MacOS Midi settings question

[dB Cooper]

Have a question about MIDI device settings on Mac. My main 'serious listening' setup involve USB from the Mac to a Schiit Modi Multibit DAC. 99% of the music I listen to is Redbook-origin 16/44.1 FLAC files or Tidal HiFi, although I have a smattering of 24/96, a stray 24/192or two, and a few analog rips digitized using an el cheapo Behringer A/D-D/A that sounds better than it should.

 

Schiit suggested 24/44.1 based on the above but wondering about how that would handle the 24/96.

 

At least one of the Softwares I play from, Fidelia, sets the Midi parameters to optimize for the file and output device (I think Vox does the same), but sometimes I use others for various reasons and I was wondering if anyone has any guidance: Do I set the parameters to the highest file spec or does that just make the CPU work harder upsampling the files? Likewise, would too-low settings reduce SQ? Of course, I can just stick to the players that control the MIDI settings, but I'm just curious. The default setting for 'system output' seems to be 16/48 btw. Sierra/MBPR late 2013

 

 

Thanks

[Bob Stern]

Most audiophile music player software, such as Fidelia that you mentioned, overrides the settings in Audio MIDI.

 

What other music player software are you using for serious listening?

[dB Cooper]

Vox, which does the same thing IIRC, but I use VLC now and then.

 

I keep hearing that I should try Plex, which may be a different conversation.

[SHANKAR]

I had the same question with Schiit Modi Multibit and Mac. The support guy suggested set MIDI to highest setting and the Modi takes over and processes depending on the source. On Tidal I disabled Exclusive use and enabled maximum volume. I am still in process of trying out.

[AudioDoctor]

If MIDI is set to anything other than the file bit/sample rate, then Core Audio will resample the file.  Core Audio is not the best at this. The best way to do it is to use some program to play the music that sets the sample rate in MIDI to match the file being played automatically. If you do that, you never need to touch Audio MIDI.

[kirkmc]

13 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

If MIDI is set to anything other than the file bit/sample rate, then Core Audio will resample the file.  Core Audio is not the best at this. The best way to do it is to use some program to play the music that sets the sample rate in MIDI to match the file being played automatically. If you do that, you never need to touch Audio MIDI.

 

Why is CoreAudio not the best at this? This seems to be a widely held opinion, but is there any evidence that this is true? Is there any empirical evidence that proves that these more expensive "audiophile" player apps do this any better? 

[SHANKAR]

The two DACs I have tried were both capable of recognizing the sample rate. All I had to do was bypass the MIDI and give the Tidal Music app exclusive use of the DAC.

[AudioDoctor]

10 hours ago, kirkmc said:

 

Why is CoreAudio not the best at this? This seems to be a widely held opinion, but is there any evidence that this is true? Is there any empirical evidence that proves that these more expensive "audiophile" player apps do this any better? 

 

You can find out for yourself by using a program that switches the sample rate for you, and then turning that off and letting Core Audio resample all your music and see which you like best.  Or, even let the software player resample your music, such as A+ or Jriver, and then let Core audio do it.

Luckily it is a dead simple test for anyone to do. Personally, I can tell the difference immediately even if the audio isn't being resampled, but just passing through Core Audio versus having a direct connection to the audio device (bypassing Core Audio)

[wwaldmanfan]

I use Audirvana for critical listening, but when I want to play the same music in multiple rooms simultaneously, I use iTunes with AirPlay and Airport Express units. My music server is a MBP laptop, I run Audio MIDI Setup in the background. You can change bit and sample rates on the fly in Audio MIDI Setup to match the file's native sample rate in real time while iTunes is playing, but, as we know, you still have to do it manually.

[Ralf11]

21 hours ago, kirkmc said:

 

Why is CoreAudio not the best at this? This seems to be a widely held opinion, but is there any evidence that this is true? Is there any empirical evidence that proves that these more expensive "audiophile" player apps do this any better? 

 

Other than lack of DSD, I have no idea.  As of now, there seems to be no evidence (beyond advertising claims).

 

One thing to do is to list all the putative improvements of A+ or others and then see if they make any sense.  For example, A+ claims it can tun off all the processes in in the OS that degrade SQ, but when @wgscott started a thread asking for which processes might degrade SQ, no one came up with any.

 

Another thing to do is a blind listening test to see if A+ et al. can be distinguished from the Core Audio route.

[kirkmc]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

One thing to do is to list all the putative improvements of A+ or others and then see if they make any sense.  For example, A+ claims it can tun off all the processes in in the OS that degrade SQ, but when @wgscott started a thread asking for which processes might degrade SQ, no one came up with any.

 

That is one of the most egregious examples of magical thinking I've heard in a long time. There are more than 100 processes that run on a Mac, and it's very hard to imagine that certain of them degrade sound quality. If that's the case, they should be able to show audio output before and after; if not, y'all are just being taken for fools. 

[AudioDoctor]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Other than lack of DSD, I have no idea.  As of now, there seems to be no evidence (beyond advertising claims).

 

One thing to do is to list all the putative improvements of A+ or others and then see if they make any sense.  For example, A+ claims it can tun off all the processes in in the OS that degrade SQ, but when @wgscott started a thread asking for which processes might degrade SQ, no one came up with any.

 

Another thing to do is a blind listening test to see if A+ et al. can be distinguished from the Core Audio route.

 

Ralf, come by sometime.  You'll notice it immediately.  You'll also notice immediately the difference between the Apple enforced non direct mode, and the hacked Direct Mode enabled.

[kirkmc]

6 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Ralf, come by sometime.  You'll notice it immediately.  You'll also notice immediately the difference between the Apple enforced non direct mode, and the hacked Direct Mode enabled.

 

Of course you'll notice it, because you're expecting to notice it. I wonder if that app doesn't boost the volume just a tiny bit because, as we all know, louder sounds better. 

 

I would love to see some honest proof that any of this makes a difference to sound quality. Not marketing blurbs, or subjective forum posts. 

 

Some years ago, Macworld asked me to review one of these audiophile player apps. (I honestly don't remember the name.) I had a call with one of the developers, and he was literally unable to tell me why it sounded better than playing music through iTunes (and CoreAudio). 

[jhwalker]

16 minutes ago, kirkmc said:

 

Of course you'll notice it, because you're expecting to notice it. I wonder if that app doesn't boost the volume just a tiny bit because, as we all know, louder sounds better. 

 

I would love to see some honest proof that any of this makes a difference to sound quality. Not marketing blurbs, or subjective forum posts. 

 

Some years ago, Macworld asked me to review one of these audiophile player apps. (I honestly don't remember the name.) I had a call with one of the developers, and he was literally unable to tell me why it sounded better than playing music through iTunes (and CoreAudio). 

 

I've only noticed one instance where Audirvana sounded DEFINITIVELY, REPEATEDLY better than iTunes - on one particular recording of a tenor singer, iTunes repeatedly induced a "crackle" on certain notes - the same track, played back through Audirvana, did NOT produce a crackle.  Again, this was obvious and repeatable, but I have no idea how to validate exactly how 1) the issue was induced in iTunes or 2) the issue was avoided with Audirvana.  No expectation bias, because the issue was easily reproduced.

 

I also had an instance some time back where I ACCIDENTALLY played back a track through iTunes instead of another player - I noticed immediately there was something "wrong" (i.e., music sounded "bad"), but took me a while to recognize I was listening to iTunes instead of the audiophile player.  In this case, I EXPECTED the music to sound "good" and was disappointed, so expectation bias was not a factor.

 

I'd like to think that all competent players produce exactly the same results, but my experience has proven different, unfortunately

[kirkmc]

1 minute ago, jhwalker said:

 

I've only noticed one instance where Audirvana sounded DEFINITIVELY, REPEATEDLY better than iTunes - on one particular recording of a tenor singer, iTunes repeatedly induced a "crackle" on certain notes - the same track, played back through Audirvana, did NOT produce a crackle.  Again, this was obvious and repeatable, but I have no idea how to validate exactly how 1) the issue was induced in iTunes or 2) the issue was avoided with Audirvana.  No expectation bias, because the issue was easily reproduced.

 

I also had an instance some time back where I ACCIDENTALLY played back a track through iTunes instead of another player - I noticed immediately there was something "wrong" (i.e., music sounded "bad"), but took me a while to recognize I was listening to iTunes instead of the audiophile player.  In this case, I EXPECTED the music to sound "good" and was disappointed, so expectation bias was not a factor.

 

I'd like to think that all competent players produce exactly the same results, but my experience has proven different, unfortunately

 

Two things to check in iTunes are EQ and Sound Check. Either of those can introduce distortion. I recall many years ago, I was hearing distortion on a number of files I had bought by download, and it took a while for me to think of checking the EQ. It was on, and I hadn't recalled turning it on, but I certainly had done so for testing, or an article I was working on. Crackling describes the type of sound I was hearing with those files. 

[jhwalker]

1 minute ago, kirkmc said:

 

Two things to check in iTunes are EQ and Sound Check. Either of those can introduce distortion. I recall many years ago, I was hearing distortion on a number of files I had bought by download, and it took a while for me to think of checking the EQ. It was on, and I hadn't recalled turning it on, but I certainly had done so for testing, or an article I was working on. Crackling describes the type of sound I was hearing with those files. 

 

Confirmed both were turned off, as well as Audio MIDI set to the correct sample rate (e.g., no resampling occurring).

[kirkmc]

If you think how widely Logic is used in studios, and the fact that it uses CoreAudio (though you can set it to use a hardware device), then you have to assume that Apple is held accountable for the quality of that framework by the most demanding users. 

[kirkmc]

1 minute ago, jhwalker said:

 

Confirmed both were turned off, as well as Audio MIDI set to the correct sample rate (e.g., no resampling occurring).

 

And do you recall at the time restarting your computer? Do you still have the files where you heard that problem? 

[kirkmc]

3 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

Confirmed both were turned off, as well as Audio MIDI set to the correct sample rate (e.g., no resampling occurring).

 

And the fact that this only happened once suggests that it was either an iTunes glitch, a general computer glitch, or something odd in the file you were playing back. 

[jhwalker]

26 minutes ago, kirkmc said:

 

And the fact that this only happened once suggests that it was either an iTunes glitch, a general computer glitch, or something odd in the file you were playing back. 

 

As I said, it didn't happen ONCE, it is repeatable today.  I agree there may be an issue with the file, but the fact that it plays back perfectly in Audirvana means that there is SOME value in what Audirvana is doing vs. iTunes.

 

In any case, I'm not interested in debating it just sharing my experience and validating there ARE differences between players, much as I'd wish there weren't.

[kirkmc]

2 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

As I said, it didn't happen ONCE, it is repeatable today.  I agree there may be an issue with the file, but the fact that it plays back perfectly in Audirvana means that there is SOME value in what Audirvana is doing vs. iTunes.

 

In any case, I'm not interested in debating it just sharing my experience and validating there ARE differences between players, much as I'd wish there weren't.

 

So it's repeatable on one file. All that suggests is that one player is better than another at dealing with some sort of problem or corruption in a given file, not that the player is better at playing back music. I wouldn't classify that as saying that there "ARE differences between players," other than the fact that they handle corruption better. (ie, it's possible that CoreAudio is more demanding, which could be seen as a better, or that Audirvana is better at dealing with corruption, which could also be seen as better.)

[jhwalker]

Just now, kirkmc said:

 

So it's repeatable on one file. All that suggests is that one player is better than another at dealing with some sort of problem or corruption in a given file, not that the player is better at playing back music. I wouldn't classify that as saying that there "ARE differences between players," other than the fact that they handle corruption better. (ie, it's possible that CoreAudio is more demanding, which could be seen as a better, or that Audirvana is better at dealing with corruption, which could also be seen as better.)

 

Agreed.

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, kirkmc said:

 

Of course you'll notice it, because you're expecting to notice it. I wonder if that app doesn't boost the volume just a tiny bit because, as we all know, louder sounds better. 

 

I would love to see some honest proof that any of this makes a difference to sound quality. Not marketing blurbs, or subjective forum posts. 

 

Some years ago, Macworld asked me to review one of these audiophile player apps. (I honestly don't remember the name.) I had a call with one of the developers, and he was literally unable to tell me why it sounded better than playing music through iTunes (and CoreAudio). 

 

It appears the same could be said for why you're not hearing it.  

[kirkmc]

Just now, AudioDoctor said:

 

It appears the same could be said for why you're not hearing it.  

 

QED.

[dubulup]

A+ direct mode lifts a veil.

 

I’ve experienced the same as jhwalker.