FORUMS
I personally feel that if you have Apple products mixed in with your true hi-fi, that you should be banned-for-life from the audiophile community.
So, help me understand: what is it about Apple products that you fanboys INSIST on having?
Please spare me the typical responses of "It just works" or "I can do it from my phone/tablet" or "It's the experience..." I am seeking objective and persuasive responses that contain detail about TECHNICAL superiority, not rhetoric.
Thanks.
...after almost 200 views and a week later.
another absurd trend is USB turntables with the purpose of converting vinyl to MP3 in your computer. Kind of like routing the movie picture from an OPPO 105 blu-ray player to a 25 inch CRT tube TV.
...nearly 500 views later, and still no one can elaborate on Apple tech specs??
All:
Apple essentially bundles all of the separate components and software required to playback hi-fi quality music.
It's really that simple for most people.
If you are more of a technical person wrt computers, one can definitely assemble a small linux server that handily beats the Apple hardware/software in audio quality and cost.
however; most people just don't want to be bothered with choosing a PC, sound card, SPDIF converter and DAC...then deciding on what software..etc...when with Apple, it's all already assembled and sounds decent.
That is for my home system... but for travelling, nothing beats my Macbook Air & Audioquest DragonFly.
That's really all there is to the "apple" argument. They build good hardware with good software and make it easy to play.
Best Regards,
Ron
rrstesiak: Was hoping for some supporting data. C'est la vie.
But am curious, however... If "...they build good hardware..." then why do you substitute the stock 24/96 sound card with a 24/96 Dragonfly?
Yes! Good catch wrt why the Dragonfly upgrade..
Like I said, Apple makes good hardware and software. Not the best. But good. So that implies room for improvement; ergo the dragonfly in the case of a laptop. Though for probably 99.8% of users, apple's own dac is completely acceptable.
It is difficult to quantify precise difference between Apple's implementation of a DAC and headphone amp circuitry with the Audioquest Dragonfly.. but there are vast amounts of well written articles on the internet. Here is a good example of an older review of the MacBook Air's DAC from an older model, but you may find it enlightening nevertheless:
http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/12/apple-macbook-air-5g.html
I think it would be asking a lot of a fellow poster to arrive at a more thorough discourse! :)
And here is a good review of my specific Dragonfly:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audioquest-dragonfly-v12-usb-dac/
They seem to have confused the market with releasing TWO new models recently; however I purchased mine as the second incarnation, then referred to as v1.2.
And that's why I totally just Google it when I myself am confronted with esoteric or otherwise rare or difficult quandaries.
I will say though to me, the most obvious benefit of upgrading to the Dragonfly is a thing called "listening fatigue". If I did not use the Dragonfly, after about 30-60 minutes of listening, it would start to be irritating! But with the Dragonfly, I can listen for hours. And that is the most quantifiable and reproducible difference to me.
Kind Regards,
Ron
ps. I will say the Apple Ear Pods/Buds are the WORST. They are perhaps Apple's biggest sin and I recommend anyone to purchase nearly ANY headphone to get superior sound! I myself chose Bowers & Wilkins P5 series2. Pretty decent mid-level cans on sale when I was looking. They also don't scream "me-to" the way Beats do.
1. For the cost of $1K laptop, what is the benefit of limiting the stock sound card to 24/96? (For Apple AND the end user.)
2. What is the technical benefit of Apple's elimination of TOSLINK from all of its products?
3. What incentives and/or benefits - if any - are there today for the audiophile to utilize Apple's Lightning connector? Please keep in mind that this is an audiophile-related forum, so am expecting something other than rhetoric about the "99.8% of users." (Furthermore, I have no desire to venture down the path of presumptions and suppositions about the proprietary Lightning connector, so please stay within the confines of the post and provide a substantiated response wrt technical superiority.)
Thanks!
mtymous1:
I fear your first question could only be answered by an Apple Engineer/Executive..and probably someone within their Marketing & Product Development team(s). My answers would only be guesses; dealing with the Economies of Scale, profit margin, target user base, etc.etc.
However, that still leaves a decent discussion for questions 2 & 3; which may be combined and restated as:
"Why is Apple abandoning TosLINK & 1/8" audio for Lightning?"
Some quick reasoning would be that perhaps Apple's internal design & engineering R&D has arrived at Lightning as being the "Best I/O" solution, and the rest of the World just needs to catch up!
I am merely taking an initial educated guess based on my own technical & marketing background as well as my own experiences being an Apple customer for over two decades.
To explain, I can look to the past for previous examples of Apple moving forward; at the risk of losing customers, with proprietary solutions. SCSI, USB, DisplayPort ... Apple was first to market or near first.
To take a perfect quote from "The Verge":
"Apple recently released a product before the world was ready."
And that is just Apple's DNA and gambling at work...eventually leading to many successes and few failures.
I truly think Lightning is just another example.
Here is another good quote taken from a Wiki article describing lightning and the ethos behind Apple I am trying to explain:
"Apple has not publicly discussed micro-USB, but various tech news website state that Lightning might have been used instead of Micro-USB because of its compatibility with docks and speaker systems;[9] the ability to insert the cable in either direction for user convenience;[10] Apple wielding more control over the ethics of the supply chain of accessories[11] and charging a licensing fee; the structural weakness of USB connectors,[10] and the ability to either charge a device, or allow a device to power accessories. The optional supplemental standard USB On-The-Go allows USB devices to do this.[12]"
So, to answer your initial question in detail of why lightning? I provide the following:
1. compatibility with existing systems already in Apple's economy; such as docks and speaker systems.
2. the cable may be inserted with either orientation; making it ever so slightly easier but "better" for the end user
3. structurally more sound vs. USB connectors
4. omni-directional electrically; meaning devices may be powered by the interface, or may TAKE a charge and/or be powered via the interface.
So, those are all distinct advantages over any other IO format at this level.
With respect to the Audio subset of features, there appears to be absolutely no sonic advantages to my knowledge; but rather just the other reasons mentioned above. Another good analogy would be that lightning is a "tic" in the release cycle.. and we have yet to see the "toc" when it comes to audio.
Not sure if my discussion has helped any..but there it is.
Best Regards,
Ron
ps. I have intentionally left out really down & dirty speculations wrt audio...such as how much better is lightning with handling the system clock and ensuring it is in sync? As they would be total guesses and counter-productive.
...with your marketing-based spiel, although I did get a chuckle when you went so far as to plug docks and speaker systems within an audiophile forum!
Nevertheless, there *might* be a couple of nuggets within your spiel:
3. structurally more sound vs. USB connectors
4. omni-directional electrically; meaning devices may be powered by the interface, or may TAKE a charge and/or be powered via the interface.
Please describe how Lightning is structurally more sound than USB. Better yet, what does Lightning offer to the audiophile? Less perceived jitter than USB? Perhaps something else that promotes improved SQ?
RE: Electrical omnidirection
(Sounds like yet another term that Apple's marketing department has hijacked from the sciences and is rebranding as their own, but I'll play along...) In regards to the context you stated above, how does the Lightning connector stave off EMI from the power source (especially in such a physically small interface)?
I've already written far more than I normally do; and explained the limitations of my opinion. I guess others will need to address any remaining questions. But at least I got the ball rolling after a long dry spell.
Best Regards,
Ron
...explained the limitations of my opinion. I guess others will need to address any remaining questions.
While the marketing insight may have been a fun spin for some, this circles us back to the original post unfulfilled: seeking objective and persuasive responses that contain detail about TECHNICAL superiority.
So who's next?
Listening to Youtube videos of AC/DC in concert, particularly 1979 in Paris when Bon Scott was still alive, on my iPad 2 and inexpensive Sony earbuds the sound is not dynamically compressed and appears to be in correct polarity and for that I'm grateful. And I would add that in itself is technically superior to many Digital systems just based on those two criteria, dynamic range and polarity. Long live iPad!
Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Listening to Youtube videos... on my iPad 2 and inexpensive Sony earbuds...
This rant posting is intended to spawn technically-substantiated responses about Apple product superiority from its loyalists -- not about whether or not DRC was used during media production (ACDC in Paris circa 1979, in your example). Nor is this rant posting about the data compression containers used for all YouTube hosted content.
HOWEVER, there might be a nugget here (am hoping)...
And I would add that in itself is technically superior to many Digital systems just based on those two criteria, dynamic range and polarity.
When you say "polarity" are you referring to signal voltage or do you mean "phase inversion"? Please elaborate on that comment... Also, please elaborate on the "digital systems" you are comparing to the iPad2.
Thanks.
I am referring to absolute polarity both of the recording and of the system. As fate would have it most CDs even the audiophile CDs are reverse (inverted) absolute polarity, which basically means it's 180 degrees out of phase. Of course things are more complicate since some or tracks can be inverted while others not, and sometimes certain instruments can be inverted polarity while others are not. But compared to their analog bretheren, you know, the ones that got all the credit to begin with, the digtial reissues sound thin, non coherent and bass shy. Cassettes do not suffere this problem much either. Systems can obviously be reverse absolute polarity and if that's the case you're in luck as most CDs will sound great on such a system.. According to George Louis, who compiled the list of audiophile recordings and their associated polarity, the polarity problem with digital is produced by digtial electronics used in the recoding process that Frequently invert the polarity, presumably unbeknownst to the recording engineers. Since there doesn't seem to be any Standard for polarity in audio you get what you get. As far as compression goes, it's also true that many more CDs have suffered overly aggressive compression than vinyl.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
...*how* does Apple superiority relate to this??
...*how* does Apple superiority relate to this??
I'm actually not trying to make a general pitch for Apple, only for iPad. It doesn't sound like digtial. What better compliment?
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
...*how* does Apple superiority relate to this??
I'm actually not trying to make a general pitch for Apple, only for iPad. It doesn't sound like digtial. What better compliment? Now that I think about it there are actually a lot of reasons why an iPad doesn't sound digital. Many reasons are the same as I've been talking about for the last year why simple portable CD players sound more analog like than bigger systems. It's kind of a long story.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
...nearly 500 views later, and still no one can elaborate on Apple tech specs??
Maybe we are just reluctant to comment when you use a snotty insulting term like "fanboys".
I suggest that you try to keep your questions and/or comments a bit more mature and respectful of others.
I am referring to absolute polarity both of the recording and of the system. As fate would have it most CDs even the audiophile CDs are reverse (inverted) absolute polarity, which basically means it's 180 degrees out of phase.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
"Absolute Polarity" is inherently nonsensical!! It is a non sequitur. All polarity is referential, not absolute.
When you say "180 degrees out of phase', you imply that it is out of phase with some unstated REFERENCE, which makes it REFERENTIAL, NOT ABSOLUTE! You contradict your own "absolute" concept by your very statement. It is all total and complete nonsense.
All polarity is only meaningful when it has a reference to be compared against. The stupidity of the term and the implication that it is somehow audible with no reference to compare it to is incredibly ignorant.
An audio signal is essentially an endless series of sine waves. The idea that your ear can detect whether the positive or negative half of the sine wave is first at some point is ludicrous.
To establish "absolute polarity", you would have to decide whether the positive or negative half of a sine wave was the "first" part of the very first sine wave, and use that for comparison. That is a ridiculous and stupid concept that would be impossible to apply.
I am referring to absolute polarity both of the recording and of the system. As fate would have it most CDs even the audiophile CDs are reverse (inverted) absolute polarity, which basically means it's 180 degrees out of phase.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica"Absolute Polarity" is inherently nonsensical!! It is a non sequitur. All polarity is referential, not absolute.
When you say "180 degrees out of phase', you imply that it is out of phase with some unstated REFERENCE, which makes it REFERENTIAL, NOT ABSOLUTE! You contradict your own "absolute" concept by your very statement. It is all total and complete nonsense.
All polarity is only meaningful when it has a reference to be compared against. The stupidity of the term and the implication that it is somehow audible with no reference to compare it to is incredibly ignorant.
An audio signal is essentially an endless series of sine waves. The idea that your ear can detect whether the positive or negative half of the sine wave is first at some point is ludicrous.
To establish "absolute polarity", you would have to decide whether the positive or negative half of a sine wave was the "first" part of the very first sine wave, and use that for comparison. That is a ridiculous and stupid concept that would be impossible to apply.
If it sounds like Miles Davis is sucking on his horn either your system is inverted in absolute polarity OR the CD Is inverted in absolute polarity. And if both the system and CD are inverted polarity the sound will be correct. For all the definitions of whatever refer to Clark Johnsen's book on polarity, The Wood Effect. You can also refer to George Louis' web site where he lists a considerable number of audiophile favorite CDs and notes whether they are N or R, normal polarity or Reverse polarity. Draw your own conclusions.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
If it sounds like Miles Davis is sucking on his horn either your system is inverted in absolute polarity OR the CD Is inverted in absolute polarity. And if both the system and CD are inverted polarity the sound will be correct. For all the definitions of whatever refer to Clark Johnsen's book on polarity, The Wood Effect. You can also refer to George Louis' web site where he lists a considerable number of audiophile favorite CDs and notes whether they are N or R, normal polarity or Reverse polarity. Draw your own conclusions.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica[/quote]
No one sucks their horn on any CD I ever played.
I only have one conclusion; absolute polarity is total absolute unscientific nonsense; it is all a truckload of horse patooties!
Everything you refer to is the worst kind of unscientific nonsense; feeble minds trying to prove the earth is flat.
Maybe we are just reluctant to comment when you use a snotty insulting term like "fanboys".
I regret posting this - I truly do. Since this *IS* the "Rant" section of the forum, the regret isn't because I used the term "fanboy" -- it stems from the usual suspect(s) once again hijacking a topic in order to push their irrelevant manifestos. Shame on me for thinking something would be different this time... And for that, I am truly sorry.
I suggest that you try to keep your questions and/or comments a bit more mature and respectful of others.
I wonder what suggestions you'll offer after seeing some of the other posts!
If it sounds like Miles Davis is sucking on his horn either your system is inverted in absolute polarity OR the CD Is inverted in absolute polarity. And if both the system and CD are inverted polarity the sound will be correct. For all the definitions of whatever refer to Clark Johnsen's book on polarity, The Wood Effect. You can also refer to George Louis' web site where he lists a considerable number of audiophile favorite CDs and notes whether they are N or R, normal polarity or Reverse polarity. Draw your own conclusions.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
No one sucks their horn on any CD I ever played.
I only have one conclusion; absolute polarity is total absolute unscientific nonsense; it is all a truckload of horse patooties!
Everything you refer to is the worst kind of unscientific nonsense; feeble minds trying to prove the earth is flat.[/quote]
Too bad your hearing and debating skills aren't as refined as your name calling skills.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica
Too bad your hearing and debating skills aren't as refined as your name calling skills.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica[/quote]
When one runs out of any possible response that makes sense, I guess the last resort is to make a pathetic attempt at a personal attack.
And just when did I call anyone ANY name? I can't find it when I look at my posts. One more bit of false nonsense.
interesting,isn't it,how we all say stuff to each other on an online forum like this one that we would never say if we were face to face. Why don't we all pretend we're face to face?
Good idea. I have been on line for twenty years, speak on the phone regularly and in person regularly. I am the same. I am not shy about arguing a point. At least that's what people tell me. ;-)
You plant the flowers in the fall and they bloom in the spring. - Chance Gardener
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
"Frankly, Apple doesn't have many fans in the audio community. The company, for all its clout, hasn't ever done much of anything to significantly improve audio quality or the field of audio engineering in general. It could be argued that its bundled earbuds have done much to degrade expectations of audio quality. Omitting the headphone jack would burn everyone with a pair of good headphones or at least foist a dongle tax on their use. But Apple has never been an audio company, so what difference at this point does it make?"
Read more at http://www.soundandvision.com/content/apple-doesnt-know-jack-part-1#uv4beMmgUFyxqjG7.99
just bought an ipod nano 7th generation and I love this thing. I've got almost a hundred songs on it so far from CD's ripped to WAV files on itunes and downloaded to the pod. The sound quality is excellent.I set the import settings in itunes to 16/44.1khz so the sound should be the same as CD. The ipod has bluetooth so I can put it in my car and it plays the music on the car stereo wirelessly. And the cars video display shows the name of the song,the artist,and says "Davids ipod". I'm new to all this computer stuff,so this thing really amazes me. It can store about 300 songs in WAV or about 3000 in MP3. I tried MP3 first at 256kbs AAC but the sound quality sounded shitty to me.The WAV files sounded much better.Like, at the beginning of "Sgt. Peppers lonely Hearts Club Band" in MP3 you can't hear the size of the auditorium as the orchestra is warming up with the crowd sounds,but you hear it really well in the WAV file.
just bought an ipod nano 7th generation and I love this thing. I've got almost a hundred songs on it so far from CD's ripped to WAV files on itunes and downloaded to the pod. The sound quality is excellent.I set the import settings in itunes to 16/44.1khz so the sound should be the same as CD. The ipod has bluetooth so I can put it in my car and it plays the music on the car stereo wirelessly. And the cars video display shows the name of the song,the artist,and says "Davids ipod". I'm new to all this computer stuff,so this thing really amazes me. It can store about 300 songs in WAV or about 3000 in MP3. I tried MP3 first at 256kbs AAC but the sound quality sounded shitty to me.The WAV files sounded much better.Like, at the beginning of "Sgt. Peppers lonely Hearts Club Band" in MP3 you can't hear the size of the auditorium as the orchestra is warming up with the crowd sounds,but you hear it really well in the WAV file.
just bought an ipod nano 7th generation and I love this thing. I've got almost a hundred songs on it so far from CD's ripped to WAV files on itunes and downloaded to the pod. The sound quality is excellent.I set the import settings in itunes to 16/44.1khz so the sound should be the same as CD. The ipod has bluetooth so I can put it in my car and it plays the music on the car stereo wirelessly. And the cars video display shows the name of the song,the artist,and says "Davids ipod". I'm new to all this computer stuff,so this thing really amazes me. It can store about 300 songs in WAV or about 3000 in MP3. I tried MP3 first at 256kbs AAC but the sound quality sounded shitty to me.The WAV files sounded much better.Like, at the beginning of "Sgt. Peppers lonely Hearts Club Band" in MP3 you can't hear the size of the auditorium as the orchestra is warming up with the crowd sounds,but you hear it really well in the WAV file.
Am guessing you didn't come across a Washington Post article entitled "Apple just updated the iPod. Does anyone care?" in your research. Here is the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/07/15/apple-just-updated-the-ipod-does-anyone-care/
Am also guessing you've never heard of FiiO:
http://www.fiio.net/en/products
...nor HiFiMan:
http://store.hifiman.com/index.php/portable-players.html
But then again, if you aren't in to hi-rez, stick with the whyPod.
you're right, I didn't know about the high-res players but I wouldn't spend that much on one anyway. I've got hires music that I play on my home system and I don't hear any significant improvement over redbook CD. In fact I've got some CD's that sound better than the SACD's and pure audio bluray's that I own. I think the recording quality trumps the digital format. And I'm really only interested in playing my own music in the car anyway. I don't buy music from itunes and I don't stream.
Hi-res doesn't seem worth the money to me. I've yet to read of a double-blind test in which anyone is capable of telling high-res apart from CD
...then perhaps storage (and many other features) should be.
A nano with 16 GB of fixed memory -- $149
A FiiO X1 plus a single 128 GB microSD -- $130.
http://www.fiio.net/en/products/18
Even if you choose to overlook the X1's superior SQ, innards, and features, storage capacity ALONE should be enough a differentiator.
...then perhaps storage (and many other features) should be.
A nano with 16 GB of fixed memory -- $149
A FiiO X1 plus a single 128 GB microSD -- $130.http://www.fiio.net/en/products/18
Even if you choose to overlook the X1's superior SQ, innards, and features, storage capacity ALONE should be enough a differentiator.
yes,you're right.had I known about the FiiO for 130 I would have bought that instead. But does it work on itunes like the ipod?
yes,you're right.had I known about the FiiO for 130 I would have bought that instead. But does it work on itunes like the ipod?
Please keep in mind that this thread's original intent is to seek objective and persuasive responses that contain detail about TECHNICAL superiority of Apple products.
But alright, I'll bite... Why in the world would you want to use whyTunes to transfer your media to a microSD card???
yes,you're right.had I known about the FiiO for 130 I would have bought that instead. But does it work on itunes like the ipod?
Please keep in mind that this thread's original intent is to seek objective and persuasive responses that contain detail about TECHNICAL superiority of Apple products.
But alright, I'll bite... Why in the world would you want to use whyTunes to transfer your media to a microSD card???
No, this threads original intent is to bash Apple. Nothing more, nothing less. Since you seem determined to piss off everyone who responds,I'll sign off.
You can train a monkey to stream something to an AirPlay equipped unit. Bluetooth is not radically more difficult but the iOS devices have both. It took me minutes to set up my network to stream ALAC files to my Marantz Reference Network player. You download files to the device or turn on your PC, turn network sharing on and you are streaming by clicking a button.
I downloaded JRiver and admittedly only spent about an hour trying to figure out how to stream properly via my network, but I failed. The issue seems to be with my firewall on my PC and getting the right ports open. I am thinking the solution would be to set up a NAS since it will sit on the other side of my PCs firewall but you get the point. This is not simple. You don't just download it and it works.
Apple integrates neatly and deals with McAfee. File are easy to load and transfer and it simply works without having to go in and screw with network settings or set up a NAS. Unless you are technically savvy, why wouldn't you want to use iTunes?
You can train a monkey to stream something to an AirPlay equipped unit.
Agreed - AirPlay is very easy to use. Just hope the monkey doesn't get mad when it finds out that its 192- and 96-kHz files have been downsampled by AirPlay. Keep in mind that manufacturers also pass along the cost of AirPlay licensing to the consumer, so it doesn't make sense to pay additional money for AirPlay if it doesn't give you the full 192 or 96.
...why wouldn't you want to use iTunes?
That's a very long list of reasons, so I'll proffer only one: antitrust laws.
From the WSJ:
"Apple deleted music that some iPod owners had downloaded from competing music services from 2007 to 2009 without telling users..."
You can read more about that here: http://on.wsj.com/1AhpzgJ
No, this threads original intent is to bash Apple. Nothing more, nothing less. Since you seem determined to piss off everyone who responds,I'll sign off.
Am truly seeking objective and persuasive responses that contain detail about TECHNICAL superiority. This is the only effective way to substantiate the further-reaching attempt to dispel some of the myths about Apple products and their place within the audiophile / enthusiast community.
As far as pissing people off goes, note that this thread was intentionally started within the "Rants & Raves" section, in anticipation of the responses that people may not like to hear. (Example: look at your own ensuing responses once you were informed about the FiiO. According to Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory, this is the type of response one would expect from someone in the Late Majority or Laggard category -- and since you bought a Nano in 2016, am gonna go with Laggard. Seriously, you should REALLY spend more time over on Lavorgna's Apple-flavored Audiostream.)
Besides, while pissing people off appears very easy to do within this forum, I don't intend to take any of that away from the notorious regulars who unrelentingly post their repetitive, unrelated manifestos to most of the other threads.
You're right. I am new to all of this. One year ago I wouldn't have had a clue how to get CD's into a whypod.Two years ago I didn't have a computer. And you're probably right again that there are new digital devices that are superior to Apple gear. You will forgive, I hope, if I don't care. None of this was ever important enough to me to learn all about the latest and most state of the art stuff. I'm just a guy who wants to listen to music in a new car that doesn't offer a CD player at all. The only audio connectivity the 2016 Civic has is computer based,Iphone,Ipod,USB,bluetooth,etc. Having said that, I wouldn't criticise Apple too much. My son in law,who works for Apple,has seen his Apple stock go from $10,000 fifteen years ago to north of $190,000 today.
I almost forgot. five years ago he cashed out of about half of his stock to buy a house. with a tennis court,in ground pool,four car garage,and a fully equipped gym on the third floor where he and my daughter work out.
Again, the issue here is convenience. If I want to listen to hi res, I have two choices. Go through the elaborate effort of setting up a NAS and working around firewall issues with JRiver or run a USB cable. The prior is a long term solution that requires time and effort. In the interim a USB cable does a lovely job.
So unless I am in the mood to listen to the relatively small number of hi-res tracks I have purchased (<50) or I decided to subscribe to Deezer or Tidal, AirPlay's resolution downscaling is literally irrelevant. AirPlay streams ALAC files that have been ripped from CDs at full resolution. That is 99.9% of my digital library.
Although unethical and BS, the 2007 to 2009 lawsuit is not relevant to me. I am actually not a huge fan of apple. They historically are overpriced and there PCs are surprisingly poorly made and they do a good job of keeping systemic issues with there monitors quiet. (My ex wife has own three apple computers and all three had hardware issues with the monitors and when you read up on it, these issues are quite common).
However, their networking equipment, Apple TV, iPhone, iPad and AirPlay service work well and can be used by anyone. And, unless you purchase hi-res files or services, downscaling is irrelevant.
Again, the issue here is convenience. If I want to listen to hi res, I have two choices. Go through the elaborate effort of setting up a NAS and working around firewall issues with JRiver or run a USB cable. The prior is a long term solution that requires time and effort. In the interim a USB cable does a lovely job.
So unless I am in the mood to listen to the relatively small number of hi-res tracks I have purchased (<50) or I decided to subscribe to Deezer or Tidal, AirPlay's resolution downscaling is literally irrelevant. AirPlay streams ALAC files that have been ripped from CDs at full resolution. That is 99.9% of my digital library.
Although unethical and BS, the 2007 to 2009 lawsuit is not relevant to me. I am actually not a huge fan of apple. They historically are overpriced and there PCs are surprisingly poorly made and they do a good job of keeping systemic issues with there monitors quiet. (My ex wife has own three apple computers and all three had hardware issues with the monitors and when you read up on it, these issues are quite common).
However, their networking equipment, Apple TV, iPhone, iPad and AirPlay service work well and can be used by anyone. And, unless you purchase hi-res files or services, downscaling is irrelevant.
can I convert my WAV files on itunes to ALAC? then I could fit a thousand songs on the ipod instead of 400.
I know you can rip a CD to ALAC in iTunes. I don't know if you can make a direct conversion from one file type to another. I would need to look into the iTunes menus and options.
You're right. I am new to all of this. One year ago I wouldn't have had a clue how to get CD's into a whypod.Two years ago I didn't have a computer. And you're probably right again that there are new digital devices that are superior to Apple gear. You will forgive, I hope, if I don't care. None of this was ever important enough to me to learn all about the latest and most state of the art stuff. I'm just a guy who wants to listen to music in a new car that doesn't offer a CD player at all. The only audio connectivity the 2016 Civic has is computer based,Iphone,Ipod,USB,bluetooth,etc. Having said that, I wouldn't criticise Apple too much. My son in law,who works for Apple,has seen his Apple stock go from $10,000 fifteen years ago to north of $190,000 today.
Congrats on the new car and to your son-in-law's fortunes, but not making the connection on how either has anything to do with proving/disproving Apple's technical superiority?? Please elaborate if I am missing something.
Again, the issue here is convenience. If I want to listen to hi res, I have two choices. Go through the elaborate effort of setting up a NAS and working around firewall issues with JRiver or run a USB cable. The prior is a long term solution that requires time and effort. In the interim a USB cable does a lovely job.
So unless I am in the mood to listen to the relatively small number of hi-res tracks I have purchased (<50) or I decided to subscribe to Deezer or Tidal, AirPlay's resolution downscaling is literally irrelevant. AirPlay streams ALAC files that have been ripped from CDs at full resolution. That is 99.9% of my digital library.
Although unethical and BS, the 2007 to 2009 lawsuit is not relevant to me. I am actually not a huge fan of apple. They historically are overpriced and there PCs are surprisingly poorly made and they do a good job of keeping systemic issues with there monitors quiet. (My ex wife has own three apple computers and all three had hardware issues with the monitors and when you read up on it, these issues are quite common).
However, their networking equipment, Apple TV, iPhone, iPad and AirPlay service work well and can be used by anyone. And, unless you purchase hi-res files or services, downscaling is irrelevant.
Actually, again, the intent of this thread is prove/disprove claims about technical superiority - NOT convenience, experience, ease-of-use, nor any other Apple marketing buzzword you can think of...
That said, assuming your delivery stream supports DLNA (in a somewhat similar way that it supports AirPlay), you wouldn't have to "Go through the elaborate effort of setting up a NAS and working around firewall issues with JRiver..." - you just simply use your DLNA-compliant equipment. That way, you can enjoy your <50 high-res tracks in all their glory, sans any downsampling impairment like that of Airplay. If one of your components can handle DSD, well, guess what: you can stream via DLNA in all of its bit-glory. Your NAS might actually have DLNA services baked right in. (My Synology DS214play does.)
FWIW, I've been using DLNA for over 10 years, but it's been out on the market since 2003 - which is before AirTunes came to market. I highly recommend you glance at your manuals and see if your amp/AVR, NAS, or any other components support it. Even if your NAS doesn't have it built-in, there is a plethora of DLNA-server solutions that painlessly install in a few minutes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_UPnP_AV_media_servers.
(I have tried a number of them, but found myself liking Universal Media Server the best.)
If after looking more closely at your manuals you discover that DLNA is possible, you should conduct your "DLNA vs. AirPlay" tests to realize what you've been missing.
Check out this thread where another poster was using AirPlay and decided to try out DLNA to stream directly to his Oppo:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/best-way-listen-digital-music-oppo-bdp-105d
Again, if your AVR supports it, you'd be able to stream directly to it.
I have the Marantz NA 11-S1 as my DAC and network player. It is DLNA compliant. Trying to set up the media server in JRiver to work with my firewall has been the issue. That is why I am going to setup the NAS so it will be on the other side of McAfee. The difficulty with the software is not every bit of software works with Marantz and not all of them support ALAC which is the lossless codec I am using. Finding one that does both is what I need and have been too lazy to complete that search. I have gone through this exercise previously with my old NA7004 and I couldn't find NAS software that was stable.
My point is, for redbook quality music, AirPlay is super simple with decent quality. It is clearly not technically superior to DLNA given down sampling of high res music. I have the same issue with Sonos. I will set up a DLNA system but it is a pain and requires time and energy and trial and error with software.
John Atkinson didn't seem to have any problem with your same player/DAC and DLNA - you can read his review here:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/marantz-reference-na-11s1-network-audio-playerdac#LdFK6dulK3pTGxth.97
The difficulty with the software is not every bit of software works with Marantz and not all of them support ALAC which is the lossless codec I am using. Finding one that does both is what I need and have been too lazy to complete that search.
Since Universal Media Server supports both DLNA and ALAC, you can no longer use that excuse! Here are your 3 easy steps:
1. Download Universal Media Server and install to your machine
2. Add your NAS as a media location within UMS
3. Stream to your heart's content.
DONE.
PM me if you have any issues.
(Dude - you coulda had this done in about the same amount of time - or less - than it took to compose your last two posts!)
John Atkinson didn't seem to have any problem with your same player/DAC and DLNA...
Allow me to restate... John Atkinson didn't seem to have any problem connecting to the media libraries with your same player/DAC and DLNA. He did of course, experience issues with the Apple file formats:
Files played with no problem, the Marantz retrieving them, via the network, from Twonky. Well, with almost no problem—once again, AIFF files were neither recognized nor played, and ALAC files were restricted to sample rates of 96kHz and below. Presented with a 192kHz ALAC file, the Marantz displayed "FILE FORMAT ERROR." This was a problem for me, as almost all of the growing number of 192kHz-sampled files in my iTunes library are Apple Lossless. Yes, I could go to the archive hard drive where I keep the original AIFF files and transcode them to WAV or FLAC. But why should I have to?
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/marantz-reference-na-11s1-network-audio-playerdac#Xugctvr5I27VMZ4e.99
I am familiar with that review as it was a motivating factor in me opting for that device. I don't have any ALAC files that are above 16/44.1 so ALAC is not an issue for me. All my higher res files are WAV or FLAC which it handles well. Marantz has also worked out a lot of the bugs in the remote ap and it works much better these days.
So I took your advice and downloaded Universal Media Server. It worked neatly but was viciously slow which is a major step forward from the JRiver Media Server. I have a lot of music and the menus were taking too long loading on the Marantz. It is not reasonable to wait 8 to 10 seconds. I tried using the Marantz app to sort through the menu's and it remained viciously slow.
So I tried PLEX. It also worked but it was also irritatingly slow.
So, I decided to try using the base windows file sharing. I created a workgroup which eliminated the need to make firewall adjustments. Works flawlessly. PLEX and Universal Media Server are still stupidly slow and JRiver still doesn't work. Go figure that the base windows service works better than 3rd party software. I was making it way more complex than I needed to.
As a result I decided to run a couple of tests. I pulled out my trusty USB cable, I have my CD player connected to the DAC via Digital Coax and then I have files on my phone via Airplay and the Marantz is connected to my network via ethernet. For the purpose of the test I am using 3 recordings - Roger Waters - Amused to Death, Miles Davis - Kind of Blue and Peter Gabriel - So. I have all three in several formats - CD, ALAC files ripped from the CDs and Hi Res files. Amused to Death and Kind of Blue in 24/192 WAV Files and and So in 24/96 WAV Files. I also have So on Vinyl as a 45RPM remaster and Kind of Blue on 180g Vinyl as a 33RPM.
The Hi Res files are obviously superior. Not only is there improved clarity, but a wider sound stage and an overall more dynamic and immersive experience. It is obvious why this DAC gets an A+ rating from Stereophile. I could not tell a difference between USB and Ethernet. I know USB is better technically and I don't question it but in practice, I can't hear a difference.
CD via Digital Coax vs ALAC streamed via ethernet vs. ALAC via AirPlay - I simply could not hear a difference between any of these formats. Maybe my ears aren't refined enough. Maybe it is the few second delay between when I switch delivery method to the DAC but if there is a deviation, it is not noteworthy.
I was using songs I know very well, That Voice Again, So What and Three Wishes are three of my benchmark tracks I use for everything. They are literally tracks I use to tune in my system to optimize sound and ones I use to evaluate equipment. I know them better than most other songs and have spent hours listening to these tracks repeatedly listening for subtle deviations in sound.
Thus I stand by my original support of AirPlay. It is a fine format if you are not listing to anything that is higher res than 16/44.1. If you go beyond that it downscales but if you are using Pandora, Spotify or most other sources that are operating at CD quality or less, then AirPlay is a push vs other streaming services and it is absurdly easy to use.
So unless you consider redbook quality CDs not "true hi-fi," why should Apple users get banned from audio forums for not having "true hi fi" equipment? Should we also ban Sonos users since Sonos downscales to CD quality as well? For that matter, since both are limited to redbook CD quality, maybe anyone who doesn't have digital capabilities above redbook should get booted?
I get why you are annoyed by Apple and there fans. I am not the biggest fan of Apple though I find Google to be an even more irritating company making Apple the lesser of two evils. Airplay and Apple hardware like the iPod and the iPhone is not the problem though. IMO, the bigger problem is that they popularized compressed digital files that strip away data and sound like crap.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Show Reports Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2023 Stereophile
