Which Apple MAC is Best Music Server?

JLeeMD -- Tue, 04/12/2011 - 16:46

Is it the iMAC with a detachable power cord or the MAC mini with "built-in" power supply. Which is better if your goal is optimal sound quality (i.e., lower noise floor etc.)? I'm planning on adding one to my Esoteric/Levinson system and value optimal sound quality above features or ergonomics.

Priaptor -- Tue, 04/12/2011 - 17:58

MacMini is my choice.

Tiny computer and if you have another Mac, screen sharing is simple so you can literally hide it. An iMac has a big screen. What software program are you going to use? That is more important and how you optimize it.

I use a MacMini with a bus powered Firewire drive and a NAS for my backup and it is awesome. I do all my editing from my laptop and never need a screen. It is silent.

JLeeMD -- Tue, 04/12/2011 - 18:17

I'm told Puremusic is a good way to go. Could I use an iPad to control the Mac mini? Not being able to use an aftermarket powercord leaves me a bit unfulfilled...

Priaptor -- Tue, 04/12/2011 - 18:51

Yes. I had the trial version of Pure Music running on my MacMini and it worked well with Apple Remote on my iPad.

The USB cable (I am assuming you are using that to the Esoteric as there is no Firewire input to it if I remember correctly) is the important one in this setup. People will tell you the hard disk makes a difference, etc, but my opinion, is that is all nonsense and the important issue is the data stream. It is very easy to upgrade the memory and that is something you WILL want to do as that will effect Pure Music. Upgrade the Mini from OWC to 4 gigs. They also sell a very good bus powered Firewire drive that costs 300 dollars, so no power needed for the Raid.

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer%20Technology/GM8QM7S15T32/

That is the site for the 1.5TB drive. This is a similar (if not identical) drive that CalDigit sells for over 600 dollars.

I am not familiar with the Esoteric unit. Is it capable of 192/24 via asynchronous USB?

JLeeMD -- Tue, 04/12/2011 - 19:19

The Esoteric I will use is capable of 24/192 asynch USB. Can the Mac mini output 24/192?

Does upgrading the memory improve performance? I'm really new to the computer world: I'm afraid I don't understand what you are referring to when you are discussing "OWC to 4 gigs"..."firewire drive"..."Raid." I'm hopeless, I know...

Priaptor -- Tue, 04/12/2011 - 19:40

Pure Music does is what will stream in high res. It can interface with iTunes so you get the same interface, playlists etc. Pure Music or Amarra, the latter more expensive and the former works just as well.

OWC is the name of the company. If you go to that website I gave you the link, you can buy 2 Gigs of memory for the Mini that will upgrade it to 4 gigs which Pure Music recommends. The Raid is just an external storage device that hooks into the Mac that will store your music that Pure Music will access and stream to the Esoteric. It is very easy and not hard at all. Also Pure Music is very good at helping you getting it up and running.

JLeeMD -- Tue, 04/12/2011 - 19:47

Thanks Priaptor. Your responses are very helpful. Does Pure Music rec 4 gigs because it improves performance?

Priaptor -- Tue, 04/12/2011 - 19:56

They "recommend" it, but I spoke to the tech and/or developer and he said you should get it if you are streaming high res. He also recommended the Mini as the computer of choice for it's size and ease of upgrading the memory.

The mini just has a rubber bottom you literally just turn it and remove it and there is the memory slot that you just stick it in. I think the memory costs 100 dollars. The Raid I told you about can be configured as a Raid 0 for speed at 1.5 TB or as a Raid 1 for redundancy at 750 gigs. I would recommend Raid 0 if you always backup your library. That is what I do.

That raid does not require an external power supply, is QUIET and you can set it to the RAID you want with buttons on its front. It is very simple.

JLeeMD -- Wed, 04/13/2011 - 00:02

I don't know if you read Alan Taffel's review of the Esoteric K-03 where he raved about its USB DAC. HOWEVER, he states "the driver sounds significantly better with ASIO, which bypasses any and all OS detritus." ASIO apparently is not available to Mac users (!). OMG...this is all Greek to me! The K-03 / Mac mini was my plan but now I'm unsure...

Steven Stone -- Wed, 04/13/2011 - 10:20

Mac's don't use ASIO. Don't worry, you don't need it. It's a Windows thang...

Stick with your plan, go with the Mac Mini - AVOID PCs, unless you need a new hobby - making your PC run optimally.

Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications

JLeeMD -- Wed, 04/13/2011 - 10:24

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I love this forum...

JLeeMD -- Wed, 04/13/2011 - 14:40

Priaptor: I just read your comments following the DCS Debussey review. I haven't bought the Esoteric yet. Do you think the Mac mini-24/192 asynch USB model will be obsolete in a few years? The PS Audio combo is appealing, but I wonder whether it will perform at the level of todays reference digital gear.

Priaptor -- Wed, 04/13/2011 - 15:36

My own personal belief is that USB will be a short lived solution. I think the way PS Audio and LINN are proceeding is the correct one and I like the theory behind the "digital lens" of PS Audio to eliminate all jitter.

Having said that, PS Audio is not entirely without its issues. They are still having issues with their high res conversion of FLAC on the fly, that may soon be fixed. They are also still grappling with playing gapless, although there are workarounds.

From a price standpoint and from a pure musical standpoint, from what I have heard, few are in the same league, including units costing significantly more. I like the transport from PS called the PWT with their DAC called the PWD as my favorite solution. Their computer only solution is the PWD with their Bridge, a network card that gets inserted into their DAC and works on your network without anything but an ethernet cable into the Bridge. From my perspective, I still like a transport solution better, but with every firmware upgrade from PS, the gap is now narrowing.

I did an A/B test fairly extensively with a competitor using asynchronous USB versus the PS Bridge and felt the Bridge was significantly better. I have not heard the Esoteric, but at this point in the computer game, no way would I spend the money for a computer only solution that they and others charge.

The one unit I would check out is the Weiss. That actually has me intrigued and I have heard great things about it. Someone I have had correspondence with who did a fair comparison with it and early version of firmware of the Bridge thought the Weiss was better, not by much, but found the best combination was PWT/PWD seconded by the PWT/Weiss.

Steve Stone of TAS did a review of the Weiss 202 so you can read about it. Right now it lists for 7.7K whereas the PS Audio with the Bridge is at 3.7K. There seems to be a "rivalry" between the Berkeley and the Weiss among the computer audio guys and just about every one who has compared both, seem to like the Weiss better. Even if money was not an object, at this point the Weiss would be my upper limit, still expensive.

You should look at the PS solution as it is incredibly musical, amazing value for the money and bests many more expensive DACs. My system consists of Nola Baby Grands, ARC Ref 5 and McIntosh MC2301 monoblocks.

JLeeMD -- Wed, 04/13/2011 - 16:12

The A/B you referred to was with the ARC DAC8? And wouldn't you being using the Weiss with a computer, just like with the Debussey or Esoteric? With the PWT/PWD, could you burn a DVD-R from a high res file and play it in the PWT? Do you lose fidelity by doing so?

Priaptor -- Wed, 04/13/2011 - 16:27

Yes it was the DAC 8.

The Weiss works through firewire and not USB. Those who I have conversed with swear by it as a "computer" solution. Are you looking for a computer only solution or one that still can play discs?

When you burn a DVD, there is no loss of data and the only theoretical difference is how the DAC handles the data stream. If you read about the PSA solution, it makes more sense than most at how it handles jitter. Theoretically, the Bridge and the PWT should be identical but at this time I think discs I cut as DVDs sound better through the DAC than the same files on my server through their Bridge. However, as I stated, the gap is narrowing and with their latest beta firmware, I find the soundstage closer to what I am experiencing with their transport.

JLeeMD -- Wed, 04/13/2011 - 17:45

My goal right now is to be able to tap into high res downloads as SACD releases are drying up, but I don't want to go backwards in terms of sound quality. Looking at your equipment, I have to ask: does the PWT/PWD combo provide SOTA sound for digital playback, in your opinion? PS Audio does not have a tradition of SOTA gear and, I'm embarrassed to say it, It almost seems too cheap to be a true contender! My current system includes Esoteric X-05, Mark Levinson No. 383 integrated amp, Usher Audio Mini Two, and Synergistic Research Powercell 10 MkII power conditioner. I'm at the point now where I'll only upgrade to SOTA gear (for the least amount of $, of course).

Priaptor -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 09:42

PS Audio is indeed "cheap" but that does not necessarily make it bad. You can spend a lot more money and not get what the PS gives you sonically. I have heard more expensive DACs and have to say, is more musical. They are also working diligently to get gapless and playback of high res FLAC programmed. Right now you can play all high res through the DAC in either AIFF or WAV but 176 or 192 FLAC is a problem, which they "think" they have figured out and have just released a beta firmware for a part fix.

I would read the review in Computer Audiophile about the Esoteric at:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Esoteric-D-07-DAC-Review

While just another opinion, he wasn't too thrilled with it.

The Weiss on the other hand has been getting nothing but rave reviews, for a similar price as the Esoteric. I have not hear either, but do now know several people who have both the Weiss and PS and those who sold their PSA because of "interface issues" that are now almost resolved find the Weiss sonically about on par and those I know who don't own either but auditioned both in Hong Kong liked both and gave a slight nod to the Weiss as a computer ONLY solution compared to the PSA (with older firmware) but gave the best nod to the PSA PWT/PWD.

It would be nice if Steve Stone would chime in here regarding the Esoteric and Weiss as he did an extensive review on the Weiss. I don't think PSA has made the Bridge available for review until all the bugs have been worked out. There are some reviews of it by other "high end" reviewers that have raved about it.

Again, personally, I think it is a great piece.

JLeeMD -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 14:37

The PS Audio PWT/PWD/Bridge is a significant product in the move into the high end download world. Why hasn't TAS or Stereophile uttered a peep about them?

Priaptor -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 15:52

I am not sure they have made a unit available to them as yet. I think they want the bugs out of the Bridge before they do that, but I am just speculating.

When they do review it, they are in for one hell of a surprise. My take is they will give it a very big thumbs up, just my opinion.

Steven Stone -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 16:52

I still have the Weiss, and so far nothing's bettered it, but I have no experience with the Esoteric other than at shows.

The great thing about the Weiss is FIREWIRE. Not only is it a nice fast interface, but if you have FireWire and USB, you have TWO pipes - one for your DAC and one for your storage devices. I use the Weiss on Firewire and all my other drives, printers and stuff is on USB.

Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications

Priaptor -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 16:55

Steve,

Have you had a chance to compare it to the Berkeley?

Also curious when you guys are going to review the Bridge solution from PS Audio?

JLeeMD -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 16:58

Wait, so if you you a USB DAC, how do you connect the Mac mini to a NAS?

Priaptor -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 17:06

A NAS is "mapped" to the computer. It is very easy to do. It sits on the network, most come with software that allows the computer to map the NAS volume to the computer which is now seen as a drive, just as any other external drive.

Or you could directly hook up a USB drive to the USB port or a Firewire drive, if you are not using a DAC that uses firewire such as the Weiss. If you are going to get the Weiss, as Steve said, it's best interface is supposed to be Firewire, so you would not want to use a Firewire drive, but either a USB drive or a mapped NAS volume.

agb -- Fri, 05/20/2011 - 19:30

Steve Stone reviewed the Wyred4Sound DAC-2 which is for most purposes, entirely competitive sonically with the WEISS. At less than one quarter the price. And it has a great output (analog amp) section. Needs, literally hundreds of burn in hours to sound good. The WEISS is a mm clearer some of the time. The right USB cable will likely shrink the audible differences. The WEISS also runs through Firewire, the W4S does not. The USB protocol is, or should be, just as good if implemented properly.

Just my opinion, money is spent better than on the WEISS. PS Audio's solutions are great.

Steven Stone -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 17:07

A NAS drive is an Ethernet-aware drive that interacts with computers via your home wifi or wired Ethernet connection. A NAS drive has nothing to do with USB. You can (and I do) have USB and NAS drives. I even have Firewire drives.

Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications

JLeeMD -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 18:05

You know, this luddite actually undersood what you just said. I'm trying to keep my set-up simple, so I was planning to upgrade my Esoteric X-05 to the K-03 and use its USB DAC that so impressed Alan Taffel. The Mac mini would then be connected to the Esoteric. As a newbie to this whole download biz, I wonder: is a Mac mini better, purely in terms of sound quality, compared with a dedicated music server? I'm reading about servers such as Qsonix and Sooloos and they go on about how they stream low jitter bits, etc., and I sure the designers of the Mac didn't care about such issues. Yet I see respected reviewers such as Mr. Stone and John Atkinson using the Mac as their primary digital source...

Sam -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 09:24

Priaptor, did u upgrade ur speakers to the baby grands? I thought in another post u mentioned u had the micros? Or did u have the baby grands to begin with?

Priaptor -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 09:30

YUP, I did. I was made an offer to good to pass up.

Sam -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 09:37

Since when have u had these and may be u could post ur thoughts on the differences between the micro and baby on the other thread of the micros. I'm curious to know about how room size have played a role with the two, imaging, soundstage, bass and anything else u could discuss since u have had both in the same controlled setting with the same associated equipment. I don't want to hijack this thread so if u could post at the micros thread it would be great. Thanks.

Priaptor -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 09:43

Will do.

jlg -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 19:09

Steven Stone wrote:
"Stick with your plan, go with the Mac Mini - AVOID PCs, unless you need a new hobby - making your PC run optimally."
This raises a problem for me. I want to start using a music server. I have nothing against Macs; this is being written on a Mac. However:
I listen to a lot of classical music. This creates a problem because classical recordings have more complicated classifications than most other genres. Itunes, for example, uses a classification heirarchy of genre artist album. An opera would have a composer, conductor, and a number of singers. Which of these is the artist? The correct answer is all of the above. The genre is opera, but also baroque. Also, albums often have multiple composers. Etc., etc..
So far, the only software I've found with enough flexibility is J. River. J. River is a windows only product.
I would be quite grateful if someone could suggest a Mac alternative. I've been a (fairly poor) Windows system administrator in the past. I thought I had put that behind me. I hope I was right about that, but it's not looking good.
Jonathan

Steven Stone -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 20:34

You have discovered iTunes, and GraceNote's Achilles heel - Classical music.

Their Metadata fields are too limited, but you can add your own info into the existing metadata. If you have iTunes available, check out the "Get Info" section to see what sort of metadata you could add to some of the blank fields.

Stand-alone players such as Audirvana will play whatever you drop into their playlists, so you could look into stand-alone players that use playlists. Check out Steve Nugent's site Empirical Audio - he has his way of ripping that is an alternative to iTunes with a Mac.

But it comes down to this - if you feel that J-RIver is the only program that offers the features you want, then it's Windows (or a Mac emulating a PC running windows). You could have a windows partition on a Mac with j-River for ripping and then use whatever you want to play back in your Mac OS. Just a thought..

Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications

pwfletcher -- Wed, 02/13/2013 - 23:06

Love my mac mini ... it sounds great.

Mac Mini Sever -> Bel Canto DAC3.5 - > SimAudio i7 -> Dynaudio C1