General Forum

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

tournedos — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:05:41 GMT

wonderfulelectric:

Also bypassing an analogue volume control with a digital volume control that has a higher res than the playback material will be immediately superior.However, since the volume control is in the signal path of the Beolab 5s anyway, I guess there wouldn't be any difference.

How is that? Digital volume control will necessitate dithering, no matter how much more resolution you use in the intermediate step. Otherwise you will end up with quantization artifacts = noise/distortion.

I can't see how that would automatically be better than an analogue volume control after D/A, which in itself doesn't alter the actual content in any way.

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

wonderfulelectric — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:33:49 GMT

No idea how the processing is done but the output will be native. There are no adding of bits done when you switch the upsampling off. Anyway any music enthusiast owning itunes owe it to themselves to at least give the software a try. Listening nearfield my computer desktop system with beolab 3s is in every parameter better than my audiophile setup that costs a hell lot more. I have a new found respect for B&O's new line of speakers and also for the advent of asynchronous DAC technology.

Also bypassing an analogue volume control with a digital volume control that has a higher res than the playback material will be immediately superior.However, since the volume control is in the signal path of the Beolab 5s anyway, I guess there wouldn't be any difference.

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

soundproof — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:37:20 GMT

I'm with Alex here when it comes to 32 vs 24. Go with the native resolution for the BL5s. There isn't any source material available in 32-bit anyway.

But Pure Music is heartily recommended by me. I have it set up from my MacMini through a digital router to the BL5s, and I do hear a noticeable difference between playback detail through PM compared to straight from the integrated iTunes/QuickTime. I like what I hear from PM better.

BTW - I connected my BL5s to a Beomaster 7000 through Powerlink, the BL5s are getting their sound signal from the MacMini, through the path described above. As the BL5s give priority to an S/PDIF signal, when I press CD on my Beo4, the Beomaster can be used to control the volume of the speakers, and on/off - while the signal they receive is routed straight to them via S/PDIF. Best of both worlds as I get a precise control of volume and integration, while giving the speakers the best signal. When I press Radio, Tape or other options, the Beomaster is used to route those signals to the speakers through PL.

But I now have excellent iTunes/Pure Music playback from my NAS, as well as Spotify playback from the mini to the speakers, both through the S/PDIF IN on the BL5s.

Speakers in Option 0.

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

Alex — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:47:06 GMT

wonderfulelectric:

Install Pure Music software into the Mac mini and you will transform your mini into a transport that is beyond reproach though make sure you install enough RAM into the mini, I am running my Imac with 16Gb of RAM and set the Pure Music to use 1.5GB of buffer RAM under Pure memory player mode. The results and differences are beyond words. Try setting the Beolab 5s to max volume and use the sophisticated software's volume control, it uses a 32bit dithering instead of the usual 24bit in the Beolab5, play with the settings till you find one that suits your taste. I find no upsampling to be the most accurate and satisfying, when the processing is done correctly upsampling will only add artifice.

The volume control in the BeoLab 5s isn't digital - it's analogue and comes after the DAC/DSP and before the amplifiers so going for a digital volume control would be a step backwards.

I would also argue that 32bit dithering with BeoLab 5s is a little meaningless when you're going to be bottlenecking the signal back to 24bit depth later on in the chain, unless of course you're using it because you like the sound of noise shaping (which is a trick many mastering engineers use to make digital sound a little more 'analog').

Just my 2c.

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

wonderfulelectric — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:40:13 GMT

Install Pure Music software into the Mac mini and you will transform your mini into a transport that is beyond reproach though make sure you install enough RAM into the mini, I am running my Imac with 16Gb of RAM and set the Pure Music to use 1.5GB of buffer RAM under Pure memory player mode. The results and differences are beyond words. Try setting the Beolab 5s to max volume and use the sophisticated software's volume control, it uses a 32bit dithering instead of the usual 24bit in the Beolab5, play with the settings till you find one that suits your taste. I find no upsampling to be the most accurate and satisfying, when the processing is done correctly upsampling will only add artifice.

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

BeoNut1 — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:09:15 GMT

Soundproof: "I can not understand why the BeoSystem 3 does not have digital OUT ..."

My sentiments exactly. If the BS3 had digital out, this common trend that we're seeing here (trying to use a computer in concert with other B&O audio pieces or simply using a computer alone) would be easily doable and with volume control. I realize that this could seemingly be seen as B&O enabling their competitors (Apple?) over their own equipment. But, IMHO, this would actually have the opposite effect and make B&O the de-facto high-end hardware for Apple A/V stuff. With their PUCs already allowing control of the Apple TV, this just makes so much sense for B&O to do.

Please, someone at B&O, take note of these threads. Part of your company's restructuring should entail embracing Apple. Also, please put a digital out on the upcoming Beosystem 3 upgrade as well as a digital coaxial input in to your other speakers.

Mark

P.S. This thread and a couple other recent threads (particularly the Beolab / ALT / phantom center thread) have been incredibly informative. Thank you guys.

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

koning — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:21:15 GMT

Nop!

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

bayerische — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:18:13 GMT

koning:

Will there be in the future more speakers from B&O with a digital connextion and not only in the high-end class?

I've been thinking about the same thing, hopefully we will se more and more speakers using the same technology as the Beolab 5's.

Does the 9's have digital inputs BTW?

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

koning — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 06:43:09 GMT

Will there be in the future more speakers from B&O with a digital connextion and not only in the high-end class?

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

bayerische — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:53:33 GMT

Soundproof, exactly, couldn't agree more.

And just to clarify to others, the Mac mini should not be seen as a substitute to my BS9000. This one I'm going to save. The mini is just a faster more convenient way of listening to my large music collection, and a good DVD player.

I'm hoping to add a Beovision 5 (because it's the most beautiful TV ever in my opinion) to my setup this summer, and with a Beo TV I'm sure I'll add a pair of rear speakers and enjoy movies trough the BV5.

Since the Mini is such an inexpensive solution to a media server, it a no brainer not to have it. I mean I had cables worth 5 times this with my old High-end system!

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

soundproof — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:27:33 GMT

I do agree with you that there is a difference between analog and digital feed to the speakers, definitely. After all, I do all my music listening to the digital feed connection! This is the brilliance of active speakers with their own on-board processing - you can actually go straight from the digital file to the speaker, without a lot of boxes in between. Just consider an analog setup: first the source, say a CD>that signal is converted by the DAC in the CD-player>the signal then goes in analog form to a pre-amp>and then goes to the amplifier>which then sends it to the speakers.

With your setup now you have a direct feed from Mini>speakers with on-board dedicated processing. Period.

Using the BeoSound 9000 and analog, you go from the CD-player>on-board DAC>Powerlink>Speakers. No question as to what's preferable. But as you mention, when you use the coax out from the BS9000, then there is no discernible difference -- then both signals are seen as identical and are processed as such by the BL5s.

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

bayerische — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:56:28 GMT

Soundproof, I tried to mach the volume, of course I couldn't get it exact, but pretty close. I always have the treble / bass set to neutral.

The sound difference is comparable to putting a dense cloth in front of the speakers when having the PL connected compared to the digital input.

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

bayerische — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:51:13 GMT

Alex:

I personally wouldn't say PowerLink is a 'no-go' with BeoLab 5s, it's just that connecting them to a bit-perfect output produces a notably better sound and means you don't have to rely on any of the circuitry in the source!

Just one thing to check, make sure you're running your MacMini at 44.1 kHz/16 bit (in Audio MIDI Setup in the Applications/Utilities folder). if not, the MacMini will not produce a bit-perfect output (ie, the signal coming out of the digital connection will not be identical to the information from the CD).

Alex, I can partly agree with you about the powerlink, in some cases it's the only available option, but to me it makes no sense to have a 18.000 euro speaker hooked up trough Powerlink instead of SPDIF. The difference is after all unbelievable!

Thanks for the heads up about the bits, but as I said I had help from Soundproof, and he did not miss this part, and made sure I get it right. So the output is 44.1 / 16

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

soundproof — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:37:08 GMT

I agree with Alex as far as "Powerlink being a no-go." Try to match the sound levels before comparing - it's incredible what a few dB will add to the soundstage and detailing. I still feel that the digital feed to the BL5s is superior to analog, but maybe not as radically different as your initial test may indicate. (Could it also be that your Bass/Treble settings on the BS9000 had a part in the impression? Set them to neutral.)

However, there's definitely a reason why B&O designed the BL5s so that the digital signal would override any other inputs, if detected!

Re: BS9000 VS Mac Mini on Beolab 5

soundproof — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:34:39 GMT

I would think that in the second comparison, both sources were feeding the BL5s through the coax s/pdif. In theory and in practise, there should be no difference to the 16/44.1 digital output -- you'll find audiophile magazines going on about jitter, feedback loops and whatnot - but I really can't hear a difference. Over at Moultonlabs.com there's a post by Dave Moulton where he challenges people to distinguish between 12-bit and 16-bit, which flies in the face of everything as far as where the trends are going. The first B&O cd-players were/are 14-bit, and many say they are brilliant.

One comment as to your description of differences between the toslink>coax output from the Mini and the Powerlink connection from the BS9000. It is essential that both be calibrated to the same sound pressure level (SPL) for a true comparison. I find that the digital signal comes through at 6dB higher than the analog, and when I boost the analog to match, I find that the weight and impression of the sound is closer, while not as precise and detailed as when I feed the speakers a digital signal directly. I can not understand why the BeoSystem 3 does not have digital OUT ...

Pleased to read that you are satisfied with your Mini. I am very happy with mine, it's an excellent unit. Sometimes, when playing DVDs, I can hear the drive, but I have my Mini in a cabinet, and just close the door. As I'm controlling it through Bluetooth, that doesn't create any trouble. (The Edge diNovo keyboards are brilliant, both the full-sized one and the mini-version they've made).

I have run comparisons between very expensive CD-transports and the Mini, for people who are extremely critical of sound. The founder and owner of 2L records (Grammy nominees and Stereophile darlings) was in my listening room, listening to his own productions in 24/96kHz, delivered by the Mini to the speakers. And as he has recorded and mixed the music, he was in an excellent position to judge the playback, to say the least. The Mini is "a miracle of rare device" - I have seen entire Home Theatre setups that are run with a Mini. When I download and play back HD-resolution video from the Mini, the result I get on my screen is excellent.

Hope you get a functioning sync cable soon - you'll notice that your bass will become more precise.