Help! rDAC coax/hiFace/USB/192kHz conundrum

[shooter]

6th.replicant:Thanks for feedback, Shooter.

I've sussed the non-playback of 176kHz, by selecting permanent upsampling to 192kHz.

When using iTunes, I have its EQ and Sound Enhancer off, which IMHO produces a more 'organic' type of sound compared to Pure's brighter, albeit much more detailed, delivery.

TBH, I'm bewildered by Pure's EQ settings, which I assume are the 'AUDIOUNIT PLUG-INS'?

And, in Pure's context, what the hell is 'Dither'??

Look's like 15 day's a playing around!

More importantly though, how does it sound?

 

[6th.replicant]

shooter69:... More importantly though, how does it sound?
Way more detail, texture, imaging and 'air' etc but much too bright for my taste, acoustic instruments sound very synthetic.

For example, I've a 24/96 of some pukka flameco, Carlos Heredia, which is real blood 'n' guts stuff but Pure makes his guitar sound like a steel-stringed ukulele.

And as I mentioned, I really don't have a Scoobie re where to start with 'AUDIOUNIT PLUG-INS' (aka the EQ settings).

Is there a forum where one can ask re settings etc? (Don't want to keep wasting your time with dumb questions.

)

Ta

 

[shooter]

Its no problem and may take some playing around with to get the sound you want, at least your moving forward with it.

Pure Music dont have a forum so have a look at the Computer Audiophile Forums or Keith at Purite knows about PM so may be able to help, keep us informed.

 

[6th.replicant]

shooter69:Its no problem and may take some playing around with to get the sound you want, at least your moving forward with it.

Pure Music dont have a forum so have a look at the Computer Audiophile Forums or Keith at Purite knows about PM so may be able to help, keep us informed.

Cheers. Will do...

 

[Craig M.]

something is not right 6th, pure music should sound very similar to itunes if not the same.

when i tried the demo, my first thoughts were that it sounded a shade more natural then itunes. i didn't purchase the player though as i became less convinced there was a difference, and there is zero music i'm interested in at higher then cd bit-rates anyway.

i think the dithering aspect of it is used when upsampling, and maybe volume control, and, guessing here, is probably used to smooth out the parts between sample points.

i can't remember exactly how i had it setup, but i wasn't using any upsampling or eq. i think there is a thread on computer audiophile with setup advice.

 

[6th.replicant]

Craig M.:
something is not right 6th, pure music should sound very similar to itunes if not the same.

when i tried the demo, my first thoughts were that it sounded a shade more natural then itunes. i didn't purchase the player though as i became less convinced there was a difference, and there is zero music i'm interested in at higher then cd bit-rates anyway.

i think the dithering aspect of it is used when upsampling, and maybe volume control, and, guessing here, is probably used to smooth out the parts between sample points.

i can't remember exactly how i had it setup, but i wasn't using any upsampling or eq. i think there is a thread on computer audiophile with setup advice.

Cheers, Craig.

Odd that when you tried Pure it sounded "a shade more natural then iTunes" - maybe I've done something wrong re setup?

I've had a peep at Computer Audiophile in the past and it seems to be frequented by scary boffins - guess I should take the plunge...

 

[Anonymous]

Not to weigh from a different angle n'all, but a major issue is you're using the wrong computer... Your streamer should be a highly focused box that sits quietly (silently) in the corner and does nothing but hook up to the DAC (via USB) and play the music it is told to by one or more remote controls on the network.

So focused: as in what it does is act a vehicle for the best possible reproduction of available sound files. Like not have any graphical output, like having an operating system optimised for audio work. Local storage of the flash media type is ok, but best to have the store located elsewhere on the home network (so you can use cheaper but noisier hard disk and then have a second one to protect your music collection). MPD is a very excellent method of playing music.

USB: because coax or fibre out is not the same as bypassing the cheap onboard sound card of a computer; while you are bypassing the analogue stage of that sound card it's still being used to process the file and prone to interference from the terrible environment within a PC case (where PC = personal computer and has nothing to do with the operating system installed). Using USB connection offloads the entire job of transforming the file to sound to a piece of kit engineered for the production of sound, and while the rDAC can only cope with 96KHz, 24/96 is a very long way up from 16/44.1, and only those whose entire recording and mastering process has been built with the intention of having 24/192 as the final output will get any gain at all over 24/96 and even then not a lot.

Remotes on the network: mobile phones, netbooks, tablets, PCs - software is available for the remote control of MPD for most anything that will go on a network and allow user interaction. MPD has a number of advantages over UPnP, mostly because it was built for music playback while UPnP is video focused. Gapless playback, no need for remote software to still be "on" to play playlists, etc..

Have fun...

 

[shooter]

Some good point's putt1ck making the PC a dedicated music server just as any other home audio set up would be ideal; reducing noise and interference.

As 6th is using the Mac locally, something i was thinking of through this thread was changing the sound card. Using a ESI-Juli@ audio sound card would cut out more interference, more outlay though, around £100.

I found a link to install MPD on OS X (below).

http://evanhanson.com/2010/03/22/mpd-on-os-x/

Morning..

 

[Craig M.]

i've just been reminded why i no longer frequent a certain computer audio forum.

my experience is you don't need to mess about installing anything, plugging anything in, or turning your pc into a stripped down music server. and while your at it, forget extra ram and a ssd, too. i've recently had 4 gig of ram and ssd installed in my mac mini, as well as turning off all software tasks that don't need to be running, sounds exactly the same as before. but then i suppose it would, it's still bit perfect, nothing more nothing less, i'm just about two hundred pound lighter in the pocket. serves me right, i knew it was foo and did it anyway...

 

[shooter]

Admittedly Craig M i've never had to do any additions for listening to hi-rez music because i don't. I have no issue's with storage space at the moment and i don't have a DAC plugged into the PC. My iMac does a good enough job via the AE and for what it cost's the AE is very good.

I'm not advocating any remarks but they are some fair point's to consider here, after all 6th want's to listen to Hi Rez music and at the best of it's capability and price point. Know one is suggesting go and splash the cash, putt1ck put in text you would hear very little difference over 24/96 and i suggested a look at PM at it was free; to get a feeler for what is out there and what to expect. This is the reason i never bought in the sound card equation because at that moment there was no point and i'm not convinced there still is will the M2 in use.

Isn't this the whole point of a forum, to discuss any and every possibility if it work's or not?

 

[Craig M.]

maybe, but posts stating "you have the wrong computer" aren't helpful, imo.

it was listening to other peoples advice that led me to install more ram and a ssd, i couldn't see how it would make a difference but thought "well, surely all those people aren't wrong...".

 

[BenLaw]

Craig M.:

maybe, but posts stating "you have the wrong computer" aren't helpful, imo.

it was listening to other peoples advice that led me to install more ram and a ssd, i couldn't see how it would make a difference but thought "well, surely all those people aren't wrong...".

Hi Craig

Much of this thread has been over my head but I've been following with interest. Sorry to hear about your wasted purchases, but it is handy to hear from someone who's actually tried this - you may save someone like me a lot of money in future

Is 2GB RAM on a mac mini sufficient then?

Btw, like the new avatar, dog's got big

Ben

 

[Craig M.]

Hi Ben, my mac mini is a 2009 model which only had 1 gig (only! my first computer had 32 k) i had 4 gig and ssd put in when the logic board failed, as the mac basically needed rebuilding. it now boots up very quickly, but as i never switch it off...

the dog is bloody massive now - 40 kilos and only 8 months old.

 

[6th.replicant]

Had a trawl through some very long, and brain-frying, threads on Computer Audiophile's (CA) forum re Pure Music. Seems that a few others share my view that Pure's sound is bright and adds sibilance, but there're also many that think Pure is the mutt's wotnots.

Intrigued that Barry Diament (highly respected/experienced recording engineer and CD-remastering guru) was active in the CA discussions and queried - well, I think he queried, I might be wrong, it's all very techy stuff... - whether or not Pure's maths/theories are conducive to reproduction that's actually, er, pure. Diament didn't give a final verdict - was he too busy, did he lose interest or didn't want to put his name to a negative viewpoint, a la "If you've got nothing nice to say..."?

Tried some setup options suggested by the CA boffins - eg HOG mode - and the setup changes are indeed tangible but arguably, IMHO, a case of moving into the realm of 'what sounds like beautiful hi-fi doesn't always sound like beautiful music', if you get my drift. (Cyrus fans might approve, though.

)

IMO, iTunes and the rDAC's USB sounds more organic/musical - and iTunes is still bit-perfect. (No idea what 'bit-perfect' actually means, just thought I'd lob it in to sound vaguely savvy.)

Also disenchanted by the variable quality of 176.4-192kHz downloads: for example, IMHO many of Linn's orchestral 192s sound a tad shrill - although, curiously, its Dunedin Consort recordings sound lush - and Reference Recordings' HRx-type material sounds too bass heavy. And because of the prices - £20-30 for an album - it's a punt too far. As our friend The Record Spot is keen to point out: hi-res doesn't guarantee that a recording will sound great.

For now, I think I'll stick with 24/98s from HDtracks.com, which are a fair price (c. $17/£10), and SACDs. Hence, no need for the hiFace, Atlas Opus coax and Pure Music - ooh, I've just 'saved' £256.

So, what about a nice USB cable upgrade - let's see, Kimber, CryoParts Custom II or Wireworld Starlight, ummm..?

Thanks to all for their input and advice.

 

[shooter]

I think Mr Diament has good knowledge in his words and explained well yourself. It's how all of us percive sounds and what we think to be true or 'pure'.

Hat's off to you.

Just a mention to RS, he knows his ****.

 

[Anonymous]

Craig M.:
Hi Ben, my mac mini is a 2009 model which only had 1 gig (only! my first computer had 32 k) i had 4 gig and ssd put in when the logic board failed, as the mac basically needed rebuilding. it now boots up very quickly, but as i never switch it off...

the dog is bloody massive now - 40 kilos and only 8 months old.

Mine was 52 kilos on average. Lovely dogs with a great temperament.