Jump to content

jostp

  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie
  1. I already tried out the 2 first 'solutions' from the Mac OS X blog, to no avail. Also from reading other posts, the last one - upgrading to Sierra - seems the best bet. But upgrading to a new OS version usually also brings new issues. Not to forget a difference in SQ. For a long period Audirvana has been my music player of choice, because of the SQ in my system. When I finally upgraded to El Capitan, almost a year after it came out, to my great surprise, Roon jumped over Audirvana (before, I prefered Roon for it's user interface, but I always went back to Audirvana for 'serious listening'). What will happen when I upgrade to Sierra? Again, that's the eternal transitionary state of computer audio. Years ago, I had a simular experience with tube amplifiers: always new tubes burning in, old ones dying out, replacements by other brands/types, and so on.... But, like with tube amps, with computers one has the flexibility to shape, to alter the sound (and to adapt to new formats, technologies: with computers one doesn't get locked in). I am actually listening to my CD player (a CEC transport). I enjoy it's sound, it plays a little bit smoother/thicker then the computer I have the impression. But I miss the Roon remote....
  2. Sorry, interrupted: The trouble with computers and audio: you are always in a transitionary state. Tonight, for the first time since a long period, I ' ll listen to my CD player. Maybe it will surprise me with it's SQ... ;-) Johan
  3. I'm an engineer, I'm an IT-er, I like computers, and I'm an audiophile (some would say I have a typical 'audiophile profile'). I really admire, and enjoy, how the guys from Roon have brought the listening experience to a whole new level. But yesterday, my Roon suddenly didn't want to launch. That was a few days after my mac mini at start-up came up with the 'Core Telephony error'. Roon tells on their support forum that it is an Apple problem, and I understand them. Apple on their side is dead silent about it. On the internet one can find, as usual, about a dozen possible solutions ('suggestions'). It's hardly 2 months after I solved a fickle wifi problem (probably, so far). That's the problem with computers and audio: you're eternally in a
  4. I upgraded from an early 2009 Mac Mini (linear PS), Mountain Lion, to a 2014 Mac Mini, Yosemite. Audirvana 1.5x. First impression: fuller sound, better bass, but highs less seducing. This was with an external firewire harddisk. Then the harddisk failed. I moved my library to the internal drive. What is strange, over a couple of weeks, the sound got gradually thinner and more harsh. Looking for an explanation, I wonder if that could be caused by the fusion drive and it's interaction with the operating system over time. Just a guess. I can't know, it may as well having to do with the hardware, with OS upgrades in the background or, or whatever external cause. Therefore my question, is someone having the same experience? Johan
  5. jostp

    Pure Music

    I completely agree with tmorini's findings. Right now, I'm listening to Less is More mode, and the sound quality equals, maybe exceeds, s.q. of my CEC belt transport. First time this happens with computer audio. 'A lot of hash clears up' describes best what happens. It is not a small improvement! Strange anyway! 'Smaller footprint' does not give a believable explanation, except if one presumes that the (minimal) iTunes activity interferes in a bad way with the filling & reading of the buffers? Trade-off: use of remote on Ipad can't be used in Less is More mode.
  6. David is absolutely right. This bel canto dac makes cd's sound like high end analog (fluid, natural, very, very nuanced). It makes me wonder if we need more then 16 bits and 44,1 kHz. Maybe we had to wait for mature technology, to convert the information stored on a cd. (I didn't try out higher bit rates, I never heard the Berkely Alpha). One word of caution though: I upgraded from a dac-3. There are two ways: - an upgrade with vb-powering only - vb-upgrade + replacement of the motherboard by the new dac-3.5 motherboard In my case the first upgrade didn't work out as well. It may be related to the version of dac-3 (mine was an early one), because I tried out a very good dac-3vb before. The second upgrade is called 'dac-3.3vb', and sounds exactly like the new dac-3.5vb. This is the one I'm raving about.
  7. Paul, This is the kind of information I was after. I 'll wait some time till the problem with the 'tics' gets resolved, and then I may try out the Hiface. (Although I just don't understand the 'trick', it has a good clock, but then, the bel canto also has a good clock? Apparently the implementation is better then the bel canto). cheers, Johan
  8. On Christmas eve, we spend a nice time with friends at the table, with music in the background, adapted to peoples wishes from my ipod remote . Later, late in the night, we had some dedicated listening with a couple of music lovers. What a disappointment the rendition via the mac mini, compared to the cec transport! What should I do? - choose another DAC then the Bel Canto - throw the apple mini away - upgrade the mac mini (sound card, replace opto-couplers, ...????) - wait a couple of years till computer playback via dac is is on par with top notch transports? (but the transports only plays '44,1/16')
  9. OK, I understand this from all what I read: there is a source (transport, computer,...) which has inherent jitter, there is the interface (spdif coax, spdif toslink, aes/ebu, ... which adds jitter to the source signal, then there is the receiving dac, reconstructing the source signal - albeit with all cumulative jitter. But what's the problem if this reconstructed signal is stored in a small buffer?? Even the apparently very bad mac mini has only 2000 ps of jitter, a large buffer is not needed to middle this out. Once the bits/bytes are waiting in the buffer, all previous (jittered) clock information doesn't matter anymore. It's up to the dac now to send the bits/bytes to the AC converter on the pace of it's own ('gaussian' jittered) clock. My question: why would one have at the output of the dac other jitter then the jitter of the dac's own clock? But then again, I hear three clearly different sounds from my bel canto in the case of cec-toslink, cec-aes/ebu, mac mini-toslink. So, I must be wrong. Or is there 'something else' in the game? Every one talks about 'jitter', but no one can exactly explain what is going on based on this concept. By the way, see: http://stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/1107bc/index4.html (Fig. 9, jitter performance of the bel canto dac3, toslink input)
  10. Thomas, Actually, I took the word 'immune' from the Benchmark DAC1 HDR advertisment at the top of this page at the moment of my writing. Although I'm aware that perfection doesn't exist, I'm still surprised by the differences I hear. Encore, The Bel Canto has galvanic and transformer isolation at it's digital inputs. I too first thougt about the computer power isolation, but the difference was still there while listening to the cec with the mac mini on (and putting it's noise on the net). However, I recently have discovered that the bel canto is very sensible to power conditioning, power cords and so on in general. I can't tell which connection is the best, but I'm sure that the mac mini toslink is worst (against my expectation). In so far that I suspended the ripping of my cd collection untill I find a better solution for playback. Difference between CEC toslink and CEC ASE/EBU is clear from the first second you switch every time. But so far I cannot decide which is best. The toslink sounds fuller, gives more bass and maybe somewhat more reverb. But the ase/ebu seems more detailed, f.i. when listening to large orchestral works with choirs (complex textures). Which one is right? I don't know, maybe neither is.... johan
  11. If modern dacs, like the bel canto dac3, are immune to jitter, what is then an explanation for the difference I hear between 3 connections: CEC transport -> AES/EBU -> DAC3 CEC transport -> Wireworld glass toslink -> DAC3 Mac Mini -> Wireworld glass toslink -> DAC3? Especially the difference in the case of the same Wireworld with the Mac Mini and CEC puzzles me. Is there another element in play then 'bit-perfectness' and 'jitter', or is it jitter anyway? Johan
×
×
  • Create New...