[tasar]

Very helpful Dave. You mention "wireless" mouse and board. I'm trying to ascertain whether a bluetooth, IR, or other line of site technology in these devices has any affect on the audio. It's probably best to consider the Touch or Iphone when critically listening, but if one is multitasking thru the MINI while listening, is there much of a penalty ? I imagine that your inference to using your highly capacitive BUSS would really have a hand in things, when the power line source is shared. What are the tonal differences with and without the BUSS ?

[freerider]

Anyone here try the Sonos system, lossless playback through fiber optic or digital coax to your favorite DAC?

I just got one recently, and love the interface.  I can control it on my Ipod Touch, with the remote, or from any of my computers.  Very slick.

[Rclark]

I wonder if it might be considered to include the Emotiva in a future DAC shoot out.

[HT cOz]

I am would value Danny's opinion on the emotiva DAC. 300 bucks no op amps balanced output that is a very nice start.

[tasar]

Ummmm....subject is going awry.....

[dBe]

Very helpful Dave. You mention "wireless" mouse and board. I'm trying to ascertain whether a bluetooth, IR, or other line of site technology in these devices has any affect on the audio. It's probably best to consider the Touch or Iphone when critically listening, but if one is multitasking thru the MINI while listening, is there much of a penalty ? I imagine that your inference to using your highly capacitive BUSS would really have a hand in things, when the power line source is shared. What are the tonal differences with and without the BUSS ?

As far as the wireless having an effect on the audio, I can't hear it if there is.  My media server (still the PC as I have yet to get a Mac  ) does nothing but supply music.  I do not use it for any other task.  There is no way to get killer sound with the CPU tasking in the background or foreground that I know of.  The BUSS makes everything sound better in general, but it has been noted by the local Burque Group that the Mac Mini sounds best plugged directly into the wall, not through any form of conditioning, probably due to the switching power supply.  The BUSS keeps the rest of the gear from backfeeding RFI and EMI into the audio circuits.  Makes the plasma video pop, too 

Dave

[Rclark]

As far as the wireless having an effect on the audio, I can't hear it if there is.  My media server (still the PC as I have yet to get a Mac  ) does nothing but supply music.  I do not use it for any other task.  There is no way to get killer sound with the CPU tasking in the background or foreground that I know of.  The BUSS makes everything sound better in general, but it has been noted by the local Burque Group that the Mac Mini sounds best plugged directly into the wall, not through any form of conditioning, probably due to the switching power supply.  The BUSS keeps the rest of the gear from backfeeding RFI and EMI into the audio circuits.  Makes the plasma video pop, too 

Dave

you're saying a modern cpu cannot process audio with other tasks? That seems ludicrous to me. Please explain.

[dBe]

you're saying a modern cpu cannot process audio with other tasks? That seems ludicrous to me. Please explain.

I didn't say that at all.  To get the best sound possible there should be no other services or tasks running.  Basic and logical.  I work with HQ audio running all of the time on my office computer and it sounds good.  On a dedicated music server it is pretty easy to hear the difference in SQ as services and tasks are reduced one at a time.  That is what I am saying.

Dave

[Rclark]

no I understood that I just find it fascinating. I would assume an audio stream to be a trivial thing to a modern chip. That and I have listened to files while using other programs and never noticed any degradation. Was it that my speakers were incapable of such subtleties? Having a hard time wrapping around the idea, especially with very powerful modern, or even older hardware.

[dBe]

no I understood that I just find it fascinating. I would assume an audio stream to be a trivial thing to a modern chip. That and I have listened to files while using other programs and never noticed any degradation. Was it that my speakers were incapable of such subtleties? Having a hard time wrapping around the idea, especially with very powerful modern, or even older hardware.

I understand what you are saying.  It really doesn't have much to do with the computing power of the processor.  Those things are astonishing in the number of operations that they can do simultaneously, but that is exactly the reason that the audio quality suffers.  When we are dealing with binary code we have lots of 1's and 0's running around creating pulses (or not, depending upon value) and each one of these creates a tiny bit of RFI within the chipset and introduces an equally tiny amount of noise in the power supply, particularly on the ground rail.  This creates a very low level din of noise that is pollution that can create jitter within the chipset and can be inprinted upon the power supply to the rest of the ancillary electronics.  What we are talking about here is in the micro, nano and pico volt and amp range.  Even so, when you consider that power supplies are 3.3V or lower you can see the potential for the problems in precise digital audio conversion.

If you know anything about me and my obsession with noise and its' effect upon audio you'll get where I'm coming from here.  In digital audio, especially, extremely high SQ is dependent upon pristine power supply.  As you continue to refine your system and down the path to audio nirvana, you will begin to notice just how much everything effects everything else.  Your not noticing the degradation is probably due to a few things.  First of all and most important is that you are distracted from the SQ while you are doing other tasks.  Critical listening demands 100% of your brain.  Another aspect is that system refinement is an intensely educational process.  Every time that you make an improvement to your system, it will bring something else into focus.  It isn't that your speakers aren't revealing the differences, but the whole system as a synergistic sum of parts and pieces.

Audio OCD is a lifelong affliction.  When you have been doing this as long as I have it will be almost crystal clear.  Almost, but not quite.     It's all good.  But, it can always be better   

Dave

Dave

[saisunil]

nice explanation dave ...
 
cheers
 
ps: as Pual from TRL says - it's about reducing the noise floor ...

[dBe]

nice explanation dave ...
 
cheers
 
ps: as Pual from TRL says - it's about reducing the noise floor ...

Absolutely.  And thanks 

Dave

[dmccombs]

I done a lot of A/B tests looking at how different software processes and how using different I/O methods affect the sound.  Here are a few thoughts relevant to the thread.

    The mouse and keyboard functionality have to run somehow.  As Dave said all process tax the system and seem to have a minute affect on the sound.  If you have a good system, you can here these minute sound degradations.

   With the Mouse/Keyboard you have 3 main options.
1)  USB - Not good, if you have a USB DAC or if your music is on an external USB Drive
2)  Bluetooth - Not bad.  Although you get a little better sound with Bluetooth disable, the degradation is subtle
3)  Use Screen Sharing and access the Mini via your network connection.   Most of us already have the network enabled for Internet Radio or Pandora.  Enabling the Screen Sharing function has very minimal sound impact.

   I use option 3 in my system since I usually have my laptop open anyway when I listen to music.  I use it to read, email, look stuff up, etc.  You could also use an itouch etc this way.

   Another poster seemed to disbelieve that a music server needs all the system resources.  It is hard to believe, after all, a music server uses very little system resources.  The problem is that time slicing of memory and CPU slightly affects timing of the music delivery (sounds like the concept jitter, eh).  When you first run a MacMini or other music server, it probably will sound very good.  The music application has plenty of memory and CPU, so life (and sound) is good.

  But, if you turn off unneeded background process, the sound becomes fuller, less hash and haze, cymbals sound tighter, you hear an over all improvement.  By reducing the time slicing, the timing of the music is more accurate and has a quieter noise floor.

   I have gone through my Mac and turned off every process I don't need.  I've uninstalled all non-music programs I can find. Almost everything I turned off made an audible difference.  The collective impact of all the software mods is substantial.

   I know it sound crazy, so I suggest folks just try it for yourself.  If you have a resolving system you will hear improvement.

Darrell

[Rclark]

Given all that, and thank you very much, that was a very satisfying answer Dave, wouldn't the very best OS for audio then be something like a non-graphical-user-interface, totally stripped down DOS operating system? Because it seems to me then that it would be pretty hard to eliminate background processes on a modern system with modern OS.

[dBe]

Given all that, and thank you very much, that was a very satisfying answer Dave, wouldn't the very best OS for audio then be something like a non-graphical-user-interface, totally stripped down DOS operating system? Because it seems to me then that it would be pretty hard to eliminate background processes on a modern system with modern OS.

Probably so, but 98% of users would miss the convenience of a decent GUI to give album art and all of those b&w.  I for one wouldn't, but I'm about half blind up close anyway and eyeglasses give me headaches.

I have great hope for something on the Ubuntu platform or another form of Unix.  I have had very good reults from a way stripped down form of XP, but it still isn't quite there in SQ compared to a 2010 Mac which is just awesome when the machine and the OS are configured properly.  Darrell McCombs and Kevin Burke have those babies figured out.  Even after I get my Mac - after RMAF since I'm slammed and don't want that temptation - I'll still be futzing with the PC because I know (I hope?) that it has the potential to kick ass.  I want to get this done because there are some people out there, and I used to be one, that will not buy a Mac.  I vowed that I would never do it because the Mac is not tweaker friendly like a PC and, just in case you haven't figured this one out, I'm the ultimate tweak     

Dave

[tasar]

Thanks for all your input Dave. If and when you do embrace the Mini, let's do consider an all new thread where we all share the nuances of tweaking. When the Apple guys consummated this new design, they certainly had an ear for background operatives, the least of which was the ITunes directive and OSX. Danny has said SBooth's "PLAY", although void of user interaction, trumps ITunes for audio quality, however subtle. Could this be the tip of the iceberg ?

[dBe]

Danny has said SBooth's "PLAY", although void of user interaction, trumps ITunes for audio quality, however subtle. Could this be the tip of the iceberg ?

I think so.  A bare bones interface is a necessity, I think. I'll know more in a few weeks when I get a tweaked Mini up and running side by side with my tweaked PC.  I should be interesting, methinks.

Dave

[Rclark]

huh. Is any mac mini an acceptable source or is it the new one's that have that special hot sauce?

Just get one, uninstall everything but Itunes and you're good?

What about a macbook? A cheap used one? I'd rather have something I could keep near the system and the DAC itself and not need it's own seperate monitor.

 What is it about a Macmini that's so special?

 Why not just get a really fancy PC soundcard?

[highfilter]

Another thing to consider, based on what software you use and if you want a Windows versus Mac machine, is to get a Mac Mini for its low profile, low noise and decently well shielded parts, and just put Windows as the main OS. I've done this and continue to tweak my machine and I'm really liking the results. This is a solid solution and you get all the benefits of the quality built Mac Mini, but with software I'd rather use and better network connectivity options. iTunes is a horrible and slow application for having tons of TB of music on another computer and adding that library and playing it back on a different machine. This is one of the main reasons I switched from OS X to Windows 7. I can load up 4TB or more of music across the network, in Windows using Foobar, and all the libraries get updated in real-time and it doesn't take forever to scan like iTunes. Also just use the fooRemote plugin and control my Mac Mini from the iPod Touch and have no keyboard, mouse or display on the Mac. Disabled Bluetooth and all that other stuff, since all I need is the network cable going into my router.

Just another option to explore... Can be a killer combo if tweaked properly. And there's always going to be tweaks, but the level of performance I am seeing is really impressive and it's very easy to use and manage.

[Rclark]

bam! That sounds ideal. And no screen or keyboard, like it.