Apple versus PC

Regarding Audioengr's comments if they were intended for me, I actually was bypassing the Kmixer on the PC and was well aware of how to set it up through months of screwing around with it and researching. I was running FLAC with ASIO drivers and it was true bit perfect on the dell laptop.

Regarding 16 bit versus 24 bit, I'm not certain, but I thought I heard you mention sometime back that if someone has a dac that upsamples to 24bit, don't upconvert at the source (i.e. the computer), as you're just throwing more "garbage" down the line (i.e. USB cable) to the DAC itself. Anyways, in both setups (MAC and PC), I definitely prefer the 16 bit sample rate at the computer and just let the DAC up-convert. It's crisper, punchier and seems to provide better separation/definition, both with the dell laptop and the IMac. The 24 bit sounds broader and more "blended", but doesn't give you the dynamics of 16 bit settings from the computer.

Every computer/setup is different I imagine, but in my case the IMAC is clearly beating out the Dell laptop (which has FOOBAR and a 750gig external drive feeding FLAC). The IMAC provides more detail now that it's been up and running for a few days and the higher frequencies aren't as harsh though the PC wasn't necessarily bright to begin with (the IMAC seems to work in better tandem with the DAC1).

Throw in the functionality and definitely I'm not regretting switching to MAC at all.

Got very close to picking up a MAC, then realised the extent to which the system/hardware options are locked down - this curtailment of flexibility/choice is an irritant to me. Doubtless for those with less of an engineering bent it is a godsend.

And I fully acknowledge that the BSD core of OSX is quite attractive...actually very.

Still I prefer the PC solution, larger market, more options. Take a silent pc, run XP Pro (dual boot Vista 64 if you want), foobar, Lynx AES16 and take digital out to an external DAC with wordlock. Order some HRx files and indulge.

Twists on the foregoing are myriad - e.g: instead of foobar: J River, iTunes, Media Monkey, WinAmp, WMP..., and if you have an aversion to Lynx, then consider M-Audio....

Choice. Flexibility. The challenge is you have to make it work, which is the "out of the box" benefit of the Mac...

2 desktops and 2 laptops later I went back and kiss up with the Mac.
My 5-yo iMac still runs photoshop and final cut pro without a glitch.
Now , strictly for music application my choice is Mac again.
Its benefits - it works and works beautifully.
MacBook Air/ iTunes to usb-in on my preamp with build in usb DAC
Very, very happy listener.

Mariusz

If you were running ASIO on the PC, that explains it. None of the ASIO's sound good IMO. You have to unmap or use kernel streaming.

Mac is more trouble-free I admit, but I dont think the upsampler is as good as SRC and Foobar 0.8.3. I dont like the sound of the new 0.9.x Foobar and SRC, so that explains that too.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

If using Vista...the foobar WASAPI plug in is terrific. What is WASAPI? Here's a few words from and article that explains it.

"Why Yet Another Audio API?

So why has Microsoft added WASAPI to the list?

* First, Vista has a completely new audio mixing engine, so WASAPI gives you the chance to plug directly into it rather than going through a layer of abstraction. The reasons for the new audio engine are:

o A move to 32 bit floating point rather than 16 bit, which greatly improves audio quality when dealing with multiple audio streams or effects.

o A move from kernel mode into user mode in a bid to increase system stability (bad drivers can't take the system down).

o The concept of endpoints rather than audio devices - making it easier for Windows users to send sounds to "headphones" or record sound from "microphone" rather than requiring them to know technical details about the soundcards installed on their system

o Grouping audio streams. In Vista, you can group together all audio streams out of a single application and control their volume separately. In other words, a per-application volume control. This is a bit more involved than might be at first thought, because some applications such as IE host all kinds of processes and plugins that all play sound in their own way.

* Second, the intention was to support pro audio applications which needed to be as close to the metal as possible, and keep latency to a bare minimum. (see Larry Osterman's Where does WASAPI fit in the big multimedia API picture?)"

Bmcgoz thoughts mirror mine. Nothing wrong with Mac..just not enough choices of applications out there for me to switch at the moment.