Mac Mini streaming Qobuz, optical output..anyone else using this setup ?

[CFP]

The late 2012 Mini is controlled via VNC, its headless ( no monitor). Well-pleased with the result in the main system.

I may take it to the next level using USB-out to a Chord DAC… currently it’s optical out to a Moon 300D .

 

[JSmith]

Hello and welcome to ASR.

I may take it to the next level using USB-out to a Chord DAC… currently it’s optical out to a Moon 300D .

That won't take it to the "next level"... like most DAC's the analog audio output will be audibly indistinguishable from the other, unless the Moon is really poor or broken.


JSmith

 

[sam_adams]

The late 2012 Mini is . . . currently it’s optical out

Which on a Mac, will limit you to 96 KHz. If you're paying Qobuz for 192 KHz audio, you need to up your game, hardware-wise.

 

[CFP]

Which on a Mac, will limit you to 96 KHz. If you're paying Qobuz for 192 KHz audio, you need to up your game, hardware-wise.

Hence the potential move to a Chord DAC & FGPA..

Hello and welcome to ASR.

That won't take it to the "next level"... like most DAC's the analog audio output will be audibly indistinguishable from the other, unless the Moon is really poor or broken.


JSmith

A/B testing CD out to the Moon DAC against the streamed output.. nothing in it.
Both optical.

 

[amper43]

Which on a Mac, will limit you to 96 KHz. If you're paying Qobuz for 192 KHz audio, you need to up your game, hardware-wise.

I use a Mac with Audirvana. It supports 192khz with Qobuz over DLNA to RPi4. However, I enjoy simply using a $26 Samsung Fit USB drive on the RPI4 with Moode and free up the computer for other things. It's so amazing how 77 of my favorite albums all fit on a 256GB USB drive the size of my thumb nail and it's only 30% full even while supporting Hi res audio up to 352kHz. That's progress.

 

[Windmills]

Which on a Mac, will limit you to 96 KHz. If you're paying Qobuz for 192 KHz audio, you need to up your game, hardware-wise.

Will this difference be distinguishable?

 

[staticV3]

Will this difference be distinguishable?

No.

 

[jmdesignz2]

No.

TBH - something to keep in mind if one was looking at purchasing high res downloads to not buy anything higher than 96. Then again, many ASR folks say "nobody can tell in blind ABX from 16/44"

 

[CFP]

TBH - something to keep in mind if one was looking at purchasing high res downloads to not buy anything higher than 96. Then again, many ASR folks say "nobody can tell in blind ABX from 16/44"

Quite agree… my first DAC that still sees use is a CAL Sigma II that’s limited to 16/44.1. The biggest improvement to that was a fresh JJ 12Ax7 valve…

 

[antcollinet]

Which on a Mac, will limit you to 96 KHz. If you're paying Qobuz for 192 KHz audio, you need to up your game, hardware-wise.

Which will make absolutely zero difference - except perhaps to pass more ultrasonic noise through to the output.

 

[jmdesignz2]

Which will make absolutely zero difference - except perhaps to pass more ultrasonic noise through to the output.

I thought 24/96kHz allows the most realistic dynamic range of 144dB vs "merely" 96dB of 14/44?

We are for now, Not addressing that many residential speakers would self destruct at 144dB LOL

 

[antcollinet]

I thought 24/96kHz allows the most realistic dynamic range of 144dB vs "merely" 96dB of 14/44?

We are for now, Not addressing that many residential speakers would self destruct at 144dB LOL

Not to mention your eardrums being shredded.

In the post you quoted, I was saying that 96khz up to 192 will make no difference.


But in reality - 16/44.1 is indistinguishable from higher bit rates - certainly for real world listening.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

people.xiph.org

 

[jmdesignz2]

Not to mention your eardrums being shredded.

In the post you quoted, I was saying that 96khz up to 192 will make no difference.


But in reality - 16/44.1 is indistinguishable from higher bit rates.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

people.xiph.org

In systems that are capable of high, relatively clean SPL, the 24/96 would be the optimum format to reproduce the MOST true to life, realistic transients

 

[antcollinet]

In systems that are capable of high, relatively clean SPL, the 24/96 would be the optimum format to reproduce the MOST true to life, realistic transients

???

Not audibly.

 

[mglobe]

What’s downstream of the DAC?

 

[CFP]

What’s downstream of the DAC?

Currently, a Magnum Dynalab MD208 receiver & UK-built Monitor Audio SE 25th Anniversary towers. 12GA speaker cables.

 

[jmdesignz2]

???

Not audibly.

You can’t tell the difference between a 96dB peak vs 144dB?

 

[antcollinet]

You can’t tell the difference between a 96dB peak vs 144dB?

They are dynamic ranges - not peaks.

You can have a 144dBa peak with 96dB dynamic range - just that your noise floor will be at about 50dBa But at 144dBpeak, yourr avearge level is going to be at around 130dB, which is above the threshold of pain, and will damage your hearing in just a few seconds. At a more normal but still high listing level of about 90dBa average, 105dBa peak, your noise floor is going to be around 10dB - significantly lower than a quiet room.

And you certainly can't hear the noise at 50dBa if the music is at 130dbA. It's be like trying to hear a leaf flutter along the runway while standing next to the jet engine at take off power.

You can try it for your self, if you have an amp or preamp with a dB scale for volume. Set it to your normal to high listening level, then turn it down by 96 db. Can you hear anything from your normal listening position? - probably not - but even if you can - imagine trying to hear it while your music is playing at it's normal to high level.

Read the article I linked.

 

[sam_adams]

Will this difference be distinguishable?

Everything we have argued, discussed, and dissected here says there will be no noticeable difference. Will the OP feel better about it? I can't answer that as I'm not him. I don't stream, anything, so I have nothing to compare it to.

After testing my own CD rips a long time ago, I came to a rather rapid subjective conclusion that 24/48 FLAC files were good enough—for me—for general listening pleasure. So I rip to AIFF to archive and convert to FLAC for playback compatibility. The only time I have to put up with sample rate conversion is when I use my run-of-the-mill PowerBeats wireless IEMs—but that's not critical listening so, c'est la vie.

 

[jmdesignz2]

Everything we have argued, discussed, and dissected here says there will be no noticeable difference. Will the OP feel better about it? I can't answer that as I'm not him. I don't stream, anything, so I have nothing to compare it to.

After testing my own CD rips a long time ago, I came to a rather rapid subjective conclusion that 24/48 FLAC files were good enough—for me—for general listening pleasure. So I rip to AIFF to archive and convert to FLAC for playback compatibility. The only time I have to put up with sample rate conversion is when I use my run-of-the-mill PowerBeats wireless IEMs—but that's not critical listening so, c'est la vie.

As I said 24/96 is the point of diminishing returns on resolution as far as human perception meeting real music reproduction

133dB is a theoretical maximum transient peak on a 2kw amp through a 100dB efficiency speaker at 1m.

A 16/44 signal could not ever reach that transient as its max theoretical peak is 96dB (less than that considering other factors in the chain)

Assuming a theoretical recording is made where the softest sound is .5dB and the loudest is 130dBish. Where people are rustling, whispering, clapping and singing. Close miked where transient peaks are 130dB+.

Considering that an individual clap is around 130dB. Then I’d say 16/44 is NOT as adequate as some may claim AND can be distinguishable from 24/96 simply by ABX a hand clapping with volume level matched to hit a 140dB peak.

Also consider most singers hit an average of 100-107dB with peaks seen up to 130dB is another strike against 16/44 being unable to attain the realism possible with a 24/96 signal. Even when considering the noise floor of the equipment.

The 16-bit format only has 65,536 steps to represent the full 96 dB range. This lack of resolution at the low end would introduce significant quantization noise and audible errors to the softest parts of the recording. CLEARLY audibly different from 24/96 which would have no such distortions.