mac mini vs dac at 192khz

[stonemarten]

dear experts,

I want get the best out of my current set up: mac mini 2012 (el camino) and marantz sr7002.

based on the user manual, the amp is able to support 24/192, with an internal DAC. The issue that I have, and several like me that are looking for the same, is get the same signal out of the mac mini.
based on the specs, it should be able to output 24/192, but in the midi setting I can see only 24/96.
now I'm connecting the 2 systems with an HDMI cable.

here my questions:
- what the best way to connect the mac to the amp? HDMI or optical cable?
- do you have any trick for output the 24-192?
- do I need to buy a DAC to get the best signal out, or is the difference not audible?

in a pure audioholics style (no bias no "religion", just engineering), I don't want buy something just for impress my friends, and the goal here is get the maximum quality from what I have today.
In my rookie view, I don't understand why I need to buy a DAC when I have a machine (mac mini) with a very powerful processor and an amp that is able to act as a DAC.
I would like to play DSD and flac file, as well as blu-ray audio disk

thanks for all the suggestion

cheers

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

ether HDMI or toslink would work equally well.
Stop worrying 24/192 and start just enjoying the music. If you are not quite happy with sound - time to replace speakers and/or add a sub
spare time reading:
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[stonemarten]

BoredSysAdmin,

sorry for the delay in my answer but I took my time to read and digest the document you mention.

very interesting: I'm discussing now with a friend that had spent north of 4k USD for put a "perfect" 24/192 system, supported by 10k+ speakers... we will do soon a blind test with his system and my system to see if with the same input hardware we can find the same difference, if any. Mine is not especially set up for opera (more fast bpm stuff...) but curious

I'm building a pair of floorstanding, soon followed by a central and 2 subs let see how they sound against a way more expensive system

thanks

cheers

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I hope my input re: DACs may proof useful to you, but I am mildly concerted regarding your comment of building your own speakers.
Do you follow published design or have sufficient knowledge in speakers design? (spoilers - make speaker from scratch is easy, make Great speaker is VERY HARD)

 

[stonemarten]

about DAC: that's why I will try my mate component in my system to see if it worth the money... still not clear to me why I need another one when I already have inside my amp today.
about speaker: I have some experience and I'm posting here my progress to get suggestions and information. Let see what will come out, I'm optimist

cheers

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Ah, remember now... Oh well, love your enthusiasm but what I see pretty expensive education in how not to build speakers
In any case good luck. I do mean it.
If it was my project for towers, I'd go with excellent ER18 design, but each to own

 

[Tao1]

I wouldn't worry about 24/96. That format is probably indistinguishable from a 192khz sample rate. The main thing is you are going from 16bit to 24, and have a sample rate above 48khz to help with aliasing.

24bit 192khz is a good format for audio masters to use for creating other content, but otherwise 24bit 96khz compressed in .flac format will already be a larger file size than the original CD version which is uncompressed to boot. A LOTTTT more data over cd in 24/96.

16bits X 44100 data points/second = 705600 bits/second*1byte/8bits= 88200 bytes/second

24bit X 96000 data points/s = 2304000 bits/second *byte/8bits= 288000 bytes/second

288000/88200= 3.3 times the information over CD

Granted 24/192 is double the data rate of 24/96, but the human ear just can't distinguish the difference past a point. This point has been cited at about 48khz sample rate, but it will vary person to person. 92khz is already much higher than 48khz, so 192 will be seeing significant diminishing returns at best.

Your internal dac in your Mac shouldn't have anything to do with the digital signal to your receiver over HDMI. It would be a software setting or limitation in the operating system.

You only need one DAC in the whole chain of hardware, and it is best to use the one in your Marantz receiver.

On that note I don't know much about Mac. However PC you can set the sample and bit rate in the system sound settings. I don't know what the Mac equivalent is, but try starting in the system settings.

HDMI is your best bet. HDMI won't use the DAC of the Mac, but send a PCM signal to your amp to be decoded there.

 

[stonemarten]

thanks Tao1: so use the "stereo" setting on my amp, that activate only L/R speakers and subs, looks like the best, if I understand correctly

cheers

 

[Tao1]

thanks Tao1: so use the "stereo" setting on my amp, that activate only L/R speakers and subs, looks like the best, if I understand correctly

cheers

Stereo naturally is the best for music. I am not sure about the specific settings on your amp, but leaving it in "neutral' or "straight" is generally the best for all cases, since it will just play the audio signal 'as is' be it stereo of 5.1. Some amps have a "5 channel stereo" setting you could try, but usually they aren't so good and really only have a benefit in larger rooms which could use the boost from the surround channels on the other side of the room.

 

[uncola]

optical/toslink usually only supports 24/96 max. so use hdmi