pc based audio

[Jim R.]

Yoder,

Drat!, I just lost a long, detailed reply to you, and of course forgot to copy the contents to the clipboard before posting, and I really must get back to getting my system bak together, but I will reply again later.  Bottom line, the Mach2 price includes all the hardware, including the mini itself.  If you do all the hardware upgrades yourself, you can send the computer to Mach2 for the software only mods.  This is really the product they are selling, and as such it is all proprietary to Mach2.  Check out the site and you'll see the various options, including the software-only service.

-- Jim

[Yoder]

This is getting to be a lot of fun.

Jim, I have the same problem if I try to post using Safari. Consequently, I use Opera for posting to the BH Forum. I learned to copy anything in Safari before trying to post here. If you aren't using Opera, then give it a shot--it kicks some serious butt, and is superior to Firefox.

Have been doing some research on the Core Audio that is used by Apple and came upon this: http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/MusicAudio/Conceptual/AudioUnitProgrammingGuide/AQuickTouroftheCoreAudioSDK/AQuickTouroftheCoreAudioSDK.html

This is of great interest to me, being a former programmer and all. When time permits I am going to delve into this and see what is possible though I am sure there is some audio tweaking software for the Mac already out there.

Jobs came out recently asking the music industry to make higher grade audio available to the consumer. Few realize it, but Apple has a pretty decent audio system...always has. I think it is currently capable of 24-bit, but the problem is with the industry...hence Jobs remarks. It is hard to get Apple specs on their audio.

Maybe I should start a thread elsewhere, but I am curious how you configure the wiring for a C7 connector power cord. Are they non-polar? Meaning that it does not matter what wire goes where. Got to get this figured out before I make my own, since there is no way in hell I would plug it into my mini for fear of frying the little guy.

Another possible mini tweak that may be worth pursuing is one that they do with the Apogee Duet. Both devices have their aluminum cases which must create some reflective interference within the unit. The cover certain IC chips with EFI paper. The effect is supposed to be profound, but you only do certain chips. They say if you do them all some do not take well to it and actually create more noise. EFI paper is almost impossible to find now, but it seems that some 3M shielding tape...a liddle bit... would work Feedback?

@Doc: Glad to hear the prototype DAC worked. Keep us posted as I think many of us here are ready to jump in. Wish I lived closer to the Sound...no pun intended initially.

[Yoder]

Forgot to mention this. You can make a lot of changes in your OS X audio by going to: Applications->Utilities->Audio Midi Setup or just type "Audio MID" in the Spotlight. Once you are in the Audio Midi Setup, the goto Window-> Audio Window. Once there you can set the clock speed and bit depth. Looks like Apple will can use up to 32-bit, 96KHz, and 2-Channels with the system devices. Not bad.

[Jim R.]

Yoder,

Regarding the power cord, it's non-polarized, and as I mentioned in a previous post, flipping the cable over can change the presentation a bit.  Also, this thing is so quiet that there is really no need for any additional RFI control, and it would seem to me that adding tape and such to chips could be bad for heat dissipation and would possibly be the kind of thing that could void the warranty.

I've heard it for myself -- a stock, fresh from the box 2010 mini sounds better than a 2009 with typical audio use tweaks.  Those would include, but are not limited to: turning off spotlight, journaling, dashboard, any unnecessary interfaces (I leave ethernet on for headless operation, but turn blue tooth and wifi off), changing power management and screen saver options, etc., etc.

I'd really suggest you go have a look at the Channel D web site and see how they deal with docking to iTunes, sampling rate and bit-depth, etc.  As for the audiomidi, the macs will support whatever dac is connected, so if your dac does 24/96 or even 192, the mini will work just fine with it... and PureMusic, unlike iTunes, will automatically change the sample rate to match the track being played.  PureMusic also does things somewhat differently from Amarra in that PM and I tunes running together (using iTunes for database functions only) is actually a smaller footprint than I tunes running by itself.  Amarra uses a ghost play mode where it plays two music streams and throws one away (the normal iTunes Quicktime stream) and the Amarra playback engine then communicates with the dac.  Web site for PM is:

http://www.channld.com

There is a free, full-function demo and the software has no complex kernel lock copy protection, just a username and key.

I need to mention that I am not in any way affiliated with any of these companies, just a very satisfied customer and one who has experienced, for the first time, the long-awaited promise of digital in what can only be described as a game-changing way.

Thanks for the tip on Opera, but I'm still using my windows machines for forums and such until I get more used to VoiceOver, and Opera is not a viable solution with the screen reader on my windows machines.  Sad, but the only real workable browsers are IE and FF, and they both have their issues, so depending on what I'm doing, I need them both.  So far though, Safari with VoiceOver, while a very different screen reading and browsing experience, is looking very, very nice from my perspective.  Not perfect, but seems to do everything that both FF and IE do with the windows screen reader, and some things that neither of them can do.  At this point I have no idea how accessible Opera is with VO, but I will check it out at some point I'm sure.

Getting closer to having tunes...  Another hour perhaps.  At this rate I probably won't put the paramours in until tomorrow.

-- Jim

[Yoder]

Hey Doc, does the Amarra 2.11 make a noticeable difference? What version were you using? I visited their site and saw it priced from $79 for the Junior, up to big bucks for the Pro.

I was playing with the MIDI Audio Setup last night on both my mini and iMac. It made a profound difference in the reproduction going form one sample rate to another. Oddly though, when I got to school and tried to show it to another teacher the Audio Window was not there. This was on a Leopard box, so I am not sure if the Audio Window is a Snow Leopard feature only. Impressive though, you can go up to a 32-bit depth.

[Doc B.]

I haven't A/B'd 2.11 against earlier versions, and this is the first time I've had Amarra in our system here at Bottlehead. I had the setup playing for the Head Fi meet this weekend, into a Crack. Yesterday I pulled the main system back together and installed the server in the listening room. Hopefully I will have a little time to play around with various settings now that I have a familiar system to work with.

[JC]

Yoder, from the perspective of having been involved with digital recording in the studio from all the way back in the SynClavier days of the 1980s, I have long advocated a sampling rate of at least 96k and a bit depth of at least 96 as a "standard" the industry should have been shooting for.  The difference in sound quality is just that huge.

Understandably, that was thought to be too much of a strain on consumer hardware back then, but now that we're running full-motion HD video on consumer PCs, I have to wonder what we are waiting for.  There is absolutely no earthly reason that I can discern why digital audio recording standards are lagging, except that the music industry seems to be content with much, much lower quality if it increases the number of cuts available on small portable devices.

[vikbot]

Thanks so much for the info...just getting used to using PC based audio!!

[John Roman]

Hello JC,
You stated a bit depth of "at least 96". I've heard of 32, but 96?
Regards, John