Highest Possible Sound Quality from iTunes

[Confused]

This was posted by @ogs on another thread:

"AIR in the first versions only used iTunes as a file-path handler. It never used the sound output from iTunes. AIR was actually a complete stand alone player and transferred music data via its own communication to the amplifier."

This intrigued me!  And the above post might form part of the answer to my question, maybe?

I would like to expand this into a specific topic, or a specific query at least.

The question is:  Lets say you wanted to use iTunes as your music player, and you also wanted to achieve the highest possible sound quality with a Devialet amplifier.  How can this be achieved?

There are a few things I know.  If I use a PC / iTunes / WASAPI / AIR (a kind of pseudo WASAPI, with WASAPI enabled in Quick Time & volume control disabled), the sound quality is not as good as with either JRiver WASAPI or Roon WASAPI.  The SQ is good, but JRiver is noticeably a step up.

Also, it occurs to me that a simple solution would be to use a Mac of some sort, maybe with SSD, linear PSU, then USB to a Mutec MC3+USB, XLR to the Devialet.  I'm sure this would work (although F1eng had issues with a Mac + Mutec combo), but I am not sure if it would match a Melco or similar.  (does anyone know how good the SQ might be with this set up?)

But is there a better way?  What would be the ultimate solution?

No cheating and simply suggesting "Don't use iTunes".  This is a specific question, what is the ultimate sound quality solution for using iTunes + Devialet Expert?

[deviousalet]

Do you want to use iTunes as the only music-playing software or just the library manger? In other words, are you willing to accept any other software enhancing playback on the Mac?

I enjoy the sound quality of my Mac Mini with Amarra Symphony & Dirac significantly more than without Amarra. I prefer iTunes as my library manager (for organizing music and synching it with my other devices) so chose a player that uses iTunes for those purposes while improving the sound.

In either case (even if using just iTunes) all the tweaking of Macs for sound quality that I've read have come down to minimizing noise, jitter, and other output defects. Then of course playing the best music files will help.

Use the most powerful but minimal Mac possible (fast processing but low noise). A Mac Mini lacks a lot of noise-generating extras of other Macs. The quad-core 2012 Mac Mini seems like the highpoint of the line for this purpose because it had a more powerful processor than earlier or later models. It can take one or two SSDs internally (I've heard arguments for both ways) and has a wide range of external connections. Running the Mini headless (without a screen) can further reduce noise by avoiding video output, and the Mini can be controlled remotely from another device.

Run only necessary hardware and software. Turn off Bluetooth, WiFi, and background processes such as TimeMachine unless you need them.

Store the music on a different drive than the OS. I've read of some people getting better sound quality with music on an external drive as long as it is not on a bus shared by other things (so a Thunderbolt SSD on a headless Mini, FireWire if using the Thunderbolt port for display, or USB if not connecting to the Devialet by USB).

Connect using the best cable to the Devialet. I've tried USB, optical, and ethernet. Tweaked USB sounds best to me, but AIR (ethernet) is close (and less expensive given the necessary USB tweaks and cables), while optical is fine but not quite as good. I'd be interested in a Mac Mini and converters to other connections, but I haven't tried them or read much about them.

There are major hardware tweaks such as power supplies, better or no fans, and internal noise shielding but I haven't tried those because they bring the cost above the Melco so I'm not sure which would sound better. I would prefer the Mini from a software perspective though so am interested if anyone does that comparison. So far most of the comparisons I've read are music servers (Melco) vs. MacBooks and other Macs which sound far worse than a Mini.

[ozthepoz]

Couldn't you just store your iTunes library on a Melco, in AIFF format? Melco connected to your Devialet via ethernet.

You'd be using iTunes as the front-end, Melco for storage and AIR (in it's Ethernet mode, if that makes sense) as the transmission mechanism. Not sure if this is feasible, but it's something I'm keen to explore too.

Ethernet AIR is much more reliable than Wireless AIR, in my opinion, and I know that many people have issues with iTunes, but I've been using it for years and enjoy the familiarity.

[Confused]

@deviosalet - Thanks for a very informative response. To clarify your initial point, the intent would be to have iTunes as a library manager, if other software would improve sound quality, then why not. Other than a little hassle in setting up, I see no disadvantages. Using iTunes as a library manager with other hardware acting as a 'player' would be fine too, anything goes here! Although I am not sure that this is even technically possible. If I draw the line anywhere I guess it would be at building bespoke equipment, but 'mods' in terms of adding an SSD or specialist software would all be fine.

Interesting that a reasonably affordable 2012 Mac Mini is the some kind of Mac pinnacle for this! I've just had a look on eBay, there are a few 2012 i7 2.3GHz examples in the £600 - £700 range.

I too have read similar comments re Mac vs Melco, but how your proposed solution, maybe with the addition of a Mutec would perform, I really have no idea!

[Confused]

Couldn't you just store your iTunes library on a Melco, in AIFF format? Melco connected to your Devialet via ethernet.

You'd be using iTunes as the front-end, Melco for storage and AIR (in it's Ethernet mode, if that makes sense) as the transmission mechanism. Not sure if this is feasible, but it's something I'm keen to explore too.

Ethernet AIR is much more reliable than Wireless AIR, in my opinion, and I know that many people have issues with iTunes, but I've been using it for years and enjoy the familiarity.

I'm not sure if I've interpreted this correctly?  If you are connecting a Melco to a Devialet via Ethernet, this would require AIR to be loaded onto the Melco.  AIR comes in different versions for Windows and Mac, but nothing suitable for a Melco running Linux?

Having said that, a Melco somehow running iTunes would be most excellent for my needs.  I just don't see how it could be done?  I presume impossible?

I believe the new Melco app is coming soon, I will cirtainly be interested to see what that looks like.  But that's something for the Melco thread.

[deviousalet]

The downside of a full computer, even optimized, is that it was designed assuming a keyboard, mouse, and monitor so isn't as simple to operate as a specialize music server. That said, the Mac Mini comes with an IR remote control which can put it to sleep and control music playback. Apple has a decent app for controlling iTunes from an iPhone/iPad. I use those and if I need to do something more just remote login from my laptop, tablet, or phone. Still, I appreciate the simplicity of a music server and haven't quite simplified my Mac Mini to that extent. On the other hand a full computer can run ROON, Dirac, and a lot of other things which music servers can't.

[GuillaumeB]

Also, it occurs to me that a simple solution would be to use a Mac of some sort, maybe with SSD, linear PSU, then USB to a Mutec MC3+USB, XLR to the Devialet.  I'm sure this would work (although F1eng had issues with a Mac + Mutec combo), but I am not sure if it would match a Melco or similar.  (does anyone know how good the SQ might be with this set up?)

But is there a better way?  What would be the ultimate solution?

I think this is completely the right approach to take. You know that iTunes is the interface that you would like to use (for a variety of reasons previously discussed on this forum) and therefore any attempt at optimising it and its output will yield some decent benefits. The fact that another non-iTunes solution exists out there at a comparable price or with better SQ is moot quite frankly. 

I just don't think you're going to be happy with either a Melco or Aurender, certainly not the Melco with the current range of OpenHome control points. Of course we still don't know what the Melco app will look like but I'd be very surprised if it included in its first iteration support for track ratings, for instance. Of course the Aurender is worth exploring, but again I don't think you will have the flexibility and control (and comfort level!) of iTunes. Or JRiver for that matter.

I think control points are quite personal things, and if iTunes suits you, then just focus on getting the best sound from that. There is plenty to do!

Guillaume

[Pim]

deviousalet pid='38408' dateline='1459813567']The downside of a full computer, even optimized, is that it was designed assuming a keyboard, mouse, and monitor so isn't as simple to operate as a specialize music server. That said, the Mac Mini comes with an IR remote control which can put it to sleep and control music playback. Apple has a decent app for controlling iTunes from an iPhone/iPad. I use those and if I need to do something more just remote login from my laptop, tablet, or phone. Still, I appreciate the simplicity of a music server and haven't quite simplified my Mac Mini to that extent. On the other hand a full computer can run ROON, Dirac, and a lot of other things which music servers can't.

I hope the picture attached ok. I use a track pad and key board asa remote and love it. They're velcroed onto a board with a bean bag underneath    

[Hifi_swlon]

I used iTunes with Audirvana (in iTunes legacy mode) on my Mac Mini in the past. After setup you don't have to interact with Audirvana at all unless something goes awry - it even starts up for you when you launch iTunes. It handles sample rate switching, and can also run AU plugins and has an upsampler, and does some basic OS optimisations. I felt it was better than iTunes standalone. It was the player I used for the longest. It also now has an iOS remote (although Im not sure if you can use this with iTunes mode, but in any case you have the iTunes remote), and Qobuz integration.

I did a quick trial of Amarra and then bought it. I know it does processing of the sound so isn't bit-perfect per-se, but I really liked the sound. Actually, I think it might have been my favourite. But I hated the interface so much and had so many issues with it, and stupid way it dealt with gapless that I wasn't prepared to deal with, that I asked for a refund and returned it a week or so later. In fact, thats just reminded me to try and explore at some point what that was - maybe its a tube-like filter that I can apply elsewhere. Or maybe it was imaginary….

[GuillaumeB]

I used iTunes with Audirvana (in iTunes legacy mode) on my Mac Mini in the past.  After setup you don't have to interact with Audirvana at all unless something goes awry - it even starts up for you when you launch iTunes.  It handles sample rate switching, and can also run AU plugins and has an upsampler.  I felt it was better than iTunes standalone.  It also now has an iOS remote (although Im not sure if you can use this with iTunes mode, but in any case you have the iTunes remote), and Qobuz integration.

+1 Audirvana would be excellent in this scenario and a clear step up in SQ from iTunes

Guillaume