Did Apple give any indication as to why AIFF would sound better than Apple Lossless? As they are identical from a data point of view - surely any difference can only related to the unpacking of Apple Lossless - i.e. CPU load / memory access and so possible associated timing instabilities in feeding the unpacked data into the audio sub-system.
Any other ideas?
Cheers
Richard
Posted on: 25 October 2008 by james n
quote:
surely any difference can only related to the unpacking of Apple Lossless - i.e. CPU load / memory access and so possible associated timing instabilities in feeding the unpacked data into the audio sub-system.
yep - that would make sense as the unpacked and AIFF files are the same.
Posted on: 25 October 2008 by garyi
I think the trouble is a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and in this case I refer to the apple technician.
An apple lossless file is in effect a zip file its not an audio file neither is it an digital audio stream, so basically as I understand it an express has to decompress the file packets at the other end from lossless back into a digital stream for either its DAC or out of the optical port. Critcally if the apple lossless file sent is an MP3 it will be decompressed back into an MP3, if its and Aiff then thats what will be decompressed and if its natively and lossless file then it will decompress it into AIFF.*
*Of course if you compressed an MP3 at the itunes end yourself into lossless then it will still be an MP3
Its a confusing matter, but reasonably straight forward when you think about it. An express is able to decode applelossless, so it is apple lossless files which are sent to it. However think of these as a 'wrapper' for what ever is inside, be it MP3 AIFF or what ever.
Phew, back to the beer.
Posted on: 25 October 2008 by Mike in PA, USA
Um, this seems to make sense, but there's still not a lot of space on a 250MB internal hard drive for AIFF files.
Posted on: 25 October 2008 by garyi
Agreed. However if you convert them to apple lossless and send that to an express the express will uncompress it back into AIFF, a lossless file is just that, its like a microsoft word document that you ZIP up. Once uncompressed you would expect all the letters to be there.
Posted on: 25 October 2008 by js
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
I think the trouble is a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and in this case I refer to the apple technician.
An apple lossless file is in effect a zip file its not an audio file neither is it an digital audio stream, so basically as I understand it an express has to decompress the file packets at the other end from lossless back into a digital stream for either its DAC or out of the optical port. Critcally if the apple lossless file sent is an MP3 it will be decompressed back into an MP3, if its and Aiff then thats what will be decompressed and if its natively and lossless file then it will decompress it into AIFF.*
*Of course if you compressed an MP3 at the itunes end yourself into lossless then it will still be an MP3
Its a confusing matter, but reasonably straight forward when you think about it. An express is able to decode applelossless, so it is apple lossless files which are sent to it. However think of these as a 'wrapper' for what ever is inside, be it MP3 AIFF or what ever.
Phew, back to the beer.
Perhaps an Apple technician has more than a little knowledge which is probably a more accurate statement for us. He was clear to point out that AIFF directly to a dac and not to the AE was best. It seems he was quite aware that it gets sent in lossless packets in which instance it's probably actually better if stored in Lossless to prevent more conversions.
When we can hear the difference between various pointy feet or what a cable is or isn't touching, is it so unimaginable that an extra layer of process with additional buffers working in real time in a shared noisey environment could possibly be audible? Do you think that if you mapped the output from a 282 and 252 preamp and cancelled them that you'd be left over with something that is considered audible? I don't. Do they sound different playing tunes? You bet they do. Perhaps the tech was enlightened and not just more Apple sheeple that could easily be quoting that old Phillips slogan of 'Perfect sound forever'.
Posted on: 25 October 2008 by garyi
Whoho there step back.
All the apple people I have spoken to on the phone and its been a few are reading off a sheet that was my only point.
I have not said in one instance anywhere on this forum or anywhere that the apple solution is best, infact in all instances I find it good but not as good as a an olive CDX. I like the convenience and the fact it never breaks but thats it.
As to pointy feet, well what you believe you hear and all that.
It does sound reasonable that streams sent direct from a mac to the dac would have the best possible chance of success. However I never questioned that did I?
Posted on: 25 October 2008 by js
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
Whoho there step back.
All the apple people I have spoken to on the phone and its been a few are reading off a sheet that was my only point.
I have not said in one instance anywhere on this forum or anywhere that the apple solution is best, infact in all instances I find it good but not as good as a an olive CDX. I like the convenience and the fact it never breaks but thats it.
As to pointy feet, well what you believe you hear and all that.
It does sound reasonable that streams sent direct from a mac to the dac would have the best possible chance of success. However I never questioned that did I?
Sorry if I read too much into that but to imply that an Apple tech was in a situation of 'a little knowledge' and technically correcting him seemed odd. He certainly wasn't following the manual with that response and a difference in opinion is always fine with me. It seemed that you were implying that he was recommending AIFF for the AE which he didn't. My mistake if that wasn't the case. I completely agree with your usage of the MAC and certainly don't have any issue with it or sytems like Sonos etc. I guess I should have used power cords instead of pointy feet. Pointy is just more fun.
Posted on: 25 October 2008 by Dengyung
Dear Mike,
My current setup is MacMini--Poppulse PC Digital Link II Professional Transport (converting USB in to AES out)--Silver Sonic D-110 Digital Cable--Lavry DA10--Flashback Cable (Balanced to Din)--Supernait plus power supply.
Music files are stored in a 1TB hardwired hard disk; control over the headless Mac Mini is through another Mac (via Share Screen). I am not a technical person but have tried Airport Express, AppleTV and the Mini. From my own experience- in terms of streaming quality, AppleTV is better than the Airport Express. MacMini, however, is even better.
Also, I have recently replaced my Toslink with the above mentioned converter (USB in, AES out) to take advantage of DA10's AES input and saw quite significant improvement in sound quality. I made the move (Transport plus digital cable cost about USD200) after reading some old posts here on the forum recommending USB out from Mac rather than optical.
All my music files are in Apple Lossless, not sure AIFF is better. May be I should give it a try. Any advice?
DY
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by james n
Just try converting a few lossless to AIFF and give it a go.
How do you find the DA10 against the DAC in the Supernait ?
James
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by Mr.Tibbs
quote:
I have not said in one instance anywhere on this forum or anywhere that the apple solution is best, infact in all instances I find it good but not as good as a an olive CDX. I like the convenience and the fact it never breaks but thats it.
I've recently gone from a CDX with CDPS to a PC > iTunes > Apple lossless > AE > BM DAC-1
It's early days, but I'm honestly not missing the CDX/CDPS, and by the looks of things I'm not even getting the best out of the Benchmark DAC yet. As things stand the sound is so good I'm unlikely to bother looking for ways to improve it. I think the choice of DAC is vastly more important than the method of getting the bits to it. Luckily, excellent pro audio DACs are pretty affordable these days.
Mr Tibbs
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by js
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Tibbs:
quote:
I have not said in one instance anywhere on this forum or anywhere that the apple solution is best, infact in all instances I find it good but not as good as a an olive CDX. I like the convenience and the fact it never breaks but thats it.
I've recently gone from a CDX with CDPS to a PC > iTunes > Apple lossless > AE > BM DAC-1
It's early days, but I'm honestly not missing the CDX/CDPS, and by the looks of things I'm not even getting the best out of the Benchmark DAC yet. As things stand the sound is so good I'm unlikely to bother looking for ways to improve it. I think the choice of DAC is vastly more important than the method of getting the bits to it. Luckily, excellent pro audio DACs are pretty affordable these days.
Mr Tibbs
I pretty strongly disagree that the DIG stream is of low importance or that any $1k DAC is excellent(perhaps for the price as like anything else) but if you're happy with your BM through an AE and getting an enjoyable result, than you're using what's appropriate for you and at the end of the day, that's all that matters.
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by DHT
quote:
or that any $1k DAC is excellent
I wouldn't have expected you to say anything else!
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by js
quote:
Originally posted by DHT:
quote:
or that any $1k DAC is excellent
I wouldn't have expected you to say anything else!
I've heard what I feel are better but more expensive DACs than the 2 mentioned here and the one in a SN that I personally also prefer but still wouldn't call excellent in the grand scheme. Why would I think something less good is excellent? Seems that your responses to me are even more predictable and unfortunately personal. I have an opinion about this as do users of these setups but at least I've tried everything before commenting. I also store music on drives. We can agree to disagree but I feel we should be striving to find the best possible way to recover music from these files. I dismissed these DACs for personal use before even hearing an updated HDX that I would consider buying and was contemplating a Nagra deck. The preproduction HDX as Jon has described was not a consideration for me. Current ones make the grade.
Even if some feel their current setup is great. Better is still that. Why stick our heads in the sand and insist on things we haven't tried? Am I the only one here that says these things? Others here have said some pretty nasty things about the AE and it's wall connection yet you don't respond this way to them. I haven't commented on that because I've never done a comparison and am just aware of my impressions of the overall result which I think is fine for simple distribution but not serious listening. My opinion and it's the same one I give to customers I'm actually trying to sell a SONOS setup to.
Do you imply that Jon, Kuma, ROTF, etc who have expessed similar opinions also have alterior motives? We can disagree about what is good or better but how have you added to this discussion other than another personal judgement on me. What is your problem?
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by Dengyung
Dear James,
Note that the choice of DAC has become a very sensitive issue here!
I have tried 4 different DACs - the one in Snait, Lavry's DA10, Cambridge's Dac Magic and NuForce's Ion.
I started with Snait's DAC, then 'upgraded' to DA10 a couple of months ago. No regret...DA10 is much better. NuForce's Icon is good value for money but obviously not comparable to the DA10 or SNAIT'S DAC; I mainly use it as desktop amp (with NuForce's S-1 speakers) for my iMac. Bought Cambridge's Dac Magic last week and still testing it, initial impression is not as good as Snait's DAC or DA10, but a bit better than NuForce's Icon.
DY
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by james n
Thanks DY - yes i dont want to drag up the small black american DAC discussion again. Just interested in your findings as you own the SN & DA10.
Thanks
James
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by Mike in PA, USA
Wow, I'm happy this post has generated so much discussion...
Garyi: I understand what you say about many Apple techs reading off a screen. I have experienced this too with people from Apple as well as other compaines. However, the particular individual I am referring to seemed to quite obviously be speaking from his own knowledge. He was actually brought on the line as a "specialist" by the original person I was speaking with. I'm not saying he was the absolute authority, but he did seem to know what he was saying. My question to you is are you suggesting that storing files in Apple Lossless (ALE) is just as good as storing in AIFF as while it takes half the space the ALE files will open into AIFF anyhow?
Dengyung: I have no advice for you. I am new to this and just trying to figure it out myself. It seem to me that your setup on the computer end is quite advance, and I'm curious what the pro transport provides in terms of better quality for the initial rip. The drives in the macs seem pretty rudimentary. I think it would be interesting to see if AIFF files sound better than ALE on your system, but I would suggest comparing the ALE to a re-rip into AIFF, not simply converting from the ALE file. Another thought is that perhaps (perhaps) the audio quality of the Supernait is not going to reveal any differences to the extent that a 202/200 or 282/250 or 252/300 (should I go on...?) might. However, if you don't hear anything you don't like than maybe you are good to be where you are.
Cheers,
Mike
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by js
quote:
Originally posted by Dengyung:
Dear James,
Note that the choice of DAC has become a very sensitive issue here!
I have tried 4 different DACs - the one in Snait, Lavry's DA10, Cambridge's Dac Magic and NuForce's Ion.
I started with Snait's DAC, then 'upgraded' to DA10 a couple of months ago. No regret...DA10 is much better. NuForce's Icon is good value for money but obviously not comparable to the DA10 or SNAIT'S DAC; I mainly use it as desktop amp (with NuForce's S-1 speakers) for my iMac. Bought Cambridge's Dac Magic last week and still testing it, initial impression is not as good as Snait's DAC or DA10, but a bit better than NuForce's Icon.
DY
And I'm happy that you found something that works better for you. There's a reason that there's many options out there. We wont always agree. This doesn't need to become personal if we have different views. Nice to hear that you agree about the improvement of a better interface from the MAC. That's useful info. Have you tried the SN again as a DAC since the poppulse? 24/96 capable from USB? You may want to keep a powered dig source connected to the SN for a while if you do. I'm not certain but the DAC may power down when not needed. One problem I have with the MAC Itunes setup beyond the dig out is having to switch the core audio and Itunes between 44 and 96 to play files for best results on source material. For many here that just isn't currently an issue tough I suspect it will become one in time. Who knows, WM and Itunes may correct this in the future and better(96) doesn't always drive the software market.
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by garyi
MIke that is exactly what I am saying. If you send an uncompressed aiff file to the express it will be 'zipped' as apple lossless for the journy. At the other end it will be decompressed back to aiff and to your hifi.
You can therefore save half your harddrive space by compressing your aiffs as lossless. Thats why its called lossless, because you don't lose anything.
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by paremus
Slightly different question concerning a
Mac --> DAC direct
Configuration.
Does anyone believe that the process of decompressing the Apple Lossless file has any discernible audio effect relative to streaming the uncompressed AIFF?
Believe this was heard by a Forum member with Sonos or Squeezebox solution (cannot remember which). But anyone heard this with a Mac?
Cheers
Richard
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by garyi
Well if you are streaming to an express there is no difference. If it doesn't decompress the lossless file then it won't work.
People 'believe' a lot of things.
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by js
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
Well if you are streaming to an express there is no difference. If it doesn't decompress the lossless file then it won't work.
People 'believe' a lot of things.
I don't see where anyone has disagreed with that.
It was that implication in the last sentence that got my first response. I apparently still don't understand it.
To the answer the question, when done directly through a better media player, ASIO, and everything is what I feel optimised which is the only way I listen to stored files, I can here a slight difference on 44k material and more on better 96k material. I expected not to so it's not about beliefs and I understand it's not a popular view. This is probably not present if the file is decompressed ahead of time as they are, as garyi points out, bit correct. Through the AE, lossless would be the way to go to eliminate more processing but in that case one extra process at the computer end may not be the weak link and inaudible. Listen for yourself and see if it's a concern in your setup. It doesn't benefit me in any way to have this view as it doesn't govern equipment selection. Everything PC or DAC or HDX etc. plays wave which is more universal than AIFF and also ITunes compatible.
Posted on: 26 October 2008 by Mike in PA, USA
But the question is if you are NOT streaming to an Airport Express but running a cable, IS there a difference?
I also believe there are third-party software programs that will stream AIFF.
