nigelh

Paul, An afterthought on the bit rate setting in the Mac Audio Setup. If one has attached a DAC capable of running at 24-bit/192 kHz and one sets the Audio Setup prefs to that same value, then one plays back some Apple lossless files ripped from a standard CD, they'll get up-sampled to 192 kHz instead of 44k1. My question then is, would this have a negative effect on the resultant sound, when compared to the same file output at 44k1 with the DAC set accordingly? If not, then what's wrong with just leaving the Audio Setup set to 192 kHz and just playing everything from the library like that - then the lack of any ability in itunes to "auto switch" the bit rate would cease to be an issue. I suspect you'll tell me that this would have a negative impact on sound quality though, when playing files with a lower stored bit rate! But then, you've already said that even lossless gets re-sampled at (or up-sampled to? * ) 44k1 when it's played, so maybe up-sampling to 192k wouldn't do any more harm? Hope this discussion is of interest to you, BTW! Nigel * I'm not sure which term you might prefer here!

That's pleasing - always like it when I'm right! ;-) My IT networking knowledge tells me that Firewire and Thunderbolt protocols avoid the bus contention that often wrecks throughput performance with USB. That in turn suggests to me that Firewire or Thunderbolt OUGHT to have advantages when dealing with high-end audio. BUT, do listening tests bear this out at all, in your experience? Tricky to test, I know, because I think few DACs come as standard with more than one type of data connection, though I know some do. But certainly, from what I've seen so far, the higher-rated models do seem to favour FW or even TB (I seem to recall I saw that the Orpheus uses FW as standard and has optional TB?) The digital purist in me (from the IT pov) says that a proper computer protocol SHOULD perform better than something like TOSlink or coax, but again, do listening tests bear this out? Ah, now this one I do know about, from having listened to CD transports and DACs connected both ways. And in general, I agree, it sounds best when the DAC provides the clocking. It makes sense to me too that that would be the case.... No problem. I love complexity - though only when it does the job better than the simplistic solution!

Bob, Thanks for the link - it may well be useful to me for precisely the reason you mention, but I can say no more at this time! ;-) Cheers, Nigel

Hi Paul, OK, that all raises the "makes sense" level. I'm sorta guessing that those MP3/AC files also get up-sampled to 44k1 when you play 'em, just as the lossless files do (lossless being our general preference when importing CDs). Another inspired guess would be that, on a standard system (ie one without any external DAC attached), those Audio/MIDI Prefs seem to allow me to increase the output bit-rate to the internal speaker system (and hence through the internal DAC) up to 96 kHz. So, if I did that, then everything would get up-sampled to that rate when played. Is that right? I'm guessing, thirdly(?), that that also means inputting OR outputting stuff at 192 kHz only becomes possible when an external DAC capable of handling that higher rate is attached (with appropriate drivers installed. Logic also says that, as there are external DACs capable of handling 192 and described as compatible with Mac, then Mac can handle that higher rate so long as it's own circuitry is operating as a pure transport. OK, I'll be grateful for correction of anything erroneous in all that - ITMT, back to my research. Nigel PS Yeah, it's starting to seem less complicated now!

I'm glad we were able to get you sorted. Know what you mean about the 'challenges' - in another thread here, The Apple of High-End, I'm learning about a Mac sub-system of which I have (evidently) no previous experience or knowledge, namely that which handles the Core Audio. But I decided I need to know all about at now, so I'm researching some detailed reading material that explains the whole thing! We all have gaps in our knowledge for others to fill! ;-) Nigel

Err, yes, I can more than see how that would be the case! But..... I can see that this all concerns a sub-systemm of Mac with which I have no experience and no knowledge! I shall read up on this and maybe get back to you if I have some sensible questions after I have! But, I can see how this will relate to the question that I already posted in the General forum here (No forum for vinyl conversion?), in which I've also asked about availability of a high-end ADC interface to be used in transcribing vinyl to high-res digital files. What you've said makes me realise that such a unit would have to be both ADC and DAC, of course. What's really puzzling me in all that you've said is how iTunes handles low-res MP3/AAC files - and even the Apple Lossless format files that we always use when importing CDs into the library - because none of those use a 44k1 sample rate, do they? Anyway, I'll find some further reading material on all this tomorrow and, as I said, maybe get back to you when I feel I know better what I'm even asking you about! Cheers, Nigel

Paul, Sorry, but I'm still not getting you here. I just double-checked (on both Mac and Windows iTunes) to be sure and I don't see anywhere in the prefs that allows anything to do with sample rates to be chosen/set. But, are you talking about the iTunes prefs, anyway? You can only set iTunes prefs while it's running, but what you're saying is that you first have to quit iTunes, set the pref, then relaunch iTunes, so..... how/where are you doing this exactly and which "pref" is it that you're resetting? Sorry if I'm being thick here! Can I also ask you to clarify what "hires" means in terms of this iTunes issue? Above what bitrate does iTunes present this problem? The highest res in common usage, as far as I know, would be 24-bit, 192 kHz, which simple math tells me corresponds to a bit-rate of 4608 kbps. I think, at the moment, the highest bitrate recording we have in our main iTunes library is around 1300 kbps - quite a bit less, but that certainly doesn't present any problems. So I guess the 'threshold' at which problems arise is somewhere between those two numbers, but where exactly? I think there's also a typo in your second sentence: "...rebook I your library..." and I can't work out what you meant to type there. Nigel

It's certainly true that one of the core reasons for Apple's dominant success is the fact that it retains control over the whole system. In the case of Macs, they have total control of all hardware, operating system and key apps. In the case of iOS devices, it's the same, but the real key to success is the total integration of the end-to-end system, wherein iTunes facilitates and is facilitated by the iTunes Store. That store, in turn, is what went on to enable the whole App Store (now for iPad/iPhone and for Mac). Although hardware remains Apple's largest revenue earner, the bottom-line contribution from all those media and software sales doesn't lack significance! That's what even Microsoft never had (quite the opposite, in fact) and why they could never have leveraged anything to achieve what Apple has. In that sense, then, you're perfectly right that there simply cannot ever be any company in the audio world, high-end or otherwise, with opportunities that are in any way similar to those that Apple made work for themselves. I mean, just think how successful an audio company would be if it made products that could only play a unique and special type of media and whose hardware was incapable of being interconnected with that of any other manufacturer. If you could ever succeed with starting up an audio company on such a basis, THEN you might just have a small chance of achieving the sort of long-term success that Apple has - but I doubt it! Nigel

Just to back up what you say there, Paul, our "home theatre" system is a 2010 Mac Mini (with built-in DVD drive), which currently hosts our iTunes library (~100 Gbytes) and twin Elgato satellite receivers and recordings therefrom (about another 75 Gbytes). It also merrily crunches BOINC SETI workunits in its spare time. Hasn't been rebooted in over three months, and then only because some software updates required a restart. It's a well-nigh perfect system, for sure. One question though: you say "if iTunes would auto switch sample rates". What exactly is it that you'd like it to do? But I do understand your point - there are no apps that are quite perfect for any of us! Nigel

That's the reason - until you install the Flash Player plug-in, you won't see its pref pane in System Preferences. When it's installed, the pref pane will appear on the bottom row, under "Other". The latter. Whichever browser/blocker plug-in combination you use, you'll still have the same options. In the Flash Player prefs themselves, you can choose to totally block LSOs, block them by site, or just choose to delete them manually at any time (but normally when you've closed the browser). Safari/ClickToFlash in combo don't make this task any easier, or harder, than any other combo of browser and Flash blocker - with the possible exception of also using BP with Firefox, as you said before. Then, BP will at least act as a 'reminder' to delete them and then do it for you at the click of a button. Other than that, there's no difference. And..... no matter how long you have questions, as long as I have the time available (usually I do), I'm always happy to help!

No! ClickToFlash is the alternative (for Safari) to FlashBlock. And there's no conflict between the two blockers - I have both installed and they each function, depending on which browser I'm running at the time (or even both at the same time if I have, say, both FF and Safari running). Worth noting that, although there's just the single Library folder where Internet Plug-ins are stored, a browser will only make use of those plug-ins that are compatible with it, so if you did ever put anything else into that folder, by accident, it wouldn't mean that your browser would try to make sense of it and use it, if it wasn't applicable. Not that I'd recommend deliberately using the Plug-ins folder to store your secret docs or anything!!!

Well, even as a Mac user (rather than developer or whatever), you really need to know your way around the System Preferences, but their interfaces are as straightforward as they can be. If you want, it is possible for me to do a remote session with you, just to show you around the Flash Player prefs - just let me know if you would like to do that. Yes, looks like the way for you to go. If that's how BP operates, it wouldn't do me much good, as my browser(s) tend to stay open for weeks at a time. Unless BP can be used manually at any time, of course. But I think, if I had reason to be concerned, I would just make manual use of the Flash Player prefs option to clear the LSOs. Yes, that would be the case - UNLESS you actually disable them in the Flash prefs. My pleasure - happy to help!

Indeed, these Flash super-cookies (or Local Shared Objects, as they are more technically known) are an outrage. Personally, I think any company that (ab)uses these for nefarious purposes should be totally banned from hosting any websites for a year (on first offence, more if they repeat)! The Wiki article says some interesting things about these, at: Local shared object - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in particular, this: So, yes, you can set the prefs for Flash to prevent these being used, but you have to remember to reset the prefs every time you upgrade the plug-in (which Adobe do on a far too regular basis). You can also use the options in the System Preferences:Flash Player:Advanced pane to manually delete all local storage items. Because all browsers on your system use the same plug-ins, this operation works also for all use of Flash by all browsers too, which is useful. But, YMMV, and the BetterPrivacy plug-in might be your best course of action against these - although does it block them or just remove them after the event? I'm not sure about that. It's also a pane in the SysPrefs, at Flash Player:Storage, that allows you to block all, or specific, sites from using local storage. I'm not sure what the downside is to all sites being able to know that you've blocked local storage, but some might use the fact to subsequently deny you access to some or all of their website's usual facilities, I suppose. I can't see that they could really do much more than that, though. Again, I hope that answers your question, but if it raises more, just ask! Nigel

Let me just declare up-front that I use Macs full-time, professionally and individually, out of choice and preference - and have done for years (since the late 80s, IIRC). So I guess I have to be considered something of a 'supporter', as well as pretty accomplished and experienced with them. But I don't go in for 'competitor' bashing, I do use Windows and Linux from time-to-time, as needs dictate, and can even fix problems on Windows too (which I'm asked to do all too regularly, by my partner!) Incidentally, I'm not claiming any sort of knowledge level that's superior to that of anyone else here - apart from anything else, I have no idea what anyone here knows or doesn't know! I'm just declaring my preference for the Mac platform and giving some background. Anyway, Flash. Yes, well, what can I say? Steve Jobs had good reason to be so anti-Flash as to ban them, in effect, from the entire iOS platform (iPads, iPhones, Ipod Touches et al). Time was that 'relations' between Apple and Adobe were great, back in the 80s/90s, when they mutually launched the whole desktop publishing thing to the world. But, time's moved on and so have both companies. I think it's fair to say that Adobe rightly identified that the whole Windows arena was, at one time, an untapped and significant potential market for them, so it's natural that they migrated their products in that direction. The trouble is that that's led to some erosion in the quality of some of the things they produce for the Mac platform and their 'free' offerings, such as Flash and Reader plug-ins are no exception. To be blunt, Adobe drive me crazy with the inconsistency in their ways of doing things. They flaunt the Mac programming guidelines (to the severe detriment of their own products, I feel), even to the extent that they use non-standard methods even in the installers for these plug-ins. It also drives me crazy that their installers only have generic filenames, with no indication of version number. Also, in operation, the Flash plug-in, in particular, all too often gets into a CPU-hogging mode, using a lot of CPU resource whilst, apparently, any open webpages with Flash content are just 'sitting there' doing nothing in particular - which begs the question of what the hell Flash is actually DOING with all of that CPU time! That's the reason why so many Mac users are now making use of other plug-ins, such as ClickToFlash for Safari. And, BTW, it's worth noting that ClickToFlask also allows you to play H.264 content from YouTube (instead of Flash), which they normally only feed to iPad/iPhone et al, as they can't play Flash at all. You don't have to use Safari though - there is a Flash blocker available for Firefox/Chrome, called (inventively) FlashBlock: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/flashblock/ FlashBlock isn't quite as good as ClickToFlash, but not so much so that this should dictate your browser choice. If your preference is for Firefox, then fine. Personally, I use Safari, Firefox and Chrome on a regular basis, for testing website compatibility and for those odd occasions when a website just won't play 'nice' in one particular browser (which is totally unpredictable, of course). Bottom line: yes, it's OK to use Flash on a Mac, but I'd recommend that you do so ONLY in conjunction with a Flash blocker, only use it when there's no alternative, and always ensure you close the page with the embedded Flash content as soon as you're finished with it (then ClickToFlash will also ensure that the Flash plug-in quits and drops out of memory, otherwise it could very likely keep on chewing up CPU and reduce system performance). HTH, Nigel

Hi, I just signed up here today after discovering this site during some Googling. Maybe it's a bias on my part, given what I was originally looking for, but it seems quite an omission not to have a forum here that's specifically for the whole business of converting vinyl to digital. FTR, what I was specifically looking for (but can't find) is a true audiophile grade ADC unit that focusses on doing just the job I need it for, for which the specific specification would include: - highest-quality AUX level analogue inputs via standard RCA type connectors - Firewire 800 connection - Thunderbolt connection (at least as an option, if not standard) - maximum resolution/sampling rate of 24-bits/192 kHx (are higher capabilities yet available? I haven't seen them) - minimalist controls (if any?) - clean/smart aesthetic design I don't want/need: - phono stage/RIAA correction - masses of unusable inputs and outputs - front/back panels cluttered with costly and unneeded sockets, controls etc I want a box that puts the emphasis on the quality of the sound, not on providing a list of functional capabilities as long as my arm, which I'll never have a use for! I surely cannot be the only person that's in the market for such a product, can I?