I could believe that. I am using a Lifatec glass Toslink cable from a PC based streamer to the RME Digiface USB (hooked to the Mac Mini). Then a second Lifatec glass Toslink cable from the RME Digiface USB to my DAC. I am trying to isolate any noise from the Mac Mini. The use of the AQ Jitterbug probably does this very well on the USB cable
We added a jitterbug in front of our USB cable and it made a nice improvement.
I will be listening to music.
2 Likes
Well said.
1 Like
Does that mean I donāt care, donāt want to hear it?
1 Like
Respectfully, with Bacch, your desire or care to try this and that will diminish. As someone who loves to try this and that I am somewhat troubled and comforted by this.
5 Likes
Sounds really promising!
1 Like
[quote=āCEL, post:1330, topic:32036ā]
$400 power supply to the Mac Mini made a noticeable positive impact?
[/quote]still.
I run mi Mini off a HDPlex300. I heard a difference. Whether the improved Bxcch4mac software made the LPS less need would be I interesting to experience. I do kow a 1/2ā 3M absorber tuning ring at the DC power cord by LPS improves sound
1 Like
Hi Vmax, good to know! How did you connect Mac Mini to HDPlex300? Teradak?
I use the teradak board that replaces the SMPS of mini. Then I use this DC power cable with 5 shield layers. DC-GAC4 --- Gotham GAC-4/1 11301 UltraPro Star Quad DC Cable(JSSG360)
1 Like
Good idea! Did you compare USB vs. Toslink from the RME to the DAC? And with what DAC? My PS DS MK2 can only do 24-96 over Toslink. Though that is what Edgar recommends for the BACCH4Mac anyway, and specifically not the 24-192 that would have been my go-to otherwise. This would then free up the USB in on my DAC.
I am one who did the TeraDak LPS mod. This was on an old Intel i5 Mac Mini though. When only using the Mac Mini as a passthru on SMPS, without engaging the BACCH4Mac filters, I preferred my other low-latency kernel Linux source that was on an LPS. So I made the LPS change on the Mac Mini. I did not go back and retest though as it was low-cost and I had a lot of fun modding the Mac Mini.
1 Like
I remember our Ted saying Toslink isnāt limited to 24.96 with the MK1 DAC. I remember him saying try it, it may surprise you. I was using a device to go from my Blu-ray player to feed my MK1 DAC. I was trying to feed 24.192 Blu-ray music out of the Oppo to the MK1.
Just a thought.
1 Like
Feedback from Edgar was that BACCH is meant to run at 24-96, not at 24-192. And when I tried to send 24-192 to the MK2 over cheap plastic Toslink, it did not work. My personal belief is that excellent equipment does not need higher ratesā¦ at least not as as inputā¦ to sound excellent anyway. Not just Edgar but also Thomas Stockham of Soundstream (a long time ago in my high school days) assured me that science backs up this belief too. It is just less computationally intensive for my server to downscale DSD files only to 24-192 vs. further down to 24-96.
Originally my DAC (since replaced) did not have a USB input. It was manufactured in 1990. It only had RCA coax digital, AES and Toslink. The RME Digiface USB has only optical inputs and outputs. My new DAC can accept up to 192KHz over Toslink. The Lifatec cables are high quality glass and I am currently using 176KHz. I looked at this route because the Lifatec cables are less expensive than high quality USB cables and this setup automatically galvanically isolates the Mac Mini from the PC streamer and the DAC from the Mac Mini.
1 Like
By now I donāt question anything Edgar says. He is always correct. Yes, I am listening to everything at 24.96 Tops. Who cares is my thought. This sounds really good. Using the Mini as an endpoint. Who cares? It sounds nice and itās done.
3 Likes
Considering going from Intro to Audiophile. Iām controlling the M2 Mini with a MacBook Air M2 and Remote Desktop. Works great! Hopefully Edgar will respond to my email soon. Does anyone have thoughts on the BF Pro FS optical out vs. USB out of the Mini? Iām guessing USB may sound better. Iām currently using the built-in DAC at 192/24.
Audiophile is the right move. Ease on in. The better mics are worthwhile if you wish to do your own Binaural recordings. Otherwiseā¦
3 Likes
I too am interested to hear of test results of using USB vs Toslink out from the Babyface at 24-96. Especially if with a PSA DS MK2 DAC. So far I generally prefer USB with this DAC. So I should not be feeling these twinges to experiment. But they are happening all the same.
2 Likes
In my setup the Babyface Pro is for input only. Unless you choose to use itās internal DAC. Which anyone who has any other DAC would only do for giggles. I have done it, it seemed okay. But in my Bacch4Mac setup output is from the Mini. I use USB. Itās fine.
Do you not have a BabyFace Pro yet?
1 Like
I already have an RME Fireface 802 being used elsewhere. And I do not need a baby RME to get music into the Mac Mini anyway. I send everything in at 24-96 over HQPlayer NAA. Apparently, I am not the only person who uses HQP for downscaling not upscaling. I have two thousand DSD files and so they need downscaling for BACCH. The Mac Mini overheated trying to do so itself and glitched regularly. And that was just from DSD64. If I recall right, it choked outright on DSD256. I have a much more powerful Linux rig with CUDA-offloading in the server room doing the downscaling. It can even do multichannel downscaling.
When I make my filters though, I use a small MOTU interface with manual gain pots. There is the āleft speakerā calibration function in BACCH to make sure that the left-right mics are at the same level. But it is a bit of a pain and the mics do seem to be starting to wander. Or maybe it is just the manual potsā¦ So I am considering using a unit like the Babyface with electronic pots.
I need one more reason though to add another RME to the stable. Toslink output might be the ticket. Though I might go with an RME UCX II instead of the Babyface. Would probably have more long-term use for me.