Best possible sound on a Macbook Pro laptop?

[emmodad]

steve, if you've somewhere posted an explanation providing context for the "avoid Apple Lossless" recommendation, would you pls provide a link?

 

else, could you provide some info explaining why one would blanket "avoid Apple Lossless"?

 

just curious.

 

[audioengr]

I have had a number of reports from my customers that the iTunes ripper on a MAC has variable quality when ripping to ALAC directly. Experiments have been done to rip with EAC on a PC and then playback that file on a Mac as .wav and coverted to ALAC. The .wav always sounds better, and until the latest rev. of iTunes, the .wav ripped on the PC and moved to the Mac also sounded better. Now with the latest iTunes rev., I believe it's safe to rip AIFF or .wav using iTunes with correction enabled. They have evidently made some improvements in the latest rev.

 

Steve N.

 

[emmodad]

steve,

 

 

1/ you made a declarative statement: "avoid Apple-Lossless (ALAC)"

 

that statement, which specifically targets a lossless compression *codec*, is not addressed by your supplying anecdotal stories about purported ripping issues. the two topics are disjoint.

 

this forum has many readers who are attempting to learn and make informed decisions, trying to wade through many complex interlinked barriers to understanding: technology issues of digital audio, dsp, software, hardware, and system engineering which those persons may find new or difficult to understand; hype, whether from personal zealous belief or vendor agendae; misinformation, disinformation and downright nonsense.

 

declaring that one should "avoid" a given codec is not only potentially inflammatory, but can be reasonably understood to imply that you must be aware of reasons for avoiding that compression method. are you contending that ALAC as a compression format has flaws which render it inappropriate for use? if so, what are they?

 

hence, the reiterated request: would you kindly provide substantive information which would provide lucid explanation supporting your statement of "avoid(ing) Apple-Lossless (ALAC)"?

 

 

2/ as for "jitter is actually more important than the DAC": well, yes, jitter is indeed an important and relevant issue. I certainly believe in taking appropriate system-engineering steps to address jitter when practicable. have thought so for 30+ years of comms and digital audio engineering and design.

 

for an audiophile sourcing files from a server, such steps wrt addressing jitter could include any or all of: choice of physical interface and transport method; use of a 10-yr-old Genesis Digital Lens, or your Pace Car, or one of several other reclocking / "de-jittering" devices; or a DAC with exceptionally well-designed digital receiver and jitter suppression....... but to state that jitter is "more important" than the DAC.... :roll eyes: ..... many know who you are steve, but perhaps for a bit of ethical transparency and credibility, you may wish to qualify such postings by noting that a cornerstone of your business is selling one particular style of reclocker?

 

[audioengr]

"are you contending that ALAC as a compression format has flaws which render it inappropriate for use? if so, what are they?"

 

This is what has been reported by my customers, so this is just a warning. If you spend a lot of hours ripping thousands of disk to ALAC, you may regret it. First, do the comparisons and then do the rips is my advice.

 

"but to state that jitter is "more important" than the DAC.... :roll eyes: ..... many know who you are steve, but perhaps for a bit of ethical transparency and credibility, you may wish to qualify such postings by noting that a cornerstone of your business is selling one particular style of reclocker?"

 

This has also been reported by my customers that own the Pace-Car. They try several DACs and they all start to sound very similar, with the exception of the NOS DAC's, when fed a low-jitter signal, whereas they sound radically different driven from a typical CD player or without the Pace-Car. This leads to this conclusion, that most of the difference you are hearing in DACs is due to differences in how they handle jitter. The second-order effects are D/A chip, analog output section, digital and analog fiiltering etc.. I tend to believe that two things are equally important: Jitter and digital filtering.

 

This is not unlike the recent focus by many UK audiophiles on the source being most important, rather than the speakers. I am a believer in making the source as good as possible and only then worry about the rest of the system.

 

BTW, if we are throwing credentials around, I also have over 30 years digital design experience. I was a design team lead on the Pentium II.

 

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

 

 

 

 

[jnoneiliv1]

I've re-read this thread several times and I think I learn something new or get a new idea each time I read it.

 

And, I just want to thank Steve and Ashley for telling things like it is, at least in their informed opinion, since it is very helpful in sorting through the techno babble to get some straight up practical advice.

 

In particular I would like to offer my gratitude to Steve for sharing his observations. Reports from critical listeners is really helpful, but having someone who's put an iron to fiberglass share his observations is something extra. Far from a conflict of interest, if Steve emphasizes jitter as a key driver of listening satisfaction, he's potentially cut himself off from promoting Empirical DAC's in favor of the re-clockers. Right or wrong, this is a clear stance on tactics to improve digital reproduction.

 

When folks are putting their business and life's work behind their advice, let's cut them a little slack. Eh. It's a lot more than most of us invest in our opinions.

 

Cheers,

 

James

 

 

[Guest]

Well James, I for one can tell you that Steve knows what he is talking about. I don't own any of his products and probably didn't see eye to eye with a lot of his views. But over time I have seen that he is pretty much dead on with his assessments.

 

 

 

[jnoneiliv1]

The information available in these forums has really been awesome. I had nearly given up on putting together an audiophile grade system in my home until I started researching CA on this site. I figured I would rip all my CD's to hard drive and suffer low fidelity for convenience, leaving my CD's in full rez on disc to be used at a later date when technology caught up and prices went down on gear. I thought I had thrown in the towel.

 

Now, I'm convinced I'll have digital playback from a MacBook Pro (or even a PC for that matter) and any of several DAC solutions that will rival any CD player I could ever afford. AND, I can even get into some hi sample sources without buying a new expensive player again. Just download the files and get the data into a DAC that can convert it, re-clock, hi freq. filter, whatever. Swapping out silicon is cheap compared to the esoteric stuff of gear gone by.

 

I've followed Chris H.'s ripping guide, mostly to the letter, and have a good idea how to put together a "good" system. What's more, I think I could even get into a great system without breaking the bank. Until now, I think I had given up on ever reproducing the sound I auditioned in the hi fi store, and I'm too lazy for vinyl or even queuing up CD's for that matter. I'm so excited to be able to flip through my album art in iTunes and play anything at the click of a mouse. Even try out the genius feature to find new music, etc.

 

I think this is really an exciting time to be getting back into audiophile gear and CA has made the trip a real pleasure. I'm now looking at Peachtree's Decco as an entry point.

 

Cheers,

 

James