Audirvana Plus optimizations

[Jud]

I think Direct Mode may not be available in Snow Leopard. It is essentially an audio driver written by Damien to take the place of Core Audio in Lion and Mountain Lion in order to enable Integer Mode (actually better than Integer Mode) on those OSes.

 

Does your setup work on OS X without having to install additional driver software? If yes, then go ahead and upgrade to Mountain Lion, it sounds better.

[hifial]

Hi Jud and thanks. Unfortunately mine needs an additional driver from exaSound.

[Jud]

Hi Jud and thanks. Unfortunately mine needs an additional driver from exaSound.

 

Yeah, was thinking of Big Brother's setup - wouldn't want to recommend that he upgrade to ML only to find one of his pieces doesn't work on that OS.

[Melvin]

Yeah, was thinking of Big Brother's setup - wouldn't want to recommend that he upgrade to ML only to find one of his pieces doesn't work on that OS.

 

I agree with you Jud. That being said many, including Damien (I believe) think ML sounds better

[Superdad]

I agree with you Jud. That being said many, including Damien (I believe) think ML sounds better

 

It does indeed. Last year I did a very carefully controlled face-off between SL and ML. ML won handily.

I wonder what Mavericks will bring us? Who here will be the first to take the plunge when it ships?

 

What I really want is to meet a UNIX/OS X guru who can create either a script or build list of a radically stripped down OS X that has only enough to run a bare GUI, audio, and Screen Sharing. (Please don't point me to the usual set of terminal commands to kill things like Spotlight and other services; My music Mac already has all those and a whole bunch more processes stripped out--my shoret Activiity Monitor screen might surprise you.) No, what I really would like would be 95% control of all that gets installed by OS X in the first place. Heck, it is UNIX-based, why can't someone do a Debian/Lbuntu/whatever-type minimal OS X? I just want it to run iTunes (for library management) and A+.

[bigbrother52]

Yeah, was thinking of Big Brother's setup - wouldn't want to recommend that he upgrade to ML only to find one of his pieces doesn't work on that OS.

 

Exactly my concern with switching versions of OS X!

 

It does work right now on 10.6.8 OS X without additional drivers (of which I know nothing about) to the extent that I've already stated, but essentially, without Direct Mode in use, it doesn't sound exceptional.

 

It does sound fairly exceptional, (much better then I expected with the last update), for multi-channel music coming from such a little computer especially since transmitted via HDMI and utilizing a lowly dual core processor.

 

I do believe that most other audio programs currently available require more then a dual core processor to decode 5.1 channels directly from an SACD ISO. I think it's a pretty remarkable task to accomplish well with just a dual core but A+ can do it, albeit, with this quirk at time of sample rate change.

I've checked, the processor is working very hard but it does manage, at least with the version of OS X currently installed.

I personally have not tried any other player that can decode 5.1 from SACD ISO's but have been told I probably wouldn't reach the benchmark.

 

I should probably take the chance anyway as I should probably be able to restore the version of OS X I'm currently running from disk and a whole lot of updating.

My Mini is also a dual boot machine with Windows 7 installed via Bootcamp.

Now I'm no computer geek, so all of this would be an awful lot of work for me, and I don't have Apple's support anymore. I probably spent a solid 2 weeks on the phone when I setup these laptops and the Mini the way they are.

 

A little nervous I guess to try the new OS X and find that the dual core processor is completely overwhelmed and can't decode 5.1 channels from an SACD's ISO anymore. Then, to attempt to put the Mini back in it's current state without help might be a nightmare. Or, maybe it's just a simple thing to do. I've only ever had to do anything of this sort just the one time before.

[Jud]

I agree with you Jud. That being said many, including Damien (I believe) think ML sounds better

 

It does indeed. Last year I did a very carefully controlled face-off between SL and ML. ML won handily.

I wonder what Mavericks will bring us? Who here will be the first to take the plunge when it ships?

 

What I really want is to meet a UNIX/OS X guru who can create either a script or build list of a radically stripped down OS X that has only enough to run a bare GUI, audio, and Screen Sharing. (Please don't point me to the usual set of terminal commands to kill things like Spotlight and other services; My music Mac already has all those and a whole bunch more processes stripped out--my shoret Activiity Monitor screen might surprise you.) No, what I really would like would be 95% control of all that gets installed by OS X in the first place. Heck, it is UNIX-based, why can't someone do a Debian/Lbuntu/whatever-type minimal OS X? I just want it to run iTunes (for library management) and A+.

 

Darwin was Apple's open source parallel to OS X. Don't know if they kept it up, or what it's capable of running.

[Jud]

Bigbrother, would suggest blowing away the Bootcamp partition, unless you really need it, and splitting your machine between SL and ML until you're sure everything works on ML.

 

Or buy a more recent model refurbished Mini from the Apple Store.

[dca58]

Darwin was Apple's open source parallel to OS X. Don't know if they kept it up, or what it's capable of running.

Darwin is (or was) the core of OSX, which is thus built on top of Darwin and add things like the GUI which is obviously required by iTunes.

It is possible when installing OSX to choose a custom installation instead of the default one and avoid to install superfluous things like printer drivers and foreign language translations. That's quite handy to save disk space.

[bigbrother52]

Bigbrother, would suggest blowing away the Bootcamp partition, unless you really need it, and splitting your machine between SL and ML until you're sure everything works on ML.

 

Or buy a more recent model refurbished Mini from the Apple Store.

 

Good suggestion!

 

It's pretty clear that my need is now far greater then this dual core processor can comfortably handle.

I had to give this great little computer my best shot when A+ arrived with it's multi-channel, hi-rez capabilities.

I think I've done that now, with the help of various people here and on other forums and it seems like it's time to move forward.

 

I actually did look on the Apple website at the refurbs as you suggested and I know that stuff must constantly change.

I don't want to take up much space in this thread with questions about machines but what I saw there looked reasonable....to me.

So my one question will be, would the Mini's server version of the machine be a suitable replacement? It had twin 1tb drives installed with an i7 & 4gb of RAM and looks like a decent deal.

I realize A+ is trying to shut down or get beneath as much of the OS X as possible and this version of machine would add a whole other level of software.

I imagine that the server software could probably be completely removed or not installed to begin with.

Otherwise, I'm guessing the two machines are probably identical.

 

Given that you and the guys here pretty much know what I'm trying to accomplish with playback and how, does this machine fill the bill for what I require?

 

I like the Mini's form factor and the way they work. The sound with A+ is no doubt as good or better then much of the custom building of computers I see many audiophiles trying to do.

I think I pretty much know what the drawbacks are of using a Mini in an audiophile setup and I'm willing to look past that stuff considering it probably won't stay in the system nearly as long as most of the other components anyway, just like my current Mini.

 

So if that machine gets along well with A+ and is capable of playing multi-channel SACD ISO's with ease, while still sounding exceptional, then it's probably something I should seriously consider.

 

Thanks

[VandyMan]

Keep in mind that a new version of Mac OS is a month or two away. You might want to just wait for now...

[mav52]

Hi Jud and thanks. Unfortunately mine needs an additional driver from exaSound.

 

I'm really considering the e20 along with the W4S DAC2se and also had a question about integer mode capability of the e20. I received this from George yesterday.

 

"The e20 is using only Integer data, however the Audirvana Direct mode is not

compatible with our drivers. At this time you won't be able to use our DACs in

Integer mode with Audirvana.

 

"We are working on a new driver design. It is a big project – three months so far. Hopefully we will have a better solution by the end of September.

 

Best regards,

 

George

exaSound Customer Service"

 

So hopefully exaSound will have a driver coming out later in the year...

[Esprit]

So hopefully exaSound will have a driver coming out later in the year...

Mytek! Can you read the above quote?

[Jud]

Bigbrother, would suggest blowing away the Bootcamp partition, unless you really need it, and splitting your machine between SL and ML until you're sure everything works on ML.

 

Or buy a more recent model refurbished Mini from the Apple Store.

 

Good suggestion!

 

It's pretty clear that my need is now far greater then this dual core processor can comfortably handle.

I had to give this great little computer my best shot when A+ arrived with it's multi-channel, hi-rez capabilities.

I think I've done that now, with the help of various people here and on other forums and it seems like it's time to move forward.

 

I actually did look on the Apple website at the refurbs as you suggested and I know that stuff must constantly change.

I don't want to take up much space in this thread with questions about machines but what I saw there looked reasonable....to me.

So my one question will be, would the Mini's server version of the machine be a suitable replacement? It had twin 1tb drives installed with an i7 & 4gb of RAM and looks like a decent deal.

I realize A+ is trying to shut down or get beneath as much of the OS X as possible and this version of machine would add a whole other level of software.

I imagine that the server software could probably be completely removed or not installed to begin with.

Otherwise, I'm guessing the two machines are probably identical.

 

Given that you and the guys here pretty much know what I'm trying to accomplish with playback and how, does this machine fill the bill for what I require?

 

I like the Mini's form factor and the way they work. The sound with A+ is no doubt as good or better then much of the custom building of computers I see many audiophiles trying to do.

I think I pretty much know what the drawbacks are of using a Mini in an audiophile setup and I'm willing to look past that stuff considering it probably won't stay in the system nearly as long as most of the other components anyway, just like my current Mini.

 

So if that machine gets along well with A+ and is capable of playing multi-channel SACD ISO's with ease, while still sounding exceptional, then it's probably something I should seriously consider.

 

Thanks

 

What's the most RAM a Mini will take? Find out if the model you're looking at will take that much. That's probably the most important thing. If this one won't, another will come along that does.

 

Internal drive storage is not tremendously important. External hard drives are pretty cheap these days, and so is RAM.

[Jud]

Darwin was Apple's open source parallel to OS X. Don't know if they kept it up, or what it's capable of running.

Darwin is (or was) the core of OSX, which is thus built on top of Darwin and add things like the GUI which is obviously required by iTunes.

It is possible when installing OSX to choose a custom installation instead of the default one and avoid to install superfluous things like printer drivers and foreign language translations. That's quite handy to save disk space.

 

Darwin didn't contain all of the core of OS X, since Apple wasn't giving away all the family jewels. But that's kind of semantics and not really important for our purposes. Whether Darwin can run A+ and iTunes is the important question. Just as a guess I would doubt it, but that's sheer speculation on my part.

[elcorso]

Darwin didn't contain all of the core of OS X, since Apple wasn't giving away all the family jewels. But that's kind of semantics and not really important for our purposes. Whether Darwin can run A+ and iTunes is the important question. Just as a guess I would doubt it, but that's sheer speculation on my part.

 

From Apple Developers: "Darwin can not sing, has chronic sore throat..."

 

Now talking seriously, I guess Damien, after A+ 1.5.5, filter most of the system process that could interferes with music reproduction. Setting to "Extreme" on SysOptimizer (and out of iTunes integration, of course). The rest is up to your DAC.

 

BTW, I'm trying on this days to get USB from Thunderbolt (in order to bypass the regular USB ports on the Mac). Nice results (to my ears) but limited to <192kHz with existing converters on the market. The famous Thunderbolt cable is a network, and a complicated one. I'm trying to build an direct adapter: Thunderbolt female to USB female, but parts (for Thunderbolt) are hard to find (or inexistent). From Apple forums, they had lost the hope Apple sells one, even if there is for Firewire and Ethernet.

 

Roch

[Bob Stern]

I'm trying on this days to get USB from Thunderbolt (in order to bypass the regular USB ports on the Mac).

 

Hi Roch,

 

I didn't know you could get USB from a Thunderbolt port!

 

You might want to research whether USB via Thunderbolt uses the same USB controller as the regular USB ports, in which case it would accomplish nothing in terms of reducing competition with other USB devices.

 

On the other hand, it is possible that the successive USB-Thunderbolt-USB adapters achieve some beneficial noise filtering.

[elcorso]

Hi Roch,

 

I didn't know you could get USB from a Thunderbolt port!

 

You might want to research whether USB via Thunderbolt uses the same USB controller as the regular USB ports, in which case it would accomplish nothing in terms of reducing competition with other USB devices.

 

On the other hand, it is possible that the successive USB-Thunderbolt-USB adapters achieve some beneficial noise filtering.

 

Hi Bob,

 

Yes, you can get virtually every port on the Mac. They made the Thunderbolt to Firewire adapter (for example) since some new Macs doesn't have a Firewire port.

 

Under the the USB Device Tree (with Thunderbolt connected) the connected device (in this case the DAC) is 'see' by the system as another USB device, but following diagrams this connection is more direct to the CPU.

 

USB trough Thunderbolt adapter

 

 

 

USB direct from computer USB port

 

The difference I found is like to remove another veil (to my ears). The USB controller looks the same in both cases. But also I'm 'forcing' the USB (via the Thunderbolt adapter) by USB 3.0 Also, when using the adapter it appear another device in the USB tree "PnP Sound device".

 

Roch

[Superdad]

Roch, that is VERY interesting to me. I knew my music server 2010 Core 2 Duo mini (last slim case still with an optical drive) does not show my USB DAC under a "hub" as in your example, so I checked my desktop mini (2011 i5) that does have Thunderbolt. And you are correct for that one, as my desktop DAC shows up under an internal "hub."

 

Perhaps that explains why, when I conducted a very carefully controlled shootout between 3 minis last year (late 2009, verses the above two), the 2010 won out sonically over the more powerful machine (all three had 8GB RAM, precisely the same Mountain Lion install and tweaks, etc.). The 2010 also beat the tall 2009, despite Steve Nugent's fondness for the latter. The 2009 even lost with a linear PS hooked up versus the 2010 with its stock internal switching supply (which I will soon be removing).

 

Thanks for the new insight. So maybe 2010 Mac mini's are the best (unless one does your Thunderbolt trick)!

[Esprit]

What I really want is to meet a UNIX/OS X guru who can create either a script or build list of a radically stripped down OS X that has only enough to run a bare GUI, audio, and Screen Sharing. .

I'm wainting for this: "We will be releasing a similar article for Mac computers soon. Watch these pages!"

Computer Audio Design » Computer setup

[dca58]

Darwin didn't contain all of the core of OS X, since Apple wasn't giving away all the family jewels. But that's kind of semantics and not really important for our purposes. Whether Darwin can run A+ and iTunes is the important question. Just as a guess I would doubt it, but that's sheer speculation on my part.

 

That's what I said, among others it lacks the GUI without which you can't run iTunes.

[VandyMan]

What's the most RAM a Mini will take? Find out if the model you're looking at will take that much. That's probably the most important thing. If this one won't, another will come along that does.

 

A little tip... My Mac Mini (2011) is claimed by Apple to support only 8 GB. It turns out that it can support 16 GB, but Apple will not tell you this for some reason. Maybe they think it will be unreliable, but I have had no issues.

[elcorso]

Roch, that is VERY interesting to me. I knew my music server 2010 Core 2 Duo mini (last slim case still with an optical drive) does not show my USB DAC under a "hub" as in your example, so I checked my desktop mini (2011 i5) that does have Thunderbolt. And you are correct for that one, as my desktop DAC shows up under an internal "hub."

 

Perhaps that explains why, when I conducted a very carefully controlled shootout between 3 minis last year (late 2009, verses the above two), the 2010 won out sonically over the more powerful machine (all three had 8GB RAM, precisely the same Mountain Lion install and tweaks, etc.). The 2010 also beat the tall 2009, despite Steve Nugent's fondness for the latter. The 2009 even lost with a linear PS hooked up versus the 2010 with its stock internal switching supply (which I will soon be removing).

 

Thanks for the new insight. So maybe 2010 Mac mini's are the best (unless one does your Thunderbolt trick)!

 

Alex, I agree with you, the Mini 2010 has a very nice SQ, even with the stock SPSU.

 

What could be interesting (for DAC manufacturers) is to build an Thunderbolt DAC, and of course for us, the final users with this port on the Mac.

 

I still own a 2010 Mini, I switched to the 2012 model when I ordered it with the LPSU since it was the only option. I always complain for USB ports as they are today, then DAC manufacturers should give an extraordinary importance how they filter it, since "galvanic isolation" is not the only issue.

 

Roch

[Esprit]

A Docking Station?

Thunderbolt

[santar]

Hi Damien,

 

I have found what I assume is a bug with 1.5.6. Don't know if it was present with previous versions.

 

When adding a DSD .dff album (one file) to iTunes via a .dff.cue file the last track is always missed, even though it is present in the cue file. It does not appear in the "Add to iTunes" window.

 

(Adding the .dff file you just get one track in iTunes for the entire album with the metadata of the last track - the one missing if added via the .cue file).

 

Have tried with a couple of different .dff album files with the same result.

 

Thanks/santar