MacBook Pro - optical out question

[MontyW]

Hi,

 

I'm sorry if this has been covered elsewhere in the forum - I did search but could not easily find a definative answer.

 

Can the optical out on the MacBook pro output to 176.4 kHz. The Apple spec says it can output to 192 kHz but I'm sure somewhere that I have read this is not possible through the 3.5mm mini Toslink?

 

Thanks,

 

Monty

 

 

 

[souptin]

Have just checked, and it won't let me choose anything above 96 kHz in the Audio MIDI Setup. I understand from other posts here that if you run Windows (eg via Parallels etc) on your Macbook you'll get higher, so it's a software limit not a hardware one. Haven't tried though. Perhaps someone else can confirm and tell us?

 

[Audio_ELF]

Has anyone checked if 192/24 and 176.4/24 is supported with the latest MacOS update to 10.5.7?

 

If now, guess have to wait for snowleopard.

 

[souptin]

Yes, and no.

 

too lazy to type "Yes I have, and no it doesn't

 

[Wavelength]

Guys,

 

Optical is not really suited for anything over 96K. Sure it will work but not that great. Most of the transmitters are barely hold specifications at those rates.

 

I have tested the Optical out on my MacBook and it was real good at 44.1/48 but higher rates were only so so.

 

Thanks

Gordon

 

[Adam Szablowski]

Hi Gordon,

 

I´m using my new MacBook Pro as HD Music Player since November 2008 via optical output (VandenHul Optocoupler MKII)

together with DAC of Burmester CDPlayer 052 which supports 24-bit/192kHz-Signal very well.

 

Technical Specs of MacBook Pro are 24/192 but it works only with Windows XP Pro with HD Audio Realtek - Driver (something like Audio-Midi.Setup for Windows XP) with foobar2000. No support for 176,4 (only 44, 48, 96, 192) but it sounds great to re-sample 176,4 to 192 via Burmester.

 

In my opinion there is only the question of the right driver for digital optical output with MacOSX for 192kHz.

 

I asked Apple Support in Germany, where I am from, and in USA many times about this not very exact specs, but I have not get any answer (!). The people of Support know less about computer audiophile playback, than all CA-user !

The Mac hardware brings the highest sound quality with Windows. Strange but true !

 

Now I hear (play) the AIFF 16/44,1-24/48-24/88.2-24/96 Files on MacOSX(10.5.6) via Preview, which sounds for me much better than iTunes. The 24/176,4-24/192 AIFF Files via foobar2000 with WindowsXP Pro is the best I have ever

heard. I use BootCamp.

 

I think, the quality of the optical cable ist very important too.

As I have changed the cheap (20$) optical connection to glass fibre of VanDenHul, I could hear the difference.

 

Before I started all my experiences I asked engineers of Burmaster, Berlin about it. They guaranteed the sound

only till 24/96kHz. The reality is other and it sounds great.

 

I've compared my System to Weiss Minerva, which I have tested for one week at home. I like Minerva very much

for this special analog, soft sound. Personally I prefer the more analytic playback of Burmester DAC inside

of CD-Player 052.

 

It works for my HD-System very well and it is possible to get out 24/192 Signal via optical output of MacBook Pro

(but only with Windows at this time)

 

 

Adam Sz.

 

 

 

 

[MontyW]

Adam - thanks for posting this - so at least one person is using the MacBook pro optical out at 192kHz - although via Windows and is happy with this ;-)

 

 

 

[Adam Szablowski]

Hi Monty,

 

I would be much happier, if it could work with MacOSX. But anyway this switching between two operation systems

is at the moment something like the "ceremony" of preparing your vinyl for playback in the highest quality...

 

Don't forget, your optical cable should be with mini-TOSlink to TOSlink. Don't use any adapter !

VdH Cable costs about 140$ I suppose. And you need of course one DAC which supports this SampleRate of 192kHz.

 

Adam

 

[MontyW]

Hi Adam,

 

I was thinking of going optical out via mini-Toslink to a AES/EUB XLR converter and direct to a pair of active monitors that supports 192kHz.

 

I've posted elsewhere about the AES/EUB converters that I'm interested in: Mutec and Lake People.

 

Thanks for the reply and advice.

 

[Wavelength]

Adam,

 

I am not saying it won't work. It just won't work very well.

 

Think of it like using 12" tires on a Lotus Espirt or a Ferrari. Sure it will work but how well will it corner

 

In looking at an interface that uses NRZ encoding it is best to use transmitters and receivers that are capable of 16x the speed. Ever since I used NRZ in my first network design back in 1981 that was the way to get the best results.

 

The ones used in the Apple products are nice but are only specified to 12.8M which is barely above the 12.288M that is required for 192k. Maybe this is why OSX limits it to 96K. Sure the CODEC can do 192k but maybe they thought the spec of the transmitter into consideration.

 

Thanks

Gordon

 

[Adam Szablowski]

Dear Gordon,

 

the biggest mystery for me is at the moment, why Apple gives the specs with 192k instead of 96k for MacOSX.

That's not very nice to the customers...

 

I have tested Weiss Minerva via Firewire, Burmester CD Player 052 DAC via TOSlink, Esoteric D-05 via TOSlink

(all with MacBook Pro - using preview playback for MacOSX und foobar2000 playback for Windows XP - AIFF 192k - Files)

and PowerMac G5 with M-Audio Audiophile 192 with digital RCA-coaxial connection.

 

I've compared the sound of MacBook Pro/Esoteric D-05 (192k) to very expensive analog equipment with vinyl tracks too.

My impression is, it sounds for me very good. Of course it is only my personally opinion. I've had the possibility to

hear B&W - Nautilus with Classé Amps and CD-Player in February (Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances RR and Acoustic Live

Tracks from Nils Lofgren), so I could compare it to my own "small" Burmaster/Mac solution. The difference in sound was not so big as the price difference...

 

As an audiophile architect I'm very happy with my equipment and the silent and simply connections between DAC

and computer, possibility to play without power supply via battery and SSD.

 

So I think, the best way is everytime to try and compare the possibilities and make our own experiences.

 

Especially with ears not with tech specs data !

 

Thanks

Adam

 

[Wavelength]

Adam,

 

Again as I said before... just because the Codec can do 192K doesn't mean the optical output can do 192K. Apple being who they are probably decided that 192K was not speced for that part and so they dropped it down to 96K were it belongs.

 

Just because it works, doesn't mean it's working well or even good.

 

Thanks

Gordon

 

[MontyW]

Just been reading Dan Lavry's comments on 192kHz - I guess for me 24 bit 96kHz is good enough!

 

 

 

 

[emw]

I do have a MacBookPro aswell and live in Germany aswell.

Could you let me know where you got the VDH toslink cable ?

I googled for it, but no luck sofare for a mini-toslink to toslink.

Thx

 

[Adam Szablowski]

Hi emw,

 

I know, there is a long way to find the right quality...

 

You can buy it at www.audio-reference.de

Phone number in Hamburg/Germany 040-533 20 359

I've ordered minitoslink/toslink 2 meters for about 99 €.

The 1,5 meter about 75 €. VdH is the best choice I think.

 

As I recognize there is one at audioquest (optilink-5) too, but very expensive.

The 1,5 meter about 517,- €. Ask at 040 - 29895548.

 

Where are you from in Germany ? Are you hearing HD - Music ?

 

Adam

 

[emw]

I live close to Stuttgart.

I have recently started to download some 24/96 songs.

But I´m not very much impressed by the quality, good recorded 16/44 are sometimes better than 24/96.

Furthermore from todays available material maybe only 10 % meets my musical taste.