Computer Audio Design OSX Audio Optimization Script

[Computer Audio Design]

There are actually measurements that can help people understand sound quality, so maybe we can have some measurements on the effects of the script?

 

In terms of computer speed or any other objective parameter that could make our audio sound better.

For example, you state that wi-fi decreases sound quality. How can you prove it?

 

Sigh....

 

I try to never state the something definitely improves sound quality. I think if you read my posts I always try to state in my opinion it improves sound quality.

 

 

I did not start this thread to discuss how and what measurements relate to sound quality. If you wish to discuss such matters please start a new thread - I may even join in!

 

 

If you do decide to take the time to actually try the script and then want to give input on what you feel the impact on sound quality is please do! Otherwise I would please ask you to start another thread about your ideas.

 

 

Damian and I have spent many many hours working on these scripts. Computer Audio Design makes no money from this work - they are free. So we don't have to prove anything. : )

 

Best Regards,

 

Scott

[Leonardo Piras]

Sigh....

 

I try to never state the something definitely improves sound quality. I think if you read my posts I always try to state in my opinion it improves sound quality.

 

 

I did not start this thread to discuss how and what measurements relate to sound quality. If you wish to discuss such matters please start a new thread - I may even join in!

 

 

If you do decide to take the time to actually try the script and then want to give input on what you feel the impact on sound quality is please do! Otherwise I would please ask you to start another thread about your ideas.

 

 

Damian and I have spent many many hours working on these scripts. Computer Audio Design makes no money from this work - they are free. So we don't have to prove anything. : )

 

Best Regards,

 

Scott

 

Hey Scott, don't take it so hard.

I really appreciate your work.

 

I tested your script and somehow it messed up my OSX user so I had to start many pieces software from the command line, was unable to update security and on top of that the original state of the system was impossible to recover.

 

I also have to keep wi-fi turned on because of the remote apps, and I have a macbook air so no wired ethernet whatsoever.

Like you said, the script is free and it comes as is, so no particular complaints. I was just curious.

[Computer Audio Design]

Hey Scott, don't take it so hard.

I really appreciate your work.

 

I tested your script and somehow it messed up my OSX user so I had to start many pieces software from the command line, was unable to update security and on top of that the original state of the system was impossible to recover.

 

I also have to keep wi-fi turned on because of the remote apps, and I have a macbook air so no wired ethernet whatsoever.

Like you said, the script is free and it comes as is, so no particular complaints. I was just curious.

 

Sorry if I overreacted, I have been here before.

 

 

Hmmm, sounds like you had some real problems with the script. For any types of updates I think it is best to run the reset script, do whatever needs to be done and then run the optimize script again.

 

 

You can go in and manually turn wifi back on if you need it after the script runs.

 

 

Give it another go and let us know any specific failures. Details help.

 

 

Best Regards,

Scott

[CAD Support]

Hey CAD,

Have you tried it on Mac OSX 10.7.5? Any issues?

 

Hi Krzysztof,

 

We have not tested the script on 10.7.5, - only 10.8 and 10.9. If you are going to try it with 10.7 please make a full backup first as it could well leave your system in an un-bootable state. Also I would suggest answering no when it asks you if you want to disable Daemons and Agents.

 

Once again, the script has NOT been tested on 10.7.5 so please back up first if you're going to try it.

 

Thanks,

Damian

[mkrzych]

Hey CAD,

Have you tried it on Mac OSX 10.7.5? Any issues?

 

Hi Krzysztof,

 

We have not tested the script on 10.7.5, - only 10.8 and 10.9. If you are going to try it with 10.7 please make a full backup first as it could well leave your system in an un-bootable state. Also I would suggest answering no when it asks you if you want to disable Daemons and Agents.

 

Once again, the script has NOT been tested on 10.7.5 so please back up first if you're going to try it.

 

Thanks,

Damian

 

Why I should leave Daemons and Agents running on 10.7.5?

[Jud]

Why I should leave Daemons and Agents running on 10.7.5?

 

In order to turn off fewer things (at least at first) on a platform that hasn't been tested, to try to reduce the chance that something important for proper operation of the OS will be missing. Because of the number of things the script affects, and the number of changes that have occurred between 10.7.5 and the OS X versions the script has been tested with, I think caution is advised. It would be the very best thing to understand exactly what the script does and exactly what is running on your OS before trying it, but if you lack the time for something like that, I would take to heart the advice to make a full backup first.

[Superdad]

Hey CAD,

Have you tried it on Mac OSX 10.7.5? Any issues?

 

HI mkrzych: You really should consider leaving Lion (10.7) behind. Not only does it have a lot of internal operational inefficiencies (Mountain Lion is more stable with fewer memory and driver problems; Mavericks is vastly more efficient--in terms of suspending unused processes), but the SQ is not nearly as good as Mavericks. As for the CAD script, I think it was designed for Mavericks but works okay for Mountain Lion as well. Asking them to accommodate the thicket of old Lion is too much in my opinion.

 

Cheers,

Alex C.

[mkrzych]

Hey CAD,

Have you tried it on Mac OSX 10.7.5? Any issues?

 

HI mkrzych: You really should consider leaving Lion (10.7) behind. Not only does it have a lot of internal operational inefficiencies (Mountain Lion is more stable with fewer memory and driver problems; Mavericks is vastly more efficient--in terms of suspending unused processes), but the SQ is not nearly as good as Mavericks. As for the CAD script, I think it was designed for Mavericks but works okay for Mountain Lion as well. Asking them to accommodate the thicket of old Lion is too much in my opinion.

 

Cheers,

Alex C.

 

So in your opinion Alex is it audibke difference moving to Maverick? I am not that person who run for latest greatest if not needed ;-)

[wgscott]

Lion (10.7) was Apple's Vista. When I installed it on a slower mac mini, it audibly stuttered. 10.9 is incrementally better than 10.8, but both are vastly better than 10.7.

 

As for the launchagents and launchdaemons, they are designed for the most part to run only on demand. That is the whole point of the launchd mechanism, and why it is a major improvement over previous implementations. Adventures in launchd | Ars Technica

[mkrzych]

Lion (10.7) was Apple's Vista. When I installed it on a slower mac mini, it audibly stuttered. 10.9 is incrementally better than 10.8, but both are vastly better than 10.7.

 

As for the launchagents and launchdaemons, they are designed for the most part to run only on demand. That is the whole point of the launchd mechanism, and why it is a major improvement over previous implementations. Adventures in launchd | Ars Technica

 

OK, almost convinced. Seems that I should move to Maverick especially because it's free.

[Superdad]

So in your opinion Alex is it audible difference moving to Maverick?

 

For me, definitely.

 

And Bill, I love your calling Lion Apple's Vista! So true. ROFLFAO.

 

Do you have a beta of Yosemite yet? I watched the keynote live yesterday. Lots of interesting new features. Not much for music, but I am sure looking forward to the new Photos app next year as I have always loathed iPhoto.

[mkrzych]

For me, definitely.

 

And Bill, I love your calling Lion Apple's Vista! So true. ROFLFAO.

 

Do you have a beta of Yosemite yet? I watched the keynote live yesterday. Lots of interesting new features. Not much for music, but I am sure looking forward to the new Photos app next year as I have always loathed iPhoto.

 

OK, guys, already doing backup with SuperDuper! Tomorrow, upgrade to Maverick.

[Superdad]

OK, guys, already doing backup with SuperDuper! Tomorrow, upgrade to Maverick.

 

I suggest that you create a separate partition on your internal HD/SSD and do a totally clean install of Mavericks on that freshly formatted partition. This is MUCH better than allowing Apple's OS X installer to just "upgrade" your existing installation. There are good instructions on the web about procedure for creating bootable Mavericks installation thumb drives. I highly recommend DiskMaker X, but first read this ARSTechnica article: How to make your own bootable OS X 10.9 Mavericks USB install drive | Ars Technica

 

The other benefit of doing a clean install on a separate partition is that it makes it easy to reboot and compare SQ between the two.

 

Good luck!

[mkrzych]

OK, guys, already doing backup with SuperDuper! Tomorrow, upgrade to Maverick.

 

I suggest that you create a separate partition on your internal HD/SSD and do a totally clean install of Mavericks on that freshly formatted partition. This is MUCH better than allowing Apple's OS X installer to just "upgrade" your existing installation. There are good instructions on the web about procedure for creating bootable Mavericks installation thumb drives. I highly recommend DiskMaker X, but first read this ARSTechnica article: How to make your own bootable OS X 10.9 Mavericks USB install drive | Ars Technica

 

The other benefit of doing a clean install on a separate partition is that it makes it easy to reboot and compare SQ between the two.

 

Good luck!

 

That may take too much time and I am doing upgrade already over 5 years with no issues so far. Do you think that after upgrade I cannot benefit from better sound?

[Superdad]

That may take too much time and I am doing upgrade already over 5 years with no issues so far. Do you think that after upgrade I cannot benefit from better sound?

 

I think you will end up with a bunch of old stuff in your OS library folders, including some vestigial, unnecessary processes that may try to load. And the CAD script might have trouble. It is up to you: Invest an extra half hour now to do a truly clean install--or spend hours later on wondering why you have little glitches.

Just my humble opinion.

 

Even on my desktop work computer, I don't do major step OS upgrades (i.e. 10.8 to 10.9, as opposed to minor 10.8.2 to 10.8.3) without doing a completely clean install. For my work machine it takes me a lot more time to do it that way since I manually move a lot of stuff from Libraries and reinstall most of my app (always a good time to leave behind what I no longer use). For my minimalist music computer it is always very easy to do clean install--especially since there are always at least two partitions on my HD. Thus, the partition I used to use for Mountain Lion (now also with Mavericks for experimentation) will be perfect for the new Yosemite (10.10!), and my fully slimmed reference Mavericks partition will remain for comparison

[tipunch]

Hello,

I think that the processes which stay are essential for my system. (see my signature)

What do you think of it, did you manage to eliminate one of these processes?

For information, I absolutely uninstalled nothing, only to add lines to the cad script!

[Superdad]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13003[/ATTACH]

Hello,

I think that the processes which stay are essential for my system. (see my signature)

What do you think of it, did you manage to eliminate one of these processes?

For information, I absolutely uninstalled nothing, only to add lines to the cad script!

 

Well you have your processes down to just 66. And that is with Screen Sharing on. Very impressive. I don't see much else that can be safely eliminated. It's funny, I think that OS X for European Mac users ends up trimmer (fewer active processes) after the CAD script than it does for us here in the USA.

 

Regards,

Alex C.

 

P.S. I have had the CAD USB cable in my system since last Thursday and it sounds fantastic. Beautifully balanced and relaxed. It's a loaner but I might have to find a way to buy it!

[Bob Stern]

@Krzysztof:

If you have an i5 or i7 CPU, Mavericks upgrade should be fine, but if you have a Core2Duo CPU, Mountain Lion might work better. That is the recommendation of the developer of Pure Music, and it is my experience with my DAC. My Metric Halo Firewire driver has trouble playing 96 KHz files with Mavericks on my 2.4 GHz Core2Duo Mac Mini.

[Superdad]

@Krzysztof:

If you have an i5 or i7 CPU, Mavericks upgrade should be fine, but if you have a Core2Duo CPU, Mountain Lion might work better. That is the recommendation of the developer of Pure Music, and it is my experience with my DAC. My Metric Halo Firewire driver has trouble playing 96 KHz files with Mavericks on my 2.4 GHz Core2Duo Mac Mini.

 

Hi Bob:

Maybe the issue is with the Metric Halo driver and/or Pure Music. My music server is a 2010 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini with 8GB RAM, booting Mavericks off SD card and running Audirvana 1.5.10. Isotope upsampling Redbook to 24/352.8KHz without breaking a sweat and never glitching. DSD 128 over DoP runs fine (into an alternate DAC I was playing around with).

 

I actually find that Mavericks is less taxing than ML for general use as well. I finally installed it on my wife's Late-2009 mini (2.26GHz Core 2 Duo; also w/8GB, the machine that lost out in an SQ shootout last year), and both she and our son report that the machine is more responsive than with ML or Snow Leopard.

 

Cheers,

ALEX

[Bob Stern]

Thanks, Alex. That's useful feedback.

 

I mostly use Audirvana and it has the same problem as Pure Music, so I infer the cause is the Metric Halo driver.

 

Pro audio recording products generally are designed for short latency, which requires a very short data buffer, so it cannot tolerate hardly any interruption during which the computer fails to feed audio data to the buffer.

[elcorso]

Thanks, Alex. That's useful feedback.

 

I mostly use Audirvana and it has the same problem as Pure Music, so I infer the cause is the Metric Halo driver.

 

Pro audio recording products generally are designed for short latency, which requires a very short data buffer, so it cannot tolerate hardly any interruption during which the computer fails to feed audio data to the buffer.

 

Hi Bob,

 

It helps also using low latency Memory & SSD. For Windows this is must, but helps Mac OS also.

 

I have a friend with the same Mini as yours and in A+ if he try to upsample & iZotope, he get teetering with another DAC with his proprietary drivers.

 

I resolved mine under 2.6gHZ, Core i7 Mini, but still use low latency RAM & SSD. This was a recommendation from a DAC manufacturer. The problem is the price.

 

Best,

 

Roch

[mkrzych]

I have late 2008 2.0GHz Core2Duo with 8GB pf RAM. Will it be fine for Maverick?

[freddie40]

I have late 2008 2.0GHz Core2Duo with 8GB pf RAM. Will it be fine for Maverick?

 

Yes, it will work just fine.

 

I have Mavericks on my Late 2009 Mac Mini (DuoCore) as well as all over my customers machine (all used for music server). They run perfect with it. If Pure Music cannot handle it please remember that there are much better player out there such as JRiver and Audirvana.

 

Dave

[mkrzych]

Yes, it will work just fine.

 

I have Mavericks on my Late 2009 Mac Mini (DuoCore) as well as all over my customers machine (all used for music server). They run perfect with it. If Pure Music cannot handle it please remember that there are much better player out there such as JRiver and Audirvana.

 

Dave

 

Certainly, I use A+ only with Integrated and last time more and more with non Integrated with iTunes mode.

[mkrzych]

BTW, I can understand the idea of heaving less processes running in the background which decrease the I/O requests and then disk activity, but what actually Maverick did for the sound improvement under the hood? I don't use CoreAudio, instead I prefer iZotope, so what else?