Digital Output from MacBook

quote:

Originally posted by thesherrif:
Well you've lost me with that one Peter ! MP3 is a lossy format and so cannot be the same quality as the original shop bought cd. Data has been lossed, yes? And I don't comprehend why anyone would want to rip a cd to MP3 and then record a new MP3 cd ????

I think ( head on block) that PCS is saying he doesn't think MP3 quality is a good enough for him, hence all his files are FLAC. I would agree with him, and your last paragraph has me totally baffled !

Sure, maybe I'm making it to complicated.

When you play music on your system the differences in recording quality between a well produced album vs. an average album is very significant. If you enjoy music for the sake of music, you have to come to terms with the fact that one recording will sound better than another. Given we have to live with this adjustment on a regular basis, why is the MP3 format such a compromise?

It’s a usage contradiction that the young generation with iPods have seen through and are not concerned about. It now makes more sense to provide flexible formats depending on bandwidth, device etc., through hi-quality active systems small and large, with little audible loss for the true music lovers with their pods.

I rip lossless, because I can and have the storage, but MP3 is a superb format.

One example of what I’m saying.

I have a CD version of Radiohead. Two vinyl copies, one produced in the U.S. the other in the U.K. The CD is by far the best recording. In fact, the U.S. vinyl sounds like a bootleg to be honest, the U.K. version is not that much better. The MP3 download version from iTunes is far superior to both vinyl albums, and to be honest, so close to the CD version as to not matter. So lets not judge the format, but rather the different recording qualities that really effect our enjoyment.

After all, the very recording on the CD (for all you know) came from a heavily compressed / MP3 file, and might explain why some recording sound so bad.

I certainly go with the idea that a well mastered and recorded album at 256k mp3, sounds a lot better than a poorly mastered and recorded CD. If that's what is being said.

The format can't restore a crap recording.



Steve

quote:

Originally posted by PMR:
One example of what I’m saying.

I have a CD version of Radiohead. Two vinyl copies, one produced in the U.S. the other in the U.K. The CD is by far the best recording. In fact, the U.S. vinyl sounds like a bootleg to be honest, the U.K. version is not that much better. The MP3 download version from iTunes is far superior to both vinyl albums

I am VERY curious what your Kit consists of...
Your profile doesn't say.

What kind of turntable/cart/pre are you using?

Hearing that transcode MP3s are better than Radioheads vinyl releases (of which I have some), is extremely suspect.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

quote:

Originally posted by PMR:
One example of what I’m saying.

I have a CD version of Radiohead. Two vinyl copies, one produced in the U.S. the other in the U.K. The CD is by far the best recording. In fact, the U.S. vinyl sounds like a bootleg to be honest, the U.K. version is not that much better. The MP3 download version from iTunes is far superior to both vinyl albums

I am VERY curious what your Kit consists of...
Your profile doesn't say.

What kind of turntable/cart/pre are you using?

Hearing that transcode MP3s are better than Radioheads vinyl releases (of which I have some), is extremely suspect.

Having been wandering in the digital land for some time now, even had a critical listening session of the CD555. I have found that nothing can really involve myself emotionally and musically so much as my humble LP12-based system.

quote:

Originally posted by imperialline:
I have found that nothing can really involve myself emotionally and musically so much as my humble LP12-based system.

Now that I can buy.

Have you EVER experienced what PMR is stating?

Are some of your 256 MP3s (if you even have any) better than the original vinyl release played on your LP12? I would bet salary on that one.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

quote:

Originally posted by imperialline:
I have found that nothing can really involve myself emotionally and musically so much as my humble LP12-based system.

Now that I can buy.

Have you EVER experienced what PMR is stating?

Are some of your 256 MP3s (if you even have any) better than the original vinyl release played on your LP12? I would bet salary on that one.

I only use Apple Lossless Encoder, some friends of mine use FLAC. But I find that none of the digital playback can really match the vinyl playback, at least to my ears anyway.

I have been wondering why some of my CDs sound so dull. Could it be that they were mastered and recorded using some crappy compression techniques?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:
I certainly go with the idea that a well mastered and recorded album at 256k mp3, sounds a lot better than a poorly mastered and recorded CD.

So let us consider the following:

Led Zeppelin II - Jimmy Page Remaster (Original CD)

vs.

Led Zeppelin II - Orig. Barry Diament Atlantic Master (in 256 MP3)


Are you saying that the 256 will win out?

Although i find the Jimmy remasters WAY to loud and basically unlistenable. There is no way I would prefer a lossy transcode over the full WAV.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
I am VERY curious what your Kit consists of...
Your profile doesn't say.

What kind of turntable/cart/pre are you using?

Hearing that transcode MP3s are better than Radioheads vinyl releases (of which I have some), is extremely suspect.

I use a Linn, Ittok, Lingo through a Tom Evans Groove, TE Vibe 2, Linear A, plus lots more top-end gear at my fingers tips.

I'm not suggesting that vinyl is inferior to CD given a pair of prejudice ears. Just that the Radiohead Rainbows album is recorded poorly like so many new releases mastered digitally and cut to vinyl. MP3 wins in this situation, because even though compressed, the file is ripped from a higher quality source. Given a DAC1, Lavry etc., the sound is stunning to say the least. It's an assumption to assume that vinyl is a better format. The format is limited by the recording quality of the original master which maybe heavily compressed.

My original point is this; vinyl and CD recording quality vary so much, it doesn’t matter if you use MP3 or not, you become acquainted and still enjoy the music.

Proof is in the MP3 take-up, not die hard anoraks that still have a terrible sounding system compared to a simple iPod. The youth are right about ditching expensive audio, because the recordings are mixed and mastered for the iPod or smaller systems.

Peter

quote:

Originally posted by PMR:
The youth are right about ditching expensive audio, because the recordings are mixed and mastered for the iPod or smaller systems.

Peter

I hear you. We must listen to very different music.

I know the Sherrif and SteveS both use Airport Expresses for wireless streaming. I took mine off printer duties last night to check how my old PB G4 sounds (this PB G4 doesn't have digital output). Using the same rip I think the digital output of my macbook is better than my Powerbook/AE or my macbook/AE.

quote:

Originally posted by Keith L:
I know the Sherrif and SteveS both use Airport Expresses for wireless streaming. I took mine off printer duties last night to check how my old PB G4 sounds (this PB G4 doesn't have digital output). Using the same rip I think the digital output of my macbook is better than my Powerbook/AE or my macbook/AE.

Hi Keith,

That's interesting. Are your MacBook MIDI output settings 2ch 16bit / 44 hz or 2 ch 24 bit / 96 hz?

The AE is not affected - the dig output is. Can you describe the difference?

I can hear a difference when playing 24/96, but not 16/44 rip v 16/44 rip. With a level playing field (settings wise) I have not been able hear a difference between AE/optical or MacBook/optical. I'm not aware of any technical limitation of AE (using 16/44) that would produce one.

Anyone else had a play?

Steve

quote:

That's interesting. Are your MacBook MIDI output settings 2ch 16bit / 44 hz or 2 ch 24 bit / 96 hz?

The AE is not affected - the dig output is. Can you describe the difference?

It sounds muddy with no zing!!!

I'll have to check the MB midi settings. I do know they made precious little difference without the AE, probably because the Dac1 can accept either output. I think my PB midi settings are locked to internal speakers output which is 16 bit/44.1khz. I will also double check that the fecking iTunes equaliser is off!!!

Keith

quote:

Originally posted by Keith L:

It sounds muddy with no zing!!!

I will also double check that the fecking iTunes equaliser is off!!!

Keith

And "Sound Check" or any of that other twaddle

No problem with "zing" on the AE for me. So that trip might be worthwhile. Hope you sort it.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Keith L:
I know the Sherrif and SteveS both use Airport Expresses for wireless streaming. I took mine off printer duties last night to check how my old PB G4 sounds (this PB G4 doesn't have digital output). Using the same rip I think the digital output of my macbook is better than my Powerbook/AE or my macbook/AE.

There is a lot of varibles. It's the only negative.

Are you using the same iTunes version for comparison?

The DAC1 is jitter resistant. However, Steve's Macbook using A/E to DAC1 toslink didn't sound healthy compared to the Lavry DA10. I'm not sure if Steve's settings upset the DAC1, but certainly the two DAC's were very different until you switch to optical on my Mac Mini. I need an A/E to check.

Peter

quote:

Originally posted by Keith L:
I know the Sherrif and SteveS both use Airport Expresses for wireless streaming. I took mine off printer duties last night to check how my old PB G4 sounds (this PB G4 doesn't have digital output). Using the same rip I think the digital output of my macbook is better than my Powerbook/AE or my macbook/AE.

I do indeed, and I find myself in a quandary. I use a SONY Vaio laptop running XP, and stream wirelessly from itunes to an AE. Now the rips are lossless but I guess the AE will restrict to 16 /44K. AE digital output then goes into a teddycapped supernait via toslink.

The quandary was born when someone ( PCS I think) suggested using a dedicated cheapy laptop just to do nothing else but hold music and send it on to whatever boxes are lying around. Certainly a cheaper option than an HDX! It sounded like a clever idea and it started me thinking " Am I missing a trick here because the AE will be the bottleneck in the path" I know nothing of MACs but it seems to me that one would give me options to avoid the AE and thus the bottleneck, and I can then pass 24 /96k music to the Supernait.

Am I barking up the wrong tree, or just barking mad, and if I did decide to get a MAC "something" to do the job what would I get and what else would I need? Would I notice any difference whatsoever? I do also have a Beresford DAC doing nothing at the moment.

All ideas and thoughts welcome.

quote:

The DAC1 is jitter resistant. However, Steve's Macbook using A/E to DAC1 toslink didn't sound healthy compared to the Lavry DA10. I'm not sure if Steve's settings upset the DAC1, but certainly the two DAC's were very different until you switch to optical on my Mac Mini. I need an A/E to check.

Peter,

I don't quite understand the above. Do you mean the sound improved on both dac1 and da10 when you changed to toslink output from your mac mini? Or differences between the two dacs became negligible when fed from your mac mini?

Keith

quote:

Originally posted by thesherrif:

AE will be the bottleneck in the path" I know nothing of MACs but it seems to me that one would give me options to avoid the AE and thus the bottleneck, and I can then pass 24 /96k music to the Supernait.

Sherrif,

As I have mentioned a couple of times, getting the data out of the PC/Mac is of utmost importance.

Most standard fare sound cards for laptop PCs will not have 24/96 pass through capability. If you play a hi-res file through it, it will dither it down in some fashion surely detrimental to the music. And usually you cannot upgrade them. You can get a cheap sound card for a tower that will pass-thru 24/96 and up to 5.1 DD. $30.

Same goes for many streaming products. I noticed that some Apple products were only 16/44, and immediately dismissed them. I think things have changed more recently with Mac though and their ability to handle hi-res.

I personally DO NOT want anything dithering my hi-res files, nor do I want software to upsample /oversample anything. So a 24/96 Bit transparent option is needed.

If a sound card is not an option. Then you must go with a USB to Toslink converter. M-Audio makes a few, as do others. Empirical Audio makes some very interesting superclocked converters. They go straight to toslink, spdif, or even I2S.

I personally have two methods.

Turtle Beach Riviera 24/48 sound card with toslink out

M-Audio Transit (24/96 bit perfect) USB-to-toslink

I now have the Transit working well. I had some conflicts with it previously, but all is well now.

Obviously a USB DAC is in my future.

For those using the Lavry, I am VERY interested in how there are getting the audio out of the puter.

quote:

Originally posted by Keith L:
Peter, I don't quite understand the above. Do you mean the sound improved on both dac1 and da10 when you changed to toslink output from your mac mini?

I don't know, because I didn't compare the A/E to the toslink output.

quote:

Or differences between the two dacs became negligible when fed from your mac mini?
Keith

Far more similar, but the Lavry still had its own distinct, musical sound.

Just to add more colour, when SteveS1 first brought around the Lavry to compare to the DAC1, we just swapped the A/E between both DAC's, and it was very clear that the Lavry was far better. The DAC1 just didn't sound right. This was immediately fixed when using either a NAD transport sporting coaxial, or the SB Duet using optical with the DAC1. We never used the A/E through the DAC1 again from what I can remember, but we did compare the Lavry A/E vs. DAC1 with coaxial. I only recently bought the Mac Mini, and don't have their A/E to compare.

Peter

quote:

Are you using the same iTunes version for comparison?

Yes, because one of my tests was a comparison between the output of my MBPro via toslink and via wireless AE.

I checked all my settings last night and am confident I am feeding the AE correctly. Toslink digital output from my MBPro is better than the AE.

Similarly both toslink and coax outputs from my sb3 are better than the AE.

These results are via my Benchmark Dac1. Others report the AE fares better with a Lavry DA10.

ATB Keith

quote:

Obviously a USB DAC is in my future.

For those using the Lavry, I am VERY interested in how there are getting the audio out of the puter.

James Lehmann has much to say about usb audio devices with a strong preference for firewire.

Many Lavry DA10 users are getting digital output directly from their macs via toslink. But then a mac can't rip , unless you run EAC on Windoze XP on your mac.

ATB Keith

quote:

Originally posted by Keith L: Similarly both toslink and coax outputs from my sb3 are better than the AE.

These results are via my Benchmark Dac1. Others report the AE fares better with a Lavry DA10.

ATB Keith

I compared the MAC toslink to the SB Duet on coaxial this morning, and the MAC sounded thinner and lean compared to the Duet. Not believing my own ears, I pulled out the input jack plug (I've been using for recording vinyl) and the sound was identical between them as expected. Re-inserting the jack plug this time made no difference, so maybe a coincidence? I think so, but it has left me wondering whether the DAC1 toslink is a little sensitive to the 2.5mm toslink adapter used by MAC notepads?

Given the potential for increased jitter from the A/E, maybe the DAC1 is struggling with the compromises.

These problems go away if you use your network to deliver the toons and not you laptops. Plus it leaves you lap to as god intended, portable.

Gary,
If using the sb3 or duet then usung a nas is really complicated unless you get one which you can load squeezecentre on, of which there are only a few and most not powerful enough to run the software sufficiently.

I tried to do this and found it nigh on impossible. I wanted to do it this way, and will now probably get rid of the sb3 and use AE with an ipod touch remote as a consequence.

If you kow of a work around then let me know.

THanks

Ryan

quote:

Originally posted by ryan_d:
Gary,
If using the sb3 or duet then usung a nas is really complicated unless you get one which you can load squeezecentre on, of which there are only a few and most not powerful enough to run the software sufficiently.

I tried to do this and found it nigh on impossible. I wanted to do it this way, and will now probably get rid of the sb3 and use AE with an ipod touch remote as a consequence.

If you kow of a work around then let me know.

THanks

Ryan

buffalo technology live server?

rega1