|
Post by chinook9 on May 6, 2015 15:31:10 GMT
I use PC with Foobar and presently playing everything FLAC upsampled to 192. (I believe my DAC will handle about anything.)
I now have a Mac and I have not tried it for audio but I will probably do so this week.
Can anyone, who has spent time with both, tell me if a Mac is likely to sound any "better" or at least different. I expect I will buy BitPerfect for the Mac if it is recommended (only $10). I haven't had much time to do research on this.
I am pretty busy this week so if there is not much chance of a difference with the Mac, I will spend my time on other endeavors......My wife will appreciate this.
Thank you for any input.
|
|
|
Post by elysion on May 6, 2015 18:27:00 GMT
This is like comparing apples and oranges. For a well-grounded answer it would be mandatory to compare both operating systems (Win/OSX) on the same hardware, which isn't possible usually. And which versions of the operating systems do we compare? Comparing WinXP or Vista with OSX 10.10 Yosemite wouldn't be fair.
The audio subsystems (more exactly: the part of the operationg system which is responsible for audio) of some UNIX-like operating systems like OSX (CoreAudio) or Linux (ALSA) are superior to that of Windows. The main benefit is lower latency, but this also depends on the used hardware to some extent. AFAIK you do NOT hear a mentionable difference when simply playing music since all of these operating systems do the job good enough. The audio hardware and the software used for audio playback is probably more important, but I can't give a final answer. There are simply too much configurations possible. The drivers used for the audio hardware can make a very notable difference though. A bad driver can ruin the best hardware.
The built-in audio hardware of most Macs isn't really exciting IMHO and if you don't like it, your only choice is often external audio hardware. If you use Windows or Linux, you'll have more choice.
If you are fine with your current operating system, then there's IMHO no need to change it just for getting better audio playback.
When comparing your new Mac with your PC, I'd start comparing the used hardware. If your PC has one of these nice Xonar audio cards and your Mac has only the built-in audio (for example), then the PC has - obviously - an advantage. Then you should choose an audio player which is available for both operating systems. After comparing with the same audio player, you can do additional comparisons with your favourite audio player. This should give you a very personal answer to your question. I'm curious to read about your findings.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,881
|
Post by solderdude on May 6, 2015 18:36:49 GMT
As Elysion already touched. Most 'pro' systems use MAC in studios. The reason for that is latency (the time it takes for sample to be read and heard). This is important when recording tracks while playing back other instruments etc. Also (so I am told) there is more and better working software and less glitches in pro-MAC audio workstations.
Some will say there is a difference in sound (but the same guys say USB cables etc sound different as well). As long as it is 'bit perfect' there cannot be a difference as the exact same data is sent to the DAC. Certainly not when using a modern DAC.
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 986
|
Post by Javier on May 6, 2015 18:52:54 GMT
My take on this is, considering that A) your USB transport (DIYINHK) provides galvanic isolation and B) Your DAC uses a local XO to perform async re-sampling to a rate non related to any fundamental (IE. 1.5GHz), if you output bit-perfect to the DAC both OSs should sound exactly the same.
Galvanic isolation at the USB adapter means that any electric noise potentially generated by the different combinations of HW/SW does not reach the DAC so at that level they should prove identical SQ wise. If any player on either platform limits itself to bare FLAC decoding and sends the signal "as is" (bit-perfect) and one uses a non re-sampling audio subsystem like WASAPI or ASIO then the data outputted will be identical, the only possible deviation being minor jitter level differences but as this will mandatorily be re-clocked and re-sampled by the ES9018 using its local 100MHz XO there will be, again, no measurable differences between either platform SQ wise. Whether someone claims can perceive a difference, well... that I leave for another discussion.
The only way each HW/SW combo could produce different SQ is by using media players which actually perform digital processing like HQPlayer or Foobar with SOX using different algorithms and filters. There will be players available only for one platform and if it happens it is the one you want...
|
|
|
Post by chinook9 on May 6, 2015 20:24:47 GMT
Thank you Elysion, Frans, and Javier for the replies. Let me apologize for not giving more information in the initial post. I should have provided information about my setup which Javier is familiar with and I expect Frans knows of also. I have the isolated DIYINHK USB adapter in a Buffalo IIISE using the ES9018 chip that Javier alluded to. The front end to this is an "ultrabook" PC, with SSD, running Foorbar with SOX upsampling to 24/192.
As I expected, I will hear little if any difference, however, there is so much about the computer to DAC process that I don't understand that I wanted to ask the question to those who do understand.
I know little about the Mac but I thought I'd try one(laptop)and learn what it takes. As time permits this week, I'll do some reading and connect the mac to the BIIISE for a quick listen.
Eventually I'll check out some of the MAC audio processing software to see if there is anything to be gained there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 20:32:11 GMT
I use a Mac and for me every single piece of playback software I've used sounds different. All are 'bit-perfect' yet all sound different. I've still not had a satisfactory explanation for this.
Also, Mac software invariably costs money. There are free apps of course, Vox & Cog being two. Both sound noticeably worse than my eventual choice JRiver. Why JRiver? Because it at least avoids piggy-backing on the abomination that is iTunes.
If I were to buy a computer solely for music playback I'd buy Windows and install Foobar and be done with it.
Honestly, I could write screeds on this topic.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,881
|
Post by solderdude on May 7, 2015 5:20:12 GMT
yes... iTunes...
also as soon as you use one of the volume sliders in the player or the PC the output isn't bit perfect anymore and all samples are re-calculated. This is just a linear caluclation though and practically only reduces the amount of bits available.
Also.. only NOS ladder (R2R) DAC's can actually be bit perfect, the rest of the DACs (DS, Wolfson, AKM, ESS etc) is not. These all put out recalculated values to re-create the analog signal. They can do so, however, with a greater accuracy than most ladder DACs can but ... the other DAC's arguably are an approximation.
|
|
|
Post by chinook9 on May 7, 2015 16:20:15 GMT
I couldn't help myself so I stayed up late last night and tried Decibel, JRiver, Audirvana, and iTunes.
I know very little about OSX but I was able to stumble through and get Decibel, Jriver, and iTunes to work. I didn't have time or motive to get Audirvana to work. I couldn't get it to recognize the folder where the music was stored so I gave up. I also had no reason to think it would be better.
I played nothing but Redbook which had been converted on PC to FLAC and then converted, again on PC, using MHAudioConverter to AppleLosslessFormat.
I set the OSX Audio Midi Setup to 24/192 and left the players at their default setting. The DIYINHK USB converter indicated it was decoding 24/192. For the short period of listening I did, they all seemed to be very good and I could not identify any difference. If I had to guess I'd say that it was the same as 24/192 out of Foobar.
solrighal, can you tell me how to get Midi Setup to stay at 24/192. It kept going back to the default 16/44.1 and I had to go back in and reset it constantly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 18:41:35 GMT
What DAC are you using? In my Sound settings I have it set like this.. In my MIDI settings I have it set like this.. I think this should be standard irrespective of the DAC but it's software dependent. I can't seem to take a screengrab of my JRMC DSP Options / Output Format. I just get a blank window. Gordon.
|
|
|
Post by chinook9 on May 7, 2015 19:08:50 GMT
Thank you solrighal. I believe that's how I set mine(using 192000Hz), but I will doublecheck to confirm it.
I expect the player may change it on occasion because I left all the player settings at default. I'll check the player setting and see what I can find.
|
|