I think the new MM has a PS unit built in.not sure if that is better in terms of noise? Anyone has comments on that? surf the web, watch a movie in 2.1, a straight forward user interface and its scalable to some extend.īetween I also use the firewire 800 from my MacMini to connect with WD My Book Studio with 2TB space for all my music so it doesn't interfere with the USB bus for delivering seamless connection to the Wavelink HS then to the BDA-1 DAC. I did thought of the IMac which is of better value marginally (at the time I bought early this year - not the latest one) but I tihnk the screen will give me more flexibility i.e. There are available tools to make it work without a screen and I think Doggie Howser manage it with much success. However, I find it cumbersome to interface with the computer without a screen and I like to surf the web while listening to my tunes. As for me:ġ) I did thought of using a Mac book for my listening room but it occupies more space and I don't need another computer.Ģ) I prefer it to do just one job and do it well with minimal program running in the background.ģ) I do need basic program to surf the web and store my pictures and music.Ĥ) I want it to sync with my itouch or iphone for updates of songs and pictures.ĥ) I didn't like to have a screen at first and I think every Audiophile here would like to do without too. It all depends on what you like this Mac to do. I agree that the IMac is the cheapest route to go with when you compare the price, specification and you got a screen too. Of course MBP offers maximum portability but highest cost. MacStore is having offering refurbished iMac 21.5inch with 4G RAM and 1TB HDD at 1588. If it works ok, am gonna buy it and give it my impressions :)īetween a Macmini, Macbook Pro and iMac, which one would you choose to be the music server? The only thing holding me back on MacMini is the higher cost plus the need to get other accessories to get it complete. Have downloaded the demo but waiting to try out iTunes plain first, then install PureMusic for a comparison later this week. I'm glad that Pure Music didn't make that decision for the listener rather it is giving them endless options to choose from. It offers a few different methods of this, "Maximum Fidelity" and "NOS type classic." This caters to just about every listener out there, I say this with confidence as I know people that enjoy digital upsampling and those that despise it. Now, if one wants to "upsample" the music, you have that option too. Pure Music keeps it real it's a bit-by-bit perfect representation of the file itself. Yeah, the GUI says they're off but I can hear some interesting things on playback that bother me. Gone is the veil that iTunes seems to place on it's output, the vast filters and EQ's that I can't seem to just turn off. I can also say that support of the product has been top notch! I almost immediately get a response back to my questions. That has been resolved in the latest version from the folks at Channel D. In the beginning it had some issues where it was a bit quirky, playback would stop all of a sudden, or it wouldn't go to the next track. I will give “Studio” a try … but absent something completely unexpected, I imagine I’ll just remove at the end of the trial, ditch 3.5 as well, and just get another Roon license to dedicate to my laptop usage.So how about the sound? I can say that I prefer to run Pure Music 100% of the time now. And they’ve got a lot of goodwill to fix after the glacial pace of bug-fixes that will be 3.5’s legacy. I can’t see what Audirvana can do, short of gradually turning into Roon, to justify a subscription model that isn’t a (for me) solved-problem already. They get significant, frequent, updates in functionality, for significantly less than I was paying before. Office 365, Creative Cloud and Ulysses are the most relevant to me. But that’s only because the notable subscriptions I use have turned out to be well worth it. And I don’t have a particular aversion to subscription-based software, even if I prefer perpetual licenses. I am not unsympathetic of the need for small developers to have a continuing revenue stream. But otherwise Roon is my go-to for music replay. I use(d) Audirvana on my laptop when offline, as well as to play with various plug-ins (the one thing Roon doesn’t do that I want, but that I can easily work around in the two situations where it is relevant anyway). But that’s a very bad situation to come out of if you want perpetual payments. It explains, potentially, why persistent issues with Audirvana 3.5 remain unfixed, and why communication around them is practically non-existent (i.e. I think Audirvana/Damien is jumping the shark here.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |