Is 2012 the year for my dream Mac mini?

**esimms86** · 06-12-2012, 10:09 PM

I was pretty excited to hear about the new MacBook Pro as Apple tipped their hand regarding upcoming changes for the rest of the product line. Now that Apple has embraced Ivy Bridge and USB 3.0 I'm looking forward to having an Ivy Bridge quad core i7 CPU and 16gb RAM in the next Mac mini that I am hoping will be out by August or September. I would like to see those specs on a standard Mac mini though I am willing to pay more to get the Mac mini server if that's where the power is. In my mind, the future is looking bleak for Thunderbolt at this point since I feel that folks will be more than pleased with the upgrade from FireWire and USB 2.0 to USB 3.0.

While I'm aware that a 2010 or 2011 Mac mini is more than powerful enough for most audiophile and videophile server needs, I have a need for the added power of the anticipated new upgrade as I'm running the fairly power thirsty XXHigh End software with my async Phasure NOS1 DAC. Where XXHE is concerned, a more powerful CPU and increased RAM is roughly equivalent to better sound. I'm also planning to install Windows 7 Professional in a boot camp partition to run not only XXHE for audio but also JRMC 17 for video. Peter St's soon to be released Bluetooth dongle for connecting XXHE to an iPad without a wireless setup will be icing on the cake. Who knows, it may even be effective for controlling JRMC without wireless. The only question that remains for me is whether the new macs can be configured with Snow Leopard as opposed to Lion or Mountain Lion. It's a thus far unanswerable question at this point but by no means a deal breaker given my particular Windows-based applications. If I later opt to buy a DSD DAC it would be nice to have the option of running Mac-based music server software on my choice of Mac os x. It would be really neat to have all of my music and videos on a 3 or 4 TB USB 3.0 hard drive(fastidiously backed up, of course) and also having the option of booting up from a SL, ML or Win 7 partition.

Esau

**Akapod** · 06-13-2012, 08:51 AM

Does USB 3.0 have the same problems around jitter as its predecessors?

**AudioDoctor** · 06-13-2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Akapod

Does USB 3.0 have the same problems around jitter as its predecessors?

tell me, what jitter problems am I experiencing with USB 2.0?

**Akapod** · 06-13-2012, 10:09 AM

If your DAC is using adaptive USB, you've got jitter problems. If you're using asynchronous, you should be fine.

CA member Gordon Rankin describes the issue well at the Wavelength web site.

**orgel** · 06-13-2012, 10:50 AM

Are there any currently available DACs that support USB3? I'm pretty certain that if you plug a USB2 DAC into a computer's USB3 port, the best case is that you'll have a USB2 DAC performing to spec.

I'm not drawing any conclusions either way about the potential benefits of USB3 down the road, just pointing out that AFAIK, there's no way to realize them without a DAC that supports USB3.

--David

**AudioDoctor** · 06-13-2012, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Akapod

If your DAC is using adaptive USB, you've got jitter problems. If you're using asynchronous, you should be fine.

CA member Gordon Rankin describes the issue well at the Wavelength web site.

I do have an Asynch USB DAC, a Wavelength Cosecant actually... Your comment was ridiculously open ended...

**wgscott** · 06-13-2012, 08:42 PM

I just gave up and bought the 2011 "server" with 8 gig of memory and two internal SSDs for about $2K. I actually got it for work, rather than music, but I am going to test it to hear whether there is any sonic improvement.

**Akapod** · 06-13-2012, 09:09 PM

Apologies for failing to live up to your standards.

Now, where's that Ignore List ....

**wgscott** · 06-13-2012, 09:13 PM

Was it something I said?

**AudioDoctor** · 06-13-2012, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by wgscott

Was it something I said?

No, he was talking to me... he doesn't want to see challenges to his statements, such as the one he made above...

**esimms86** · 06-13-2012, 10:21 PM

I was thinking more along the lines of having the Mac mini access music files(flac, wav and aiff) from an external drive connected via USB 3.0. As I've said, my DAC uses asynchronous USB, so jitter is a smaller part of the equation. I would imagine that the lion's share(my apologies with no pun intended) of usb DACs in service these days are asynchronous and not adaptive usb.

From an economic standpoint, it becomes a matter of RAID USB 3.0 vs. RAID Thunderbolt for music and video storage. And then a Bluetooth connection does away with any issues regarding standard wireless.

I bet that XXHigh End would sound great with wgscott's 2011 i7 quad core Mac mini server(if he were so inclined).

Since I'm an academic pediatrician I suppose that I also would qualify as as audio doctor (in lower case), though I'm effectively nonexistent in Japan. If I were not in academia, of course, I would be able to afford more expensive gear(but then isn't that always the way?).

Esau

**wgscott** · 06-13-2012, 10:26 PM

Academic non-medical "doctors" make way less. People laugh at my salary.

**esimms86** · 06-13-2012, 10:36 PM

Well, perhaps, but the people laughing for the most part don't live in North America or otherwise in industrial western society. The joke where I work is that two sure fire ways to decrease an MD's salary is to give him an academic position and a Masters of Public Health.

I'll bet you still make more money than the average musician(and then there's that massive windfall you have coming from TIAA-CREF - hah).

Esau

**wgscott** · 06-13-2012, 10:38 PM

I am fortunate enough to have the financially insolvent University of California pension system.

But as far as paycheck goes, I dropped out of an MD/PhD program, so I have only myself to blame...

**AudioDoctor** · 06-13-2012, 10:41 PM

Here in America, Pediatrics is the lowest paid specialty... Don't tell anyone...

edit: It seems odd to me however because our children are supposed to be the most precious things to us as adults...

**Paul.Raulerson** · 06-14-2012, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by AudioDoctor

No, he was talking to me... he doesn't want to see challenges to his statements, such as the one he made above...

Come on guys- you are talking past each other is all. USB of any version is inherently jittery, unless you toss something like Gordon's Streamlength code at it to correct that issue. Even Streamlength code does not get rid of all the jitter though- not sure it is possible to do so. But with Steamlength code driving the interface, jitter is effectively a non issue.

USB3 is actually prone to more jitter because of the higher transmission speeds, again unless you put a good asynchronous USB interface on it. Or at least, we can assume so until someone builds and tests a USB3 enabled DAC.

A USB2 DAC connected to a USB3 interface runs as a USB2 device only.

Paul

**Julf** · 06-14-2012, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Paul.Raulerson

Come on guys- you are talking past each other is all. USB of any version is inherently jittery, unless you toss something like Gordon's Streamlength code at it to correct that issue. Even Streamlength code does not get rid of all the jitter though- not sure it is possible to do so.

Isn't every system that includes a reclocking buffer totally immune from USB jitter?

**Paul.Raulerson** · 06-14-2012, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Julf

Isn't every system that includes a reclocking buffer totally immune from USB jitter?

You always have at least the jitter in the internal clock, as inconsequential as it may be. Perhaps other sources as well. But none of those sources are likely to have an adverse effect on the sound with a well done asynchronous implementation. Such sources are perhaps, not even measurable with most test gear today.

I personally consider jitter a solved issue in USB Audio. Just look for "Streamlength" or some other well respected Async USB implementation.

**Julf** · 06-14-2012, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Paul.Raulerson

You always have at least the jitter in the internal clock, as inconsequential as it may be.

Sure. But that is not USB jitter.

I personally consider jitter a solved issue in USB Audio.

I agree. Any properly implemented double buffering between the USB and the actual DAC should completely eliminate the effect of USB jitter.

**Paul.Raulerson** · 06-14-2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Julf

Sure. But that is not USB jitter.

Well, if it is in the clock controlling the USB data transfers or the re-clocking of USB data, I am not sure what else one can call it but USB jitter. (shrug)

**Jud** · 06-14-2012, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by esimms86

The only question that remains for me is whether the new macs can be configured with Snow Leopard as opposed to Lion or Mountain Lion. It's a thus far unanswerable question at this point but by no means a deal breaker given my particular Windows-based applications.

Why Snow Leopard? The only sound quality advantage SL formerly had was the lack of integer mode on Lion, but with both Audirvana Plus and BitPerfect coming out with Direct Mode (kind of a better Integer Mode) on Lion and Mountain Lion, that's pretty well gone.

The Audirvana Plus Direct Mode beta is publicly available. PeterSt has said he liked Audirvana Plus with the NOS1, though of course he thought XXHE was better. :-) As no one's mentioned using the new beta with an NOS1, I don't know whether there are any bugs in that combination.

**esimms86** · 06-14-2012, 12:53 PM

Sound wise, I prefer XXHE over Audirvana Plus though it's pretty close with my dual core 2010 Mac mini. XXHE should sound even better with a quad core Ivy Bridge CPU. I have yet to try Audirvana Plus with Direct Mode so I'll have to give it a try with my next Mac mini running Mountain Lion.

Esau

**Jud** · 06-14-2012, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by esimms86

Sound wise, I prefer XXHE over Audirvana Plus though it's pretty close with my dual core 2010 Mac mini. XXHE should sound even better with a quad core Ivy Bridge CPU. I have yet to try Audirvana Plus with Direct Mode so I'll have to give it a try with my next Mac mini running Mountain Lion.

Esau

Yes, I agree it's close. :-) Must be something about the sound of these two apps - PeterSt likes Audirvana Plus, I prefer XXHE to any player other than Audirvana Plus, your preference is apparently just the reverse....

**esimms86** · 06-14-2012, 02:29 PM

Not to get too esoteric but, as you know, XXHE has an SFS setting that's very important to the sound quality. With my current Mac mini I can only set SFS to 170 whereas it can theoretically be set as high as 500 with a higher powered CPU. Most of the folks on the XXHE forum have it set to 400 or better but not as high as 500. Also, if you've purchased XXHE you can select "minimize os," which further improves the sound significantly.

Peter also recommends not using a laptop or solid state drive with XXHE. Regarding the latter, not everyone agrees.

Esau

**Julf** · 06-15-2012, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Paul.Raulerson

Well, if it is in the clock controlling the USB data transfers or the re-clocking of USB data, I am not sure what else one can call it but USB jitter. (shrug)

Sure, but if there is double buffering, the USB jitter, whatever the source, has no effect. Remember that asynchronous USB is still clocked from the sender. It is only the flow control that is controlled by the receiver. Thus it is the double buffering, not the asynchronous operation, that removes the jitter - it is just that you have to have double buffering for asynch transfer.

The jitter in the internal clock can still affect the actual DAC conversion, and I thought that was what you were talking about, as that is the jitter that still remains.

Thread: Is 2012 the year for my dream Mac mini?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Is 2012 the year for my dream Mac mini?