ThrillerUSA

Recent observations: 1) Changing the same external SSD from an OWC FireWire 800 dock via Audioquest .75m Carbon cable to a Seagate GoFlex STAE126 dock via stock white Apple cable or Elgato .5m black cable, sounds terrible. Could this be due to the chips in the Thunderbolt cables siphoning detailed frequencies from the audio signals? Changing back to the FW800 dock changes the sound quality back to 3 dimensional soundstage, whispy highs, tighter bass, cleaner vocals and acoustic guitars. Same SSD hard drive for both scenarios, high-res music only on the hard drive. 2) I recently upped the RAM from 8GB stock Samsung to 16GB RAM and the sound went terrible. Does anyone know if RAM Memory has to 'burn in' like a cable or DAC? I tried Samsung 16GB 1333mhz CL9, Crucial 16GB 1333mhz CL9, Crucial 16GB 1600mhz CL11, Corsair Vengeance 16GB 1600mhz CL10, all had roughly the same effect on the sound with slight variations. My stock Samsung 8GB has thousands of hours of high-res music play through it and sounds much much better than the brand new 16GB sticks. 16GB RAM adds color, bloomy un-detailed bass, less defined soundstaged, less clear vocals and acoustic guitars. Same results occur whether using stock iTunes or Pure Music's Memory Play (via RAM). Many thanks in advance for any thoughts. My gear includes: Early 2011 MacBook Pro Core i7, 17" w/ Apple 512GB SSD internal HD External SSD OCZ Vertex 4 Apogee Duet 2 USB 192k DAC, Audioquest .75m Carbon USB cable High end separates Krell, Mark Levinson, balanced solid silver XLRs, copper ribbon speaker cable, sensitive KEF speakers Burson Audio headamp, AKG 702 head phones

Hi, To answer your question Forest I don't up or down-sample anywhere in the chain. I just spent some time with BitPerfect and music through the player sounds the same as Pure Music in Memory Play; safe, soft, filtered, lacking dynamics, sweet. I adjusted BitPerfect to SoX14.3.2VHQ Intermediate, Linear, back to Core Audio then chose Intermediate. Tried the Buffer Size at 256 Mb, 4096 Mb, then chose 2048 Mb. Moved the I/O procedure Duration and Thread Priority to (maximum) Shorter and Higher without Overloads. Minimized iTunes Interaction, doubled upsampling then back and my DAC would run in Integer Mode. Most of these adjustments made the player sound better relative to their starting point. Then I quit BitPerfect and sampled the same reference clips through just iTunes (using same DAC, sample rates, AIFFs and ALACs). There simply is no comparison. Without endless description; all the instruments came alive outside of BitPerfect, guitars sounded like live guitars, flutes sounded like live flutes, vocals came forward and became clear and palpable. I've been a hifi geek for many years and I know hi-end very well, but I'm brand new to this computer audiophile kit (specifically outboard DAC, HDTracks, 2L, Linn, etc.). And, I'm loving it. But it's like learning all over again from scratch and believe me when I say I wanted BitPerfect to work, I wanted Pure Music's Memory Play to work as well as Amarra and Fidelia, Audirvana, Decibel and so on. Every time the audio is piped through RAM detail and nuances are killed. All the instruments blur together and it sounds like I placed pantyhose over my ears and some big dude just sat down in front of me. Could it be my 500 gig internal solid state hard drive is outperforming my RAM? My setup is: 2011 17" MacBook Pro, 2.3g quad-core Intel i7, 8 gig RAM, 500gig SSD internal HD, Apogee Duet 2 with async USB 192k. ?? Many thanks for your thoughts today guys.

Okay, checked the iTunes preferences and everything you mention remains un-checked, off. The output bit rate DAC, in my case software adjustable by an Apogee scheme called Maestro 2, is placed on the correct sample rate. When using Pure Music (with Memory Play turned off, however, as my internal solid-state hard drive to my ears outperforms Robert's RAM option or an external hard drive regardless of bus) the sample rate is change automatically. I also keep native sample rates when converting a file to Apple LossLess, a 44.1k AIFF up-sampled to a 96k Apple LossLess killed detail. The bit rate when converting to Apple LossLess is of course non-adjustable. Forrest, do you convert all of your music to WAVs? If so, is this done out of a preference to the sound you're hearing? Finally, do you use Mac or PC? Thank you much.

Hi Forest I'm only using Macs so with the exception of some sound effects I'm not sure I'd have much opportunity to critically compare bought music as WAV files. To answer your question, I was asking about tracks listened to via iTunes to an outboard DAC and not Final Cut Pro or other processing. For me in a nutshell AIFFs played through iTunes have a warm muddy bass, cloudy midrange, softer highs and less detailed separation between instruments, when compared to their converted Apple LossLess clones. Thanks much for your note.

Talos, thanks for your note. Followup question, please? If you place a store bought red book studio CD into a PC and look at it's data, do the music tracks appear as .WAV files or .AIFF files? I haven't operated a PC for a long time and assumed all music CD tracks were inherently .AIFFs. Secondly, I'm not suggesting .AIFFs have to be decoded per se only asking if Apple LossLess files are somehow being played more efficiently by iTunes. In a very similar instance, multiple video codecs (even Quicktime formats) will play and edit fine within Apple's Final Cut Pro software. But if all video codecs are converted to Apple Pro Res, Apple's powerful FCP video software becomes a flawless, solid, backwards, forwards, no hiccups, realtime effects editing monster. So I'm wondering if maybe Apple LossLess files, even when converted bit for bit from FLACs or AIFFs, when played through iTunes is 'speaking' iTunes' preferred language somehow. Which might explain why I'm consistently hearing sonic improvements in converted Apple LossLess files over their master equivalents. A friend turned me on to ABXer earlier today (blind A/B comparison software) and after learning the software I could pick out the superior Apple LossLess tracks over their AIFF or FLAC counterparts. I say 'not a subtle difference' but of course they are all very subtle differences. But if they're there and you can hear them quite clearly after some time knowing what the music is capable of sounding like, they become not so subtle anymore. My girlfriend cannot hear the differences even after repeated attempts, bless her. Finally, I think I understand what you mean by an .MP3 more easily being decoded compared to larger .AIFF files; it's a bits per minute thing (amount of data scrutinized per unit of time). I think you're interpreting that correctly, thanks for that. Sorry to be so wordy..

A friend suggested to me that Apple might use a chip to play Apple LossLess in iTunes and software to play AIFFs in iTunes. Does anyone know for 100% certain? If I import an AIFF track from a CD via my MacBook Pro internal DVD-R drive then convert that AIFF file using XLD to a 44.1 Apple LossLess file; then both tracks being sourced from the same internal solid state hard drive, both being played through iTunes (no Pure Music or Amarra), both being outputted to an Apogee Duet 2 (192k capable async USB DAC), listening with either flagship full-size headphones or high-end two channel home stereo; without fail the Apple LossLess versions have more realistic sounding instruments and separation between individual artists over the same track in AIFF. It is not a subtle difference. In Final Cut Pro, transferring all video files to Apple Pro Res before editing allows more real-time effects and cleaner, faster forward and reverse play inside a timeline. Everything works better. The same phenomenon happens when I transfer 88k, 96k or 192k FLAC files to Apple LossLess – all things being equal – the Apple LossLess track played through iTunes (iTunes being an Apple product like Final Cut Pro is an Apple product), a layer of sheen is lifted from the music like a speaker grill being removed from a speaker. The plucking of an acoustic guitar becomes more lifelike, every aspect of a performance sounds more realistic. With higher resolution items like Beck’s 88.2k Sea Change album, Track #9 “Already Dead” – the converted Apple LossLess version sounds like a guitarist in the same room sitting on a stool to your right whereas the original AIFF or FLAC versions (FLACs being played through Pure Music via RAM – or – Fidelia or Amarra via I don’t know what) sound like a very good song being played through a stereo. But not lifelike. So I was wondering if maybe Apple is using some codec or a better terminology which is read ‘more natively’ through iTunes, giving Apple LossLess files a more efficient reading or one less conversion of sorts compared to playing the same AIFF track off the same hard drive. On the Apple LossLess page in WikiPedia there is a statement (THE LAST SENTENCE APPLIES HERE): “Apple claims that audio files compressed with its lossless codec will use up “about half the storage space” that the uncompressed data would require. Testers using a selection of music have found that compressed files are about 40% to 60% the size of the originals depending on the kind of music, similar to other lossless formats.[2][3] ****Furthermore, the speed at which it can be decoded makes it useful for limited-power devices such as iOS devices.[4]****” “The speed in which it decodes” does not suggest file size or storage considerations but the ease in which an iTouch can play an Apple LossLess file vrs an AIFF file. ? Many thanks in advance.

Nice one.

Can I add that an early adopter premium is fine but this butting computer audiophile format could get a huge boost of new adopters if the cost of a 192k download from LINN for example was far lower than its SACD equivalent. I also think if an SACD is seen at $25 and download of the same performance for $24 it will encourage kids to copy and share the files with a clearer conscience, right or wrong. The original purchase will be seen as a gouge and the seller of it less moral in some way. If the argument is no longer one of delivery, storage, quality, and security but one of "an indulgence" (Audioquest's word) then yes, listening to your newest download of the evening will sound all the much sweeter but if we want to sell more DACs and sign on more kids to this new wave of hires audio, lowering the price now should make more sense both short term and long term. Final point, Steve Jobs had a unique way of personalizing customers with regard to speaking about them as flesh and blood for example in his keno addresses, "I think people want to do the right thing." What relates here is I personally appreciate, say, 2L for uploading and making available for free a vast number of full-length test tracks in multiple formats. This has single handily been most helpful in trying out these new toys, hearing subtle differences in rates etc and because of it I've been left with a warm and fuzzy feeling towards 2L and every time I see their logo or label or blu-ray for sale now I think to myself, "I'm going to buy several more 2L products as soon as I get can." And I mean it. Because I want to reward the idea that 2L is excited and hungry to share this new technology and their wonderful new recordings. They want people to hear their music. Linn on the other hand, if my memory serves, offered a couple simple Test Tracks of less than a minute each? Not a crime just presenting the difference in perception it leaves on patrons like myself. Nothing is free and nor it should be. But to argue that a premium should be charged to early adopters in this day and age and in this context - it's one thing if your company is offering a new piece of expensive elaborate innovative highly exclusive electronics produced by a massive team of pioneer with millions of R&D behind it. But to argue that the same master file sitting in a master hard drive somewhere which is then uploaded to a server values a similar premium, I think is a stretch. One of many exceptions to warrant a premium for a period of time might be when a recording is remastered and remixed from an older real-to-real. This has earned the right to be accompanied by such a surcharge. I don't know everything but just wanted to suggest that, if possible, it may be a good time now to try and lure in the next generation of modern masses with not only realistic, but fun and encouraging pricing to share our latest classical recordings, jazz, blues, classic rock albums, modern recordings, microphones, the ambience of halls and churches, the plucks from an acoustic guitar, the snaps of an analog drum, clean vocals, lowered noise floor, and the like. Subtle, high performing, heavy, audio gadgets are awesome fun to play with. And art can change the world for the better. We just need to provide access to the material and not overcharge for it under the quise of, "If you want to be one of the first you'll have to pay extra for it." It's an uploaded .flac file in the end. Kind regards