Which Mac Mini?

Hi Paul - I purchased a DAC Sr. about 6 months ago, and then purchased a Mac Mini with a SSD and 16 GB RAM, based on the fact that you used one in your system. I have a 1GB internet service, and have CAT7 ethernet cable connected directly to the Bridge II, and I am using Qobuz streaming via Roon on my local area network as my music software. Since that time I have been following all of the threads on the forum here, and have frankly been a little overwhelmed on all of the discussions with regard to the Matrix, cables, power supplies, galvanic isolators and such. Most are saying that the Bridge II is not the best option to stream, and say that USB is the best option. Based on the setup that you described that you use, is it best to run the ethernet directly to the Mac Mini, and then USB to the DAC? (is the only advantage to running ethernet directly to the Bridge II is if you are using MConnect?) Thanks in advance for your help!

I started with a Mac Mini and now have the Aurender N100H. It’s light years ahead of the Mac Mini. If funds permit the N10 would be even better.

waymanchen11 - this describes exactly my experience going from Mini to Auralic. I’d read that the Aurenders had the edge on SQ over the Auralics, but that the Auralic Lighning DS app was easier/worked better. That funtionality aspect is very important to me - especially as I was hoping to be rid of Roon. So, being allegedly both cheaper and easier to use, I chose Auralic to start my “Real Server” journey ; )

One of the things I absolutely love about the Web app with which you can remotely control all the functions of the Auralic (this is separate from the app for playing music), is that it has The Manual in a column down the right side at all times, adjacent to every Menu Item. When you change the state of a menu item, the related description changes to reflect it. Fab.
Lightning%20DS

4 Likes

LOL
Paul,

I apologize for starting this stream/mess. We are awaiting the arrival of our new DSJunior and since we have been a Mac family going back decades, I was curious about that option.

Thanks for weighing in.

I’m a little staggered to hear that PSA still use a Mac mini and for the cost of a dedicated P15 you could have your choice of uber-streamers. I used Auralic for years with external SSD and recently bought an Innuos Zen Mk3. Checked out all the available products and ticked the most boxes in terms of low noise, clean power, low power chip, bespoke operating system, Roon, RAM management and a few others I forget. The Mac mini fails in every single regard for audio, but is great for photography and work.

I agree with Badbeef that Lightning DS is one of the main things that makes Auralic streamers great products.

2 Likes

I guess that was part of my issue at the show, comparing rooms. Everyone had at least current dedicated streamers, and many had Uber Streamers…AND Turntables! It was very cool. PS had the TT/vinyl front end down nicely.

Our experiences are quite different from yours. Perhaps it’s setup that is the difference.

That’s the punchline! :wink:

In 10 years of streaming I’ve never put a computer in my audio system. I’ve always found digital benefits from low noise and low power, which is the opposite of how consumer computers like the Mac mini are designed, and you can strip bits out but you are stuck with the operating system.

My set-up is as simple as it can be and mostly fibre-optic, with no switches, routers or wifi, and ultra-low and clean power, with the power distributor and server on vibration isolators.

1 Like

… and Paul hinted that might not be too long.

I’m relieved to hear that @Paul has chosen his Mac Mini setup out of careful consideration, and even comparison to the Aurender, rather than because he’s somehow stuck in the year 2000 :sunglasses:

To a certain extent, and at least to myself, this proves my hypothesis that these streamers are all computers, and if a Mac or PC is setup properly, in the way Paul has, that the performance can be very close.

It’s not so much as one vs the other, but rather finding ways to maximize each. HQPlayer, if used to the max, requires lots of computing power to recreate and analog like signal through DSP upsampling. It’s reasonable to conclude that with proper power and other steps, a PC or Mac can be very similar to a high priced streamer. The key is in the details of setup and software.

@Paul, would you be willing to add a Matrix to your setup given the praise it received, even from @tedsmith? Would be interesting to hear what you think, only costs $375.

As for me, I love my Mac/Roon/HQPlayer/ Matrix setup. My takeaway is the need to focus on better power. A P15 is drastically out of reach at $7500 though.

In any case, the prosecution rests its case :joy::joy::joy:

I’d love to debate it!

Based on comments such as yours on this and other audiophile forums, I believe our collective thinking about digital reproduction has been clouded by many years of dealing with analog reproduction. In analog reproduction I would argue that EVERYTHING matters -power supplies, power supply diodes, type of rectification, metal in the hook up wire, etc. What we tend to do is move serially through the distribution chain and attempt to optimize every little thing. We are rewarded for this effort with incremental improvements in sound quality. But digital requires a very different way of looking at things.

In digital we are trying to transfer bit perfect data to the gates of the digital to analog converter. It turns out that, with current technology, this is rather easy as long as you take some care in the process. Unfortunately, getting proper output from these perfect bits is complicated by the fact that the bits needed to be timed correctly as well… a big ask. The DS DAC (and some others) have solved this issue by, in essence, looking at the bits asynchronously and re-clocking them without reference to prior clocks. So at the gates of the DA converter we have bit perfect data re-clocked at the proper value (as well as the DAC can manage) regardless of how the bits got there. So how can we hear differences in SQ between inputs, or between a Mac Mini and an Aurender? The remaining variable is electrical noise transmitted to the DAC from upstream components over metallic connections, as well as, noise transferred to the cabling itself. So unlike in a purely analog system, optimizing a digital system such as this requires that we use a DAC centric view and take efforts to minimize the noise transferred to the DAC.

Since pretty much everything in the distribution chain creates noise are we right back where we started -do we need to improve every little thing to minimize noise? Does changing the Mac Mini power supply improve SQ? Yes, because that decreases noise getting to the DAC, but there may be a more efficient way of protecting the DAC from such noise. If you galvanically isolate the last step of data transfer to the DAC (with, say, a fiberoptic connection or an “air gap”), you will not transfer noise from the upstream data source(s). If we do that are we done?

We still have to consider other sources of noise. The AC input is one of those sources and using conditioning or regeneration should yield improvements in SQ. Many have noted that using a well designed power cord seems to make the most difference when used into the DAC. I believe the difference in the sound of the different inputs to the DAC is mostly do to the noise created by the final conversion of the specific input type into I2S data. So some experimentation may be necessary to find the best input if an I2S output is unavailable from your upstream chain. Finally, improving the noise generated from the final conversion in the galvanic isolation segment and using a cable that minimizes interference from that point into the DAC should prove beneficial.

After applying fairly inexpensive galvanic isolation I can say that though I have not tried all the inputs and all the options, of those I have tried, hardware differences have been minimized including power supplies and cables upstream of the isolation. Differences due to software have also been minimized when using bit perfect transmission. For instance, I preferred mConnect to Roon before galvanic isolation, but now SQ is the same -I think Roon is much harder on the CPU and generates more noise.

So if one has a Mac Mini, I would recommend before running out and spending thousands on a “Music Server”, move the Mini away from your sound system (and power it from a different circuit) and spend a few hundred on galvanic isolation and compare it to the Innuos or Aurender or Auralic and then make a decision.

What would I like to see in a Music Server? Bit Perfect transmission, strong internal galvanic isolation, and I2S output. Sounds like Octave… though truth be told, I would like to use Roon.

I hope this is not too wild @Paul

2 Likes

The problem is that Roon needs a lot of processing power, an i7 if used to the max. Most Roon users use way less and the processor chosen by Innuos is less powerful than Roon’s i3 minimum spec, but more efficient. It runs Roon or UPNP software with ease.

I think you are fundamentally wrong to think that a PC or MAC can be optimised in the same way. Just look at the power consumption. You can’t run a MAC without OSX, but audio servers run dramatically smaller bespoke operating systems. The Innuos have multiple internal linear power supplies. If you don’t want that benefit, and it is major, you can buy a Sonicorbiter that is significantly cheaper than a Mac Mini and attach an external LPS.

Most makes sense, but OP asked, WHICH Mac Mini is good for his streaming, and to me, unless you are willing and able to customize your own computer to have lower noise level, a much more convenient option is to buy a dedicated music streamer like Aurender, Innous, etc… As I said above, I might build my own with some component from https://hdplex.com/ specially PSU that’s a must have, but that’s me and that’s NOT something for everyone to do.

It’s like what Darko said, you can either make your own coffee at home, or goto a coffee shop and have someone else do it for you. Some love to make their own fancy coffee at home, but most are comfortable with having an expert make a great Cappucino so they could enjoy and pay for the expert’s effort.

Also, as PS Audio is building Octave, it means Mac Mini is simply not good enough.

But, the Mac Mini only becomes not good enough once Octave is released. Just a coincidence, I’m sure. Because, no one else has figured this out yet.

2 Likes

The Aurender is a little different. You get their app on your Ipad to control the contents, what you want to play like Roon and the menu page you have a bunch of other options. Then on the computer you can link to the contents to upload, move around, or delete files.

Is there something wrong with adopting something you find better than what you are currently using?

This strains credulity. Are you saying the Mac Mini, an unmodified version (mind you), is no better than the top of the line streamers on the market from the likes of Auralic, Aurender, Innuos, Lumin, etc.? That the Octave will be the first to top the Mac Mini? If so, my Jumped The Shark avatar reached maturity today.
Last Spring, around the time of AXPONA, Paul claimed there were no good speakers on the market. This is a similar unfounded claim. It’s not in keeping with the generous ethos of PSA. It’s arrogant and misinformed.

1 Like

I am making no claim as to Mac Minis; I have never used one.

I am asking if you find something wrong with adopting something you find better than what you are currently using.

And Paul never stated a Mac Mini is the best streamer. He instead stated they: “are quite respectable sounding and do the job” and acknowledges the Aurender sounds better. See, here.

The stated goal of Octave is to be state of the art; i.e., beat an Aurender, Bryston’s BDPs, etc. We will see if PS Audio is successful in this regard. I certainly expect Octave to beat a Mac Mini. I also expect PS Audio to use its own streamer rather than Mac Minis, or any other product.

@wakethetown - Yeah - got to go with you on this one, just saw Paul on water skis… and I love Paul… just does not even pass the sniff test… however, I have never owned a mac mini… so… I’m disqualified… I just know my streaming sounds better than my DMP so I am very happy w/ my choices…