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

[sam_adams]

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

I don't have amps that powerful. I don't have speakers that efficient. I don't sit that close to my speakers. To me, none of that matters.

 

[DVDdoug]

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.

You can also do that experiment in Audacity. You can use the Amplify effect with a negative value. It can only make a 50dB change at once so you can start at -50dB, and then another at -40dB, etc. Or go down 10dB at a time from -50dB. For this test to be meaningful, don't touch your volume control!

...For those who don't know this, digital levels are dBFS (decibels full scale) where 0dB is the "digital maximum" with integer formats. That means digital dB levels are normally negative, but a -10dB change (a bigger negative number) is a -10dB SPL change (a smaller positive number). There's no standard calibration but there is a direct correlation?

Considering that an individual clap is around 130dB.

Really? And have you actually tried ABXing a high resolution hand-clap recording to a copy down-sampled to 16/44.1?

 

[jmdesignz2]

I don't have amps that powerful. I don't have speakers that efficient. I don't sit that close to my speakers. To me, none of that matters.

Your personal limitations are not being discussed, it is the claim that 16/44 is not distinguishable from 24/96 and that is plainly false for recordinds that exceed 100dB peaks (96dB dynamic range)

 

[jmdesignz2]

You can also do that experiment in Audacity. You can use the Amplify effect with a negative value. It can only make a 50dB change at once so you can start at -50dB, and then another at -40dB, etc. Or go down 10dB at a time from -50dB. For this test to be meaningful, don't touch your volume control!

...For those who don't know this, digital levels are dBFS (decibels full scale) where 0dB is the "digital maximum" with integer formats. That means digital dB levels are normally negative, but a -10dB change (a bigger negative number) is a -10dB SPL change (a smaller positive number). There's no standard calibration but there is a direct correlation?


Really? And have you actually tried ABXing a high resolution hand-clap recording to a copy down-sampled to 16/44.1?

none of what you said matters to the points I am making

My points are:
a) 16/44 is inferior to 24/96,
b) this inferiority can be quite audible. It's not imaginary. Pure science.

Is 16/44 adequate for most common equipment and music and listeners - yes.

 

[Marc v E]

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 .

It was a mac mini that changed my opinion on how good a computer could sound vs a dedicated 'high-end-ish' cd player. Pretty much indistinguishable. Even more shocking to me was that I preferred the mac over the cyrus cd player, haha.

Oh btw to answer your question, I would say the result depends on the dac and excellent dacs are cheap. The streamer is more about convenience, the user interface, the music that's available. No real quality difference there. No point in taking it from 44.1 to 192 either.

What does make a difference is xlr over rca (cleaner sound, no ground loops) and the ability to eq (for better in room response; measure with Rew).

 

[antcollinet]

A 16/44 signal could not ever reach that transient as its max theoretical peak is 96dB

You are again confusing dynamic range with absolute voltage or SPL levels.

You can take a signal from a 16 bit source, and amplify it to any level you like. The voltage out of the DAC is the same as from a 24 bit file, the voltage is therefore the same out of the same amp, and hence the absolute SPL out of the speakers is also the same.

Oh, and if you'd read the article I linked you to, you'd know properly dithered 16/44.1 actually has an effective dynamic range of 120dB

 

[antcollinet]

b) this inferiority can be quite audible. It's not imaginary. Pure science.

Prove it - there are files available with the same master given as 16 bit and 24 bit. Use an ABX tester such as foobar, and post your results back.


Or just trust other people who have done the tests. Here is a test and detailed results of about 140 people blind comparing a number of different audio files.

24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Audio Test - Part I: PROCEDURE

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

Conclusion:

In a naturalistic survey of 140 respondents using high quality musical samples sourced from high-resolution 24/96 digital audio collected over 2 months, there was no evidence that 24-bit audio could be appreciably differentiated from the same music dithered down to 16-bits using a basic algorithm (Adobe Audition 3, flat triangular dither, 0.5 bits).

 

[jmdesignz2]

Prove it - there are files available with the same master given as 16 bit and 24 bit. Use an ABX tester such as foobar, and post your results back.


Or just trust other people who have done the tests. Here is a test and detailed results of about 140 people blind comparing a number of different audio files.

24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Audio Test - Part I: PROCEDURE

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

Conclusion:

You’re wrong to ignore the most critical aspect of the recording process

I’m talking about making a RECORDING in 16/44

Which indisputably cannot capture the full dynamic range of a performance that has .5dB whisper and 135dB claps/peak transients

It’s mathematics

Your talking about simply cranking up the volume which ignores the recording process and then will generate an incorrect or severely compromised representation of the original sounds

A 24/96 recording is optimum for recording and playback

PS - trotting out that old chestnut Archimago gets a lot right but that "study/test" is not one of them. So many things wrong with how that was done, that is for another discussion LOL

 

[CFP]

It was a mac mini that changed my opinion on how good a computer could sound vs a dedicated 'high-end-ish' cd player. Pretty much indistinguishable. Even more shocking to me was that I preferred the mac over the cyrus cd player, haha.

Oh btw to answer your question, I would say the result depends on the dac and excellent dacs are cheap. The streamer is more about convenience, the user interface, the music that's available. No real quality difference there. No point in taking it from 44.1 to 192 either.

What does make a difference is xlr over rca (cleaner sound, no ground loops) and the ability to eq (for better in room response; measure with Rew).

Well yes.. my modest CD library is ripped to the SSD, all 500GB of it. Then there’s podcasts, internet radio et al…

I’d had the opportunity to trial a contemporary streamer/DAC last Xmas, a superb piece of Canadian-built gear. As good as it was it lacked the utility of the Mini as described above.

Mac Mini, used.. $300 & an hour of my time configuring the virtual network controller.

I did a $25 Mac optical drive for convenience ( used, again) ..

 

[jmdesignz2]

Well yes.. my modest CD library is ripped to the SSD, all 500GB of it. Then there’s podcasts, internet radio et al…

I’d had the opportunity to trial a contemporary streamer/DAC last Xmas, a superb piece of Canadian-built gear. As good as it was it lacked the utility of the Mini as described above.

Mac Mini, used.. $300 & an hour of my time configuring the virtual network controller.

I did a $25 Mac optical drive for convenience ( used, again) ..

A new base model mac mini M4 are now available around $450-$499, less if you have an educational discount or find second hand

You can output via the USB C and unleash the full marketed bandwidth of everything out there

 

[HalSF]

I’m using the M4 Mac Mini with USB-C out to an SMSL D-6s DAC, playing mostly 16/44 and 24/96 files and streaming Apple Music. Excellent!

 

[CFP]

A new base model mac mini M4 are now available around $450-$499, less if you have an educational discount or find second hand

You can output via the USB C and unleash the full marketed bandwidth of everything out there

Quite… although to be fair I’m using the Canadian $ in my estimations.

I remain an adherent of optical output for any & all digital sources. Any concerns I respect to jitter are outweighed by the distinct advantage of complete isolation from any electrical noise.

 

[jmdesignz2]

Quite… although to be fair I’m using the Canadian $ in my estimations.

I remain an adherent of optical output for any & all digital sources. Any concerns I respect to jitter are outweighed by the distinct advantage of complete isolation from any electrical noise.

how are you outputting optical from the 2018 mac mini?

supposedly that 3.5 jack has not been optical out since 2016

Mac Mini 2018 - optical multichannel audi… - Apple Community

discussions.apple.com

 

[CFP]

how are you outputting optical from the 2018 mac mini?

supposedly that 3.5 jack has not been optical out since 2016

Mac Mini 2018 - optical multichannel audi… - Apple Community

discussions.apple.com

The Mini I’m using a late 2012..

 

[CFP]

The Mini I’m using a late 2012..

… screenshot of the virtual desktop on my iPad..

 

[CFP]

I’m using the M4 Mac Mini with USB-C out to an SMSL D6-s DAC, playing mostly 16/44 and 24/96 files and streaming Apple Music. Excellent!

Is it headless, I.e., controlled remotely via iPad or iPhone?

Eventually I’ll have to move to a later Mac & will likely use either HDMI to a suitable DAC or (horror) just the 3.5mm RCA out.

 

[antcollinet]

I’m talking about making a RECORDING in 16/44

Fair enough. If you are mastering, then you need to be working in at least 24/96 - but that was not the topic of the conversation you jumped in on - which was about reproduction.

But even when mastering - you don't really need the higher bit rate for the recording (even high end microphones might only have 80dB of SNR) - except that all studio equipment will record at least 24 bit - but for the editing - to avoid build up of errors during the processing

 

[antcollinet]

The 16-bit format only has 65,536 steps to represent the full 96 dB range.

Don't make me post the "It's not effing stair steps" video again.

There is no distortion - dithering replaces the distortion with a nice flat noise floor at -96dBFS - which is inaudible in all real world listening situations.

 

[jmdesignz2]

Fair enough. If you are mastering, then you need to be working in at least 24/96 - but that was not the topic of the conversation you jumped in on - which was about reproduction.

But even when mastering - you don't really need the higher bit rate for the recording (even high end microphones might only have 80dB of SNR) - except that all studio equipment will record at least 24 bit - but for the editing - to avoid build up of errors during the processing

IF one is buying 24/96 vs 16/44 and it was mastered in 24/96 originally the 16/44 cannot record nor reproduce the original sounds accurately and will have distortion in many different ways. I am not saying the X steps cause the distortion LOL, you are oversimplifying and trying to pull things out of context.

So I did a bit of research and there are MANY microphones that have higher dynamic range. You are oversimplifying by saying "microphones...only have 80dB of SNR"
Recording engineers will use 32bit recorders, multiple microphones- some with the highest dynamic range over 100dB and some with high SPL capability up to 147dB.
They don't just use one microphone LOL. And SNR of a microphone is not the same as it's dynamic range.

24/96 is superior to 16/44 recordings Full Stop, Mathematical Facts and Physics Facts and these differences are audible
IF one knows or cares to hear it, and IF the recording was done properly and IF ones equipment is up to snuff

It is also a fact which I already stated, most people will be happy with 16/44 due to ignorant bliss or incapable equipment or any number of other factors

(edited for accuracy)

 

[antcollinet]

24/96 is superior to 16/44 recordings Full Stop, Mathematical Facts and Physics Facts

Sure - measurably, yes.

Audibly - not (real world listening). Mathematical, Physics, Psychoacoustic AND biological ... facts. The distortions of 16/44.1 (as you call them) are too small to be detected by the human auditory system.

I'll leave it there - we'll just have to agree to disagree - or disagree to disagree. All the same to me.