[santacore]

My current music server is a G4 iBook. I'm thinking about upgrading to a more recent macbook. My question is, would upgrading to a new computer change the quality of the audio? I would be using the USB port to feed my DAC, like I am now. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated.

[wilsynet]

If you're hearing obvious problems with audio now (pops, clicks, dropouts), then an upgrade to a newer, faster, better Macbook is likely to be of benefit.  But as you don't seem to be having any clear and obvious audio problems (or you didn't mention it), I would doubt that such an upgrade would improve audio quality.

[Toka]

If you're hearing obvious problems with audio now (pops, clicks, dropouts), then an upgrade to a newer, faster, better Macbook is likely to be of benefit.  But as you don't seem to be having any clear and obvious audio problems (or you didn't mention it), I would doubt that such an upgrade would improve audio quality.

Yep. 

[satfrat]

I humbly disagree,,, I think computer audio can be improved upon with a stronger computer, JMHO.


Cheers,
Robin

[PhilNYC]

I run SlimServer on a Mac.  When I went from a G4-based eMac to a G5-based iMac two years ago, the improvement in sound-quality was significant.  There were other variables, including changing the network connection type (G4 eMac was attached to my network via wireless, G5 iMac used ethernet), so I'm not 100% sure what was the main factor in sound-quality improvement. 

[zybar]

My current music server is a G4 iBook. I'm thinking about upgrading to a more recent macbook. My question is, would upgrading to a new computer change the quality of the audio? I would be using the USB port to feed my DAC, like I am now. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated.

As was stated above by toka and wilsynet, you most likely won't improve the quality of the audio due to increased memory, faster cpu, faster/bigger HD, etc...  In general, audio playback (unless there is lots of DSP or other forms of correction) doesn't use a lot of resources to work properly.

However, if the newer macbook has an improved audio card, audio chip, power supply, or something along those lines, you might achieve a level of improvement depending on your setup.

George

[satfrat]

My current music server is a G4 iBook. I'm thinking about upgrading to a more recent macbook. My question is, would upgrading to a new computer change the quality of the audio? I would be using the USB port to feed my DAC, like I am now. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated.

As was stated above by toka and wilsynet, you most likely won't improve the quality of the audio due to increased memory, faster cpu, faster/bigger HD, etc...  In general, audio playback (unless there is lots of DSP or other forms of correction) doesn't use a lot of resources to work properly.

However, if the newer macbook has an improved audio card, audio chip, power supply, or something along those lines, you might achieve a level of improvement depending on your setup.

George

I feel a faster CPU is indeed a critical facter in good computer audio.

Cheers,
robin

[zybar]

My current music server is a G4 iBook. I'm thinking about upgrading to a more recent macbook. My question is, would upgrading to a new computer change the quality of the audio? I would be using the USB port to feed my DAC, like I am now. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated.

As was stated above by toka and wilsynet, you most likely won't improve the quality of the audio due to increased memory, faster cpu, faster/bigger HD, etc...  In general, audio playback (unless there is lots of DSP or other forms of correction) doesn't use a lot of resources to work properly.

However, if the newer macbook has an improved audio card, audio chip, power supply, or something along those lines, you might achieve a level of improvement depending on your setup.

George

I feel a faster CPU is indeed a critical facter in good computer audio.

Cheers,
robin

I can run Squeeze Center off a 4+ year old IBM laptop with no issues - for playback CPU is not a critical factor.

Now, if you want to say that CPU is a critical factor in the speed at which we can rip or burn cd's, that I can agree with.

George

[satfrat]

My current music server is a G4 iBook. I'm thinking about upgrading to a more recent macbook. My question is, would upgrading to a new computer change the quality of the audio? I would be using the USB port to feed my DAC, like I am now. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated.

As was stated above by toka and wilsynet, you most likely won't improve the quality of the audio due to increased memory, faster cpu, faster/bigger HD, etc...  In general, audio playback (unless there is lots of DSP or other forms of correction) doesn't use a lot of resources to work properly.

However, if the newer macbook has an improved audio card, audio chip, power supply, or something along those lines, you might achieve a level of improvement depending on your setup.

George

I feel a faster CPU is indeed a critical facter in good computer audio.

Cheers,
robin

I can run Squeeze Center off a 4+ year old IBM laptop with no issues - for playback CPU is not a critical factor.

Now, if you want to say that CPU is a critical factor in the speed at which we can rip or burn cd's, that I can agree with.

George

I'm not simply talking about playback here, I'm talking about audio quality and I do believe a stronger a CPU can improve the quality of computer audio. I know for a fact that I've improved the quality of my computer audio using a Trends USB transport by simply lowering the CPU usage,,, I've heard the difference numerous times.

I'll PM Steve Nugent and see what an expert in this field thinks. Maybe he'll chime in.

Cheers,
Robin

[Crimson]

I run at around 2% of CPU capacity with straight 16/44.1 AIFF. Flac and ALAC will increase this to about 5-6% for real time decompression. This on a Core Duo.

Processing requirements are negligible, IMO, unless upsampling or applying other DSP. Even native 24/96 WAV files use negligible resources. About the same as lossy MP3.

I don't think you'll see (hear) a difference.

[satfrat]

I run at around 2% of CPU capacity with straight 16/44.1 AIFF. Flac and ALAC will increase this to about 5-6% for real time decompression. This on a Core Duo.

Processing requirements are negligible, IMO, unless upsampling or applying other DSP. Even native 24/96 WAV files use negligible resources. About the same as lossy MP3.

I don't think you'll see (hear) a difference.

WOW, if my system was that strong, I probably wouldn't be hearing any differences either. As it is with my old system, when I add a CPU "application booster" to my J. River player, the audio improvement is quite evident. I also don't have a dedicated audio computer so I'm doing a number of things while using J. River which helps fill the CPU's capacity.

Cheers,
Robin

[Philistine]

The best guy to ask this question to is Steve Nugent at Empirical Audio - Steve recently posted something on different computers/usb ports.

[Crimson]

Also, I think you'll notice more of a difference, if any, with an OS upgrade compared to a hardware upgrade (with the minor improvements that are introduced with each version of Core Audio). What are you currently running?

[wilsynet]

If you're using your computer as a dedicated music server, you're using iTunes and a USB DAC, and it's only doing music, my intuition tells me that there will likely be no benefit in upgrading to a faster processor, more memory, etc.

If you're using your computer for other things, and you're hitting the wall in terms of CPU, then yeah, there may be improvement because now your CPU is twice as fast and so you can multi-task and multi-process (theoretically) twice as many things.

My recommendation is to go into Applications -> Utilities.  Run the "Activity Monitor" application and sort by CPU usage (it's actually the default).  When you're playing back the music, see what's taking up most of your CPU.  In the bottom left hand corner, there is also %User, %System, and %Idle values.  If you report back on what those values are, what the peak and what the steady state is, and what the hungriest processes are, I think we can take it from there.

As a matter of fact, when I get home tonight I think I'll do just that with my old Powerbook G4.  We can compare notes. =)

[Jon L]

It's going to be very difficult to make generalizations about this topic.  It's completely possible for someone to "upgrade" from an old PC to a super-fast PC with latest hardware and end up with subjectively "worse" sound. 

My journey so far has me concentrating much less on things like cpu speed and other performance specs, but MUCH more on software, ways to minimize EMI/RFI inside the PC, vibration control, power cord/power conditioning for the PC. 

For example, physically taking out my PCI graphics card and just using the Mobo's built-in monitor-out has audibly improved sound quality (albeit with worse video).  Using a nice shielded power cord for the PC into a good power conditioner/isolation transformer also yielded better SQ, and so on.  And this is despite the fact I'm only using the PC as transport via my Lynx card's spdif output and even with isolation transformers on spdif output and input.

I imagine my next audio PC build will involve a solid state drive hosting all OS and software with networked NAS hosting all music files, hopefully into an ethernet-input outboard DAC with a nice discrete output stage.  Fanless external linear PS for the computer will be nice, too..

[Jon L]

duplicate

[santacore]

Thanks to everyone for the input. By upgrading the computer, I was hoping that the software upgrade might help the audio. The hardware upgrade will be nice too, but I didn't think it would make a big difference in audio. Unless of course they changed the USB implementation, which could of course affect the signal. Maybe a better question would be be does the audio quality change when upgrading from Tiger to Leopard?

[wilsynet]

It is unlikely that Mac OS X Leopard will be a sonic upgrade over Mac OS X Tiger.

If you were you going from XP to Vista and you weren't already using ASIO4ALL and a player like J River, then I think that's a different story altogether.

I checked out my Powerbook 12" 1.0 ghz that I'm using as a dedicated music server in my living room.  While playing music to the USB DAC, the CPU utilization of iTunes is around 7-8% at steady state, and peaks at 15% for about a second every 15 seconds or so.  Just before it peaks, I can hear the external hard disk click, presumably seeking and reading some data.

I imagine that what might be going on is that it takes 8% of the CPU to keep iTunes running, to update the iTunes display and to stream the raw audio data out to the audio device.  Every 10 seconds or so, it reads a few more blocks from the disk and processes the Apple Lossless compressed data, uncompressing and processing that into raw audio data, and that uses another 7-8% of CPU.

[bcretty]

Since the price dropped I just ordered a new 2.8ghz 24" iMac with 2g memory to replace an old 1.8ghz mac mini. I've seen some audiophiles replace the stock power cords on there iMac with audiophile grade. Does higher end power cords effect the sound at all when used with a computer? I was thinking of spending no more then $75 on a new cord if its worth it. Any sugestions?

Thanks.
Brian
 

[mcgsxr]

I like this topic, it is interesting, and the players are playing together well with differing positions.

I have been using a modded Bolder SB3 for around 4 years now.

Initially I was using my now 6 year old desktop (P4, 2.8Mhz, 1.25G RAM - have since upgraded to 2G RAM), wirelessly to the SB3 in the basement.  I used a repeater to ensure that the signal quality was decent.  I was happy with the performance, and lived with this until 1 month ago.

I then bought a small form factor Dell (P4, 3.0 Mhz, 1G of RAM) and run it wired ethernet to my Bolder SB3.  I use an old high quality DIY power cable, and a power conditioner purchased off eBay - all surplus from the audio spares box, not intentionally to drive better sound.  This is a dedicated, headless PC.  In the short time I have had it setup, I would say it is a wash, sound quality wise.

It does free up my wifi for the 2 laptops, and keeps the desktop mostly dormant too.

I also like having a PC fully dedicated to the system, that DOES NOT TOUCH THE INTERNET.  It runs XP Pro, and Squeezecenter, and that is it. 

I will add a wireless keyboard and mouse, and LCD panel in the future (I have seen wireless desktops for $10, and 15-17 LCD's for $50 on Craigslist of late), but for now it is a good solution.

Considering that others use USB DAC's etc, I would think it depends on how dedicated the PC is, for an upgrade to make significant improvements.

I am willing to bet that power conditioning is helpful, but am not looking to explore it - I just use what I had on hand.