noob here, trying to find the light....

[Hambone]

Help the silly newbie, please.

 

I am a music lover that has everything from SACDs to HQ vinyl to MFSL CDs in my collection. However, space recently became a concern for me (i.e., my wife told me to get rid of a bunch of stuff).

 

So over the past year or so, I have steadily converting my physical music collection to digital. I already have my trusty, beaten-up headphones so I'm set there. Now I've been doing (or trying to do) some research, but I am still mostly in the dark when it comes to getting the most out of my computer, audio-wise. I thought my regular home audio guy was bad about being intentionally vague (which I guess I understand because at the end of the day, audio preferences are all subjective anyway and he just wants to make a sale), but some of the people I've spoken to about high-end computer audio can't give me a straight answer on anything!

 

I have a early 2009 Mac. Now, some have told me that I should get a headphone amp in conjunction with at least a 24/96 DAC (one friend, whose opinion I value, suggested the NuForce uDac-2 as a starting point because of the low price). Another guy told me that DACs are only really useful for comps with lower-quality soundcards, and the Mac should be fine as it is. Yet another guy told me that while the Mac does have a decent-quality soundcard, it only puts out max quality of 24/44.1 (have no idea if that's actually the case or not).

 

The headphone amp doesn't really worry me; my cans are low-impedance at only 32 ohms, and the Mac headphone output is 24 ohms, so it's not a huge deal. My biggest concern is that I have many SACD rips (@ 24/88.2 and 24/176) and vinyl rips (some @ 24/96, some @ 24/192).

 

I've never had much experience with DACs on my regular setup; to me, the improvement was detectable, but only slightly so and definitely not worth the extra money at the time. But now, I want to make sure that I'm not losing out in the process of porting my stuff to the computer because of my inexperience with using it as a dedicated listening station.

 

Do I need the DAC or not? Does it make that much of a difference on the Mac? (If it matters, I'm listening in ALAC using basic iTunes only; I don't use Hear or anything like that.)

 

[losingmyreligion]

 

 

You failed to mention one thing - how far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go?

 

Pick a number, any number, between 0 and infinity.

 

clay

 

 

[mayhem13]

Here's your first ray of sunshine that should help you base your remaining decisions on. It's been long overdue.

 

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

 

[Hambone]

read, that paper. As I understand it, what they're saying is that SACDs and the like sound better not because the technology is inherently better or because of a higher bit rate, but because the engineers are freed from having to work with the artificial loudness and extra compression that companies think most consumers want. I've heard that before and I agree, to a point; sometimes, the differences are just plain psychological.

 

How does that work with vinyl rips, though? If I've ripped ten of my LPs at 24/192 direct from vinyl and then attempt playback through a source that only outputs at 24/44.1, naturally the signal quality will degrade, won't it? In that case, wouldn't a DAC prove useful? I just want to cover all my bases before I sit back and say, "okay, I've got it now."

 

[flatmap]

I listen through headphones, hours at a time. I find that I'm more intolerant of noise via headphones. Without a separate DAC, I can only listen for about 30 minutes before I'm worn out. For me this is a major point.

 

On the question of headphone amps, it does depend substantially on your headphones. Generally speaking, you can get a more dynamic, more exciting sound with an amp. Usually the sound is 'fuller' across the range from high to low. But how much, if any, improvement will depend on your current headphones.

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

 

[mayhem13]

The main premise of the paper was that if an hd source was played back at both it's original sample rate, when compared to the down converted 16bit version, listeners were unable to discern between the two. What was clearly apparent and you picked up on it was that SACD masters sound better than redbook.....but the reasons aren't due to the higher sampling rate but the overall engineering an mixing process. And rightfully so as the mass market could care less about audio quality so why should engineers and record companies be concerned with anything but loudness. But record companies recently are finding a renewed revenue source with remastered classics. Hopefully the trend continues.

 

But that's getting off topic. The point of the article was that in almost complete contrast to the very existence of this forum, higher bitrate content is indistinguishable from redbook. That should save the OP quite a headache and quite a few $$$.....better served with a quality standard bit rate DAC and first rate analog playback gear as that's where all the real flavor is.

 

Oh, excuse my ignorance but how do you 'rip' SACD?

 

[mayhem13]

Fatigue is a big part of this hobby and has more to do with odd order distortion and frequency response anomalies than it does with the DAC.

 

[Hambone]

were all ripped via my cousin's backwards compatible PS3 using SACD Ripper. From that program, you can create an .ISO which you can either burn to a DVD-R and make a physical backup of the SACD layer, or what I do is extract the tracks from the .ISO into WAV files using Foobar, and from there convert to ALAC using XLD. It seems like a lot , but unfortunately Foobar doesn't natively convert to ALAC, and XLD won't decode SACD .ISO files from what I've seen.

 

[Hambone]

I have a pair of Grado SR-80s which have served me pretty well, even though they're a bit beat up (no "grattle" yet). I never needed a DAC or preamp when I used them on my home system, but with the computer, I don't know if I will or won't. I've heard so many horror stories at this point about listening to music on the computer--fan noise, distortion because you didn't choose the right format, interference from the motherboard, and on and on and on (although I haven't heard of any of these issues being prevalent on the Mac desktop)--that I really don't know. Probably going to get something just for peace of mind.

 

[dallasjustice]

If that's what the authors of that study think a high-end setup looks like, then I am not surprised nobody could hear the difference with a the redbook loop. Funny how they don't mention details of the rooms or gear they used. The picture doesn't look promising though.

 

[mayhem13]

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to justify their overindulgence by criticizing the testing......

 

There's just no away to listen to music under the $20,000 price point is there?...

 

[dallasjustice]

You will see that the first thing I mentioned was the room. You don't need a $20,000 system. You do NEED to know how to set it up and find a suitable room. Did you look at the photo shown? Those are probably 3 way speakers with the listening chair maybe 5 or 6 feet away, speakers maybe 1 foot off bookshelf/wooden entertainment center wall and the gear stacked up on a bookshelf. Are you kidding me?

 

The best advice I can give the OP is that you should first find the best room you can. You should then pickup a copy of Jim Smith's book to learn how to set your system up.

 

[mayhem13]

Ahhhh but that arrangement DOESN'T allow for room interaction and in testing environment, that's exactly what you want as it's the source material your analyzing and not the acoustics of the space. With unfamiliar source material in your own space, do you think you could be more than 60 percent accurate? My system is pretty respectable and my room fully measured and treated. That being said, I'm humble enough to admit that it's a bet I wouldn't be willing to make.

 

[bikemig]

Depending on the headphones you use, you don't necessarily need an amp. The headphone out on the mac does a reasonable job of driving 32 ohm headphones. The dac in the mac is capable of playing hi res files but you will need to tweak the audio midi settings or use a different player that can make the changes for you. That said, you certainly can get for relatively small amount of money a better dac than the one your mac has so the question is, as one of the previous posts put it, how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go. I have used the nuforce udac 2 and I think if you want an improvement over your current set-up, you should by a better headphone amp/dac.

 

[wdomeika]

Divorce might be the less expensive option...

 

 

 

[mayhem13]

Lol....Sad but true!

 

 

 

[dallasjustice]

There are not many three way speakers (if any) you can sit that close to without serious phase distortions. How do you know this setup will take the room out of the equation? I also know of very few 3 way speakers that sound decent less than 1 foot off of front wall. There's no way to peer review this study if the authors refuse to reveal the underlying testing procedure. It's a WOT to discuss any further.

 

[mayhem13]

You took it way off topic, so please allow my rebuttal. Did you even bother to READ the paper or did you just scan the pix?.......How bout the parts where multiple systems in multiple locations?

 

Phase distortion........really? .....

 

How where you able to deduce that the speakers pictured are actually a three way topology?

 

Please, instead of just inserting a subjective opinion, now that you've muddled the waters with comments, kindly due me a kindness and actually READ the paper?

 

 

[Jud]

Depending on the DAC you choose, divorce might be the less expensive option...

 

Lol....Sad but true!

 

Have a $450 DAC I really like (Schiit Bifrost). The nuForce, of course, is even less. Both will, I think, provide better sound than the digital-to-analog conversion of your Mac. (The Mac, by the way, will put out 24/96 digital through the mini-toslink output, and virtually unlimited resolution, anything any DAC you have will be able to handle, through the USB output.) Don't know about the nuForce, but the Bifrost offers a 15-day in-home trial.

 

There is player software that some folks like better than iTunes. One, BitPerfect, is I believe $5 through the App Store. The others are a bit more expensive (not horribly so except for the full version of Amarra), and they have free trial periods: Pure Music, Decibel, Fidelia, Amarra (the "affordable" Amarra version is around ~$100; it's by far the most expensive player) and the one I use, Audirvana Plus. If one of them makes an appreciable difference for you and it's at a price you care to pay, good; if not, hey, you've saved a bit of money.

 

So try, and if you like, buy a DAC; try, and if you like, buy player software. Should give you a pretty nice listening experience through your headphones.

 

I enjoy music on my main system with my MacBook Pro, new DAC, and speakers, and on my office system with my self-built PC, old DAC, and headphones or bookshelf speakers. If you've got lots of material to enjoy, and it looks like you do, then you'll have lots of fun in store.

 

[Jud]

Mr. Mayhem is that species that lives under bridges, on this audiophile site spoiling for a fight with anyone who says any audiophile-type gear or recording makes any difference at all to the sound.

 

The only sure remedy for the species is to starve it.

 

[dallasjustice]

You posted the link to the bogus study, not me. How do I know that they are 3 way speakers? How do you know they are not 3 ways? That's my second point; the authors say nothing about the gear they use.

 

If you can't tell the difference between native DSD playback and downsampled redbook of same, then it appears the only thing that is humble is your system, your room or your setup. :-)

 

 

 

[jhwalker]

Had you actually read the study, you'd see this passage:

 

"Most of the tests were done using a pair of highly regarded, smooth-measuring full-range loudspeakers in a rural listening room with an ambient noise floor of about 19 dBA SPL, all electronics on (see Fig. 2). We also took the test setup to several other locations: a Boston-area mastering facility with very large four-way studio monitors; a local university audio facility, again with large high-powered monitors in a custom-designed listening space (the subjects for this test were students in the recording program); and a private high-end listening room equipped with well-reviewed electrostatic loudspeakers and very expensive electronics and cables."

 

In none of these environments - over the course of a year, with a wide variety of listeners, a wide variety of music, and using *hundreds of trials* - were the listeners able to reliably tell the difference between DVD-A / SACD output and the same music downsampled to 16/44.

 

 

[jhwalker]

 

 

[jhwalker]

 

 

I only clicked "Save" once, but somehow this got posted three times sorry.

 

[mayhem13]

Thanx Jh......

 

Not an unreasonable deduction given the criteria.

 

Look, I'm just as much a hobbyist as anyone here and I believe whole heartedly in the quest for improved performance. What 'gets' me are the wild assed claims of viable performance gains based on NOTHING but random individual speculations that do little to help the hobby. Because of this, the term audiophile itself has become a bit of joke in itself. IMO the PC holds it's biggest promise in usability, stability and lastly playability.

 

Spend the money on the Analogue guys............