Thread: Mac Mini server: does CPU speed matter? Not so much, not at all or not as expected?

The base Mini would be more than enough for a music server. Just add 8GB of RAM to it and you are good to go. You can do that yourself too.

Originally Posted by AudioDoctor

The base Mini would be more than enough for a music server. Just add 8GB of RAM to it and you are good to go. You can do that yourself too.

+1 on getting the base mini with a self-installed upgrade to 8 GB RAM.

--David

Originally Posted by mayhem13

Could you elaborate further the sonic improvements of the i7 ivy bridge and 12Gb of ram? Also, the software players and the relationship to SQ, does the higher capabilities of the CPU allow these software players to operate more effectively, in effect improving SQ? I'm not sure exactly what Audionirvana, Ammara and the others actually do as far as SQ goes, so maybe a better understanding of the CPU's role in processing digital files might help myself and others choose the right CPU and player.

I can only comment on a couple of specific situations.

- I use iZotope SRC included with Audirvana Plus to upsample everything at lower than 24/192 to that resolution "on the fly." I also use it to do the reverse, convert DSD files to PCM (again "on the fly") so they are playable through my PCM-only DAC. I cannot say for a certainty that, e.g., an i7 processor would do this better/more easily than the Core 2 Duo I'm using, though the idea is I suppose intuitively appealing. Nor can I say for certain that upsampling the lower-res stuff helps the sound, though I think I do hear a difference and prefer the software upsampling. (Miska, who is familiar with the capabilities of various chips, said that the chip in my DAC is one that would benefit from having an upsampled signal sent to it. If I remember correctly, he said the usual 8x upsampling in that chip is accomplished by 3 steps of doubling. Thus software upsampling avoids 2 doubling steps in the chip for Redbook, and 1 doubling step for 88.2 and 96kHz material.)

- Re memory, Audirvana Plus will I believe have a max of two tracks in memory at once (the track currently playing, and the next if there is one). For Audirvana Plus and other "memory players," with 24/192 files running 4GB per hour and the potential for some classical pieces to be quite long, and with memory being used by the computer for other purposes, it is conceivable that one would want 8GB of memory, or even 12 or 16 for a substantial safety margin.

Originally Posted by mayhem13

Thanx Jud. Are there any 'from memory' players that still work within the iTunes/Airplay mesh? If not, i would be limited to just playback locally which isn't so bad......as long as there's a similiar control app to Remote. Memory playback is one of the few concepts that i can justify as having value and i'm interested in your perceptions if you hear and improvement or difference....DSP not withstanding of course. Can these memory players just use direct memory playback and defeat any of the the DSP/resampling algorithyms they use?

Audirvana works with Itunes integration and still does Memory playback, so you can use your Iphone remote app (although I have occasional slight stuttering when using it). However, none of the audiophile players I'm aware of do support Airplay.

And honestly, I still fail to see why when you use a player with memory playback why computer power would make a difference. I do my playback from a late 2009 with a 3GHz Core2Duo, i.e. slower than any of the current models. Except for the short reading/upsampling phase at the beginning of memory play, the processor barely does anything. In my view, getting a faster processor is not the most crucial investment for audio quality.

However, I recently upgraded from 4-8 GB and certainyl have increased system stability. And, if you want to memory play long Hi-res tracks, you want as much RAM as you can get.

Originally Posted by Musicophile

Audirvana works with Itunes integration and still does Memory playback, so you can use your Iphone remote app (although I have occasional slight stuttering when using it). However, none of the audiophile players I'm aware of do support Airplay.

And honestly, I still fail to see why when you use a player with memory playback why computer power would make a difference. I do my playback from a late 2009 with a 3GHz Core2Duo, i.e. slower than any of the current models. Except for the short reading/upsampling phase at the beginning of memory play, the processor barely does anything. In my view, getting a faster processor is not the most crucial investment for audio quality.

Actually, 3GHz is faster than any of the current Mac Mini options, and my 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo is close enough as makes no difference. There are two areas re processors I can think of that might make a difference; there may well be others. First, the i7 is quad core, the Duo 2 core. But that only makes a difference if the application and any relevant parts of the OS are programmed to be sufficiently multithreaded to take advantage of 4 cores. The other area of potential difference is that I believe the i7 runs cooler than the Duo, so thermal noise of the system might be reduced. Whether this would be sufficiently high in any case to affect sound quality, I don't know.

Re iTunes: At least Audirvana and Pure Music can work with iTunes (PM in fact requires it, Audirvana leaves up to you whether you want the convenience in return for a potential hit to sound quality) and Remote. Perhaps other players can as well. I personally use a VNC app (Screens) on my iPhone for the few times I need to remotely control my laptop, but due to the small screen size of the phone this is not as convenient as Remote.

Re AirPlay: I don't know of a non-Apple player that can use it. There is a program called AirFoil that does the same thing as AirPlay for non-Apple players (sends their output over a network), but I feel sound quality suffers.

Originally Posted by mayhem13

Thanx Jud. Are there any 'from memory' players that still work within the iTunes/Airplay mesh? If not, i would be limited to just playback locally which isn't so bad......as long as there's a similiar control app to Remote. Memory playback is one of the few concepts that i can justify as having value and i'm interested in your perceptions if you hear and improvement or difference....DSP not withstanding of course. Can these memory players just use direct memory playback and defeat any of the the DSP/resampling algorithyms they use?

Sorry, in my previous reply I neglected your last question. Yes, all of these players that I'm aware of can be used without DSP or forced resampling. (If I remember correctly, the last time I used Pure Music, memory play was a feature that had to be turned on - someone correct me if I'm wrong on that. Audirvana uses memory play by default.)

Originally Posted by mayhem13

Are there any 'from memory' players that still work within the iTunes/Airplay mesh?

It depends on exactly what you want to do, but Pure Music's "playthrough" capability can come in handy in this respect. It's worth downloading the free trial and experimenting with it. Basically, it lets you use PM's playback engine in conjunction with applications other than iTunes (Safari, Pandora, etc.).

If you just want to use the iTunes database, then Musicophile's suggestions are dead on, IMO, though I think the "best" audiophile player depends on one's system and personal taste.

--David