Mac mini M1 - only 48KHz audio?

[vddobrev]

I noticed in that Apple lossless audio document, they mentioned an option in the Apple Music app to turn lossless on or off. Have you checked that?

Yes, there is a separate quality setting for streaming and downloading. The available options are:

High Quality (AAC 256 kbps)
Lossless (ALAC up to 24-bit/48 kHz)
Hi-Res Lossless (ALAC up to 24-bit/192 kHz)

You have to change the setting, then remove the downloaded song, and re-download. I have downloaded using the third option, but this does not mean all songs are 192kHz... only those where Hi-Res is available.

I may try to play AAC 256kbps when I find the time, but I really don't see a point, as it is not my preferred playback. But nevertheless, I will try it for the experiment and see how it sounds.

 

[vddobrev]

Almost sounds like bad lossy compression. Also reminds me of bad digital volume controls. But you are playing lossless files and not manipulating gain or applying any EQ so can't be those things. As above jitter maybe but that has been a solved problem for quite some time. That would leave really bad sample rate down conversion.

No, I am not manipulating gain or applying EQ. But it really does sound like some bad EQ has been applied...

 

[vddobrev]

My daughter came to visit. She is a professional musician, she is last year in university with major "Global Jazz Studies" and she plays the double bass and bass guitar (just like her grandfather, my dad).

So we did an A/B comparison between the M1 mini and 2014 mini. I did not tell her which is which and why we are doing it. Just asked to listen in turns and note down what are the differences. Here is what we said, and I am listing in the order she discovered things, we switched A/B numerous times (Note: A - 2014 Mac mini; B - M1 Mac mini):

- B sounds more "produced" and re-touched, as if someone tried to cover a few things in the sound
- The vocals on A are much more natural and spacious
- The attack of each note is much clearer on A (I didn't know what is the attack of each note, and she said this is the beginning of each note.)
- Wow, the base drum on A kicks ass
- High guitar sounds and cymbals on B are overly bright and muddy, while A are clear and natural.

Her overall assessment was in favor of A, and her summary was that there is a difference in the whole spectrum of the sound, not just some range, and B was worse - muddy, unclear and sounding over-produced and bright.

Edit: My daughter also said, that had she not heard A, she would have thought B is very good, quote "Like everything sounds so good on your Hi-Fi, dad. But after hearing A, B is obviously much degraded."

 

[vddobrev]

I could not resist but share this:

 

[marstan]

Nice to see someone with full-range speakers. It seems very few give a damn about audio anymore.

 

[brofkand]

I could not resist but share this:

View attachment 1929504

View attachment 1929506

So are you going to keep the M1 Mac mini in the setup and deal with the poorer audio, get an external DAC, or go back to the 2014?

 

[vddobrev]

So are you going to keep the M1 Mac mini in the setup and deal with the poorer audio, get an external DAC, or go back to the 2014?

Already went back to the 2014 mini, that's what is on the picture. I don't see any reason for external DAC - who knows what other issues there might be.

The M1 mini is on my desk, and I am trying it as replacement to my MP 6,1.

 

[marstan]

This has been an interesting thread but it is a pity that we never really got to the bottom of how/why Apple has done this to the M1 mini. Although it doesn't affect me and likely never will because I use external DACs, I would hate to buy one of these things knowing it is gimped in this way; it makes me wonder what else is gimped.

 

[brofkand]

This has been an interesting thread but it is a pity that we never really got to the bottom of how/why Apple has done this to the M1 mini. Although it doesn't affect me and likely never will because I use external DACs, I would hate to buy one of these things knowing it is gimped in this way; it makes me wonder what else is gimped.

Evidently this is a limitation of the M1. The M1 Pro and Max machines don't seem to have these limitations. My guess is Apple was forced to pick a substandard audio subsystem for M1 due to chip shortages or design limitation in the chipset. these limitations were not in the M1 Max/Pro designs as those machines don't have these limitations.

 

[marstan]

Evidently this is a limitation of the M1. The M1 Pro and Max machines don't seem to have these limitations. My guess is Apple was forced to pick a substandard audio subsystem for M1 due to chip shortages or design limitation in the chipset. these limitations were not in the M1 Max/Pro designs as those machines don't have these limitations.

Agree, seems to be the most likely explanation. Would be nice if Apple would explain it. In any event, I am holding out for the next iteration of the mini.

 

[vddobrev]

Evidently this is a limitation of the M1. The M1 Pro and Max machines don't seem to have these limitations. My guess is Apple was forced to pick a substandard audio subsystem for M1 due to chip shortages or design limitation in the chipset. these limitations were not in the M1 Max/Pro designs as those machines don't have these limitations.

Comparing to older Macs with 192kHz, M1 Pro/Max are also limited to 96kHz based on Apple's Paper on lossless. I posted on the MacBook Pro forum requesting someone to confirm, but no one replied.

 

[phrehdd]

So are you going to keep the M1 Mac mini in the setup and deal with the poorer audio, get an external DAC, or go back to the 2014?

The AVR is an "external DAC" if one simply passes files through from the Mini. I would rather process the file with the AVR than the 2014 Mini. Alternatively, one can get an external DAC for 2-3 hundred bucks that will definitely deliver better than any of the Macs.

 

[McScooby]

Comparing to older Macs with 192kHz, M1 Pro/Max are also limited to 96kHz based on Apple's Paper on lossless. I posted on the MacBook Pro forum requesting someone to confirm, but no one replied.

there was chatter here about it earlier this year, looks like it's the HDMI that's gimped not the dac -

Mac Mini M1 48khz resample

Mac Mini M1 48khz resample

yabb.jriver.com

Silicon Mini and HDMI sample rates

Silicon Mini and HDMI sample rates

yabb.jriver.com

 

[vddobrev]

Thanks for the links @McScooby - it is unfortunate, but that is the reality.

 

[marstan]

Well @McScooby link confirms the problem. Very bad sample rate conversion as a result of fixed 48k through hdmi. Now you know how bad poor sample rate conversion can sound.

 

[vddobrev]

Well @McScooby link confirms the problem. Very bad sample rate conversion as a result of fixed 48k through hdmi. Now you know how bad poor sample rate conversion can sound.

Indeed, you are very right! It must be a very bad sample rate conversion! Most of my collection, and as a matter of fact Apple Music Lossless is 24bit/44.1kHz, the standard of CD.

Undoubtedly, the song that we were A/B listening was 24bit/44.1kHz, and to be exact it was Toto's "Gift of Faith" from their album "Tambu". We also sampled other songs from the same album, e.g. "I Will Remember", "If You Belong to Me", and they all sounded degraded.

Edit: Just to note again, even on my iPad Pro 12.9, the same song "Gift of Faith" sounds much better played via AirPlay to my AirPods 2, something I can't explain why...

 

[McScooby]

Indeed, you are very right! It must be a very bad sample rate conversion! Most of my collection, and as a matter of fact Apple Music Lossless is 24bit/44.1kHz, the standard of CD.

Undoubtedly, the song that we were A/B listening was 24bit/44.1kHz, and to be exact it was Toto's "Gift of Faith" from their album "Tambu". We also sampled other songs from the same album, e.g. "I Will Remember", "If You Belong to Me", and they all sounded degraded.

Edit: Just to note again, even on my iPad Pro 12.9, the same song "Gift of Faith" sounds much better played via AirPlay to my AirPods 2, something I can't explain why...

One has to wonder if instead of using the HDMI port, using one of the USB-C to HDMI would have the same restrictions??

 

[vddobrev]

One has to wonder if instead of using the HDMI port, using one of the USB-C to HDMI would have the same restrictions??

Yes, I tried it. Has the same restrictions, because it is bound by the end media, which is still an HDMI connection.

 

[MajorFubar]

Don't mistake this for my defending the inadequacy and limitations of the built-in audio, but I suspect that, if Apple has given this any thought at all, their thought is that anyone seriously into audio will be using a third-party USB DAC, and so will be unaffected.

I'm reminded of the iPad 'headphone-socket-gate scandal'. Musically-inclined iPad owners often use iPads running GarageBand, Cubasis and other iPad DAWs in their home studio. When Apple decided not to include a headphone socket in their pro-grade iPads it seriously p*ssed-off the five music producers who weren't using their iPad with an external audio interface, while the other ten thousand barely noticed it had gone.

 

[brofkand]

Don't mistake this for my defending the inadequacy and limitations of the built-in audio, but I suspect that, if Apple has given this any thought at all, their thought is that anyone seriously into audio will be using a third-party USB DAC, and so will be unaffected.

I'm reminded of the iPad 'headphone-socket-gate scandal'. Musically-inclined iPad owners often use iPads running GarageBand, Cubasis and other iPad DAWs in their home studio. When Apple decided not to include a headphone socket in their pro-grade iPads it seriously p*ssed-off the five music producers who weren't using their iPad with an external audio interface, while the other ten thousand barely noticed it had gone.

OP is already using a DAC, their home theater processor. It's just not USB attached. I don't blame them for not anticipating that Apple had gimped the HDMI interface on the Mac mini unnecessarily.

 

[vddobrev]

Don't mistake this for my defending the inadequacy and limitations of the built-in audio, but I suspect that, if Apple has given this any thought at all, their thought is that anyone seriously into audio will be using a third-party USB DAC, and so will be unaffected.

I'm reminded of the iPad 'headphone-socket-gate scandal'. Musically-inclined iPad owners often use iPads running GarageBand, Cubasis and other iPad DAWs in their home studio. When Apple decided not to include a headphone socket in their pro-grade iPads it seriously p*ssed-off the five music producers who weren't using their iPad with an external audio interface, while the other ten thousand barely noticed it had gone.

Thanks for stating you are not defending Apple.
I already have a very expensive and high-end DAC - a NAD 7.1 receiver. Unfortunately this receiver does not have a USB input. An external USB DAC will be inferior to the NAD internal, so I will achieve nothing.

No, Apple has not given it any thought, in the light of their "Apple Lossless and Atmos" announcement for Apple Music. As stated previously - they either have an M1 chipset limitation, or for whatever reason they just decided that all fixed to 48kHz is OK.

Forget Atmos, even speaking about 2 channel audio, why should I use USB DAC to convert to analogue and feed to my receiver via RCA, then my receiver will convert back to digital to apply room corrections and bass management, then convert it yet again to analogue...

All we need is to transport the Apple Lossless/Atmos form Apple Music app to the receiver, and Apple has crippled the HDMI output on their latest M1 chipsets.

 

[brofkand]

Thanks for stating you are not defending Apple.
I already have a very expensive and high-end DAC - a NAD 7.1 receiver. Unfortunately this receiver does not have a USB input. An external USB DAC will be inferior to the NAD internal, so I will achieve nothing.

No, Apple has not given it any thought, in the light of their "Apple Lossless and Atmos" announcement for Apple Music. As stated previously - they either have an M1 chipset limitation, or for whatever reason they just decided that all fixed to 48kHz is OK.

Forget Atmos, even speaking about 2 channel audio, why should I use USB DAC to convert to analogue and feed to my receiver via RCA, then my receiver will convert back to digital to apply room corrections and bass management, then convert it yet again to analogue...

All we need is to transport the Apple Lossless/Atmos form Apple Music app to the receiver, and Apple has crippled the HDMI output on their latest M1 chipsets.

I don't know if you're familiar with Darko Audio on YouTube, but he has some excellent videos on digital audio. This one in particular may be of interest to you.

 

[MajorFubar]

Thanks for stating you are not defending Apple.
I already have a very expensive and high-end DAC - a NAD 7.1 receiver. Unfortunately this receiver does not have a USB input. An external USB DAC will be inferior to the NAD internal, so I will achieve nothing.

No, Apple has not given it any thought, in the light of their "Apple Lossless and Atmos" announcement for Apple Music. As stated previously - they either have an M1 chipset limitation, or for whatever reason they just decided that all fixed to 48kHz is OK.

Forget Atmos, even speaking about 2 channel audio, why should I use USB DAC to convert to analogue and feed to my receiver via RCA, then my receiver will convert back to digital to apply room corrections and bass management, then convert it yet again to analogue...

All we need is to transport the Apple Lossless/Atmos form Apple Music app to the receiver, and Apple has crippled the HDMI output on their latest M1 chipsets.

I hear you. I can't understand why the HDMI connection would be giving the worse quality audio you are experiencing. Seems very odd to me. I was just suggesting that possibly most people using an external DAC would be using one via a USB connection, which I suspect (but obviously cann't prove) doesn't give rise to the same issues. This assumption (that most people use a USB DAC) is based on my considerable experience within the home audio and home recording communities.

I fully accept it doesn't solve your problem and I truly sympathise.

 

[phrehdd]

Thanks for stating you are not defending Apple.
I already have a very expensive and high-end DAC - a NAD 7.1 receiver. Unfortunately this receiver does not have a USB input. An external USB DAC will be inferior to the NAD internal, so I will achieve nothing.

No, Apple has not given it any thought, in the light of their "Apple Lossless and Atmos" announcement for Apple Music. As stated previously - they either have an M1 chipset limitation, or for whatever reason they just decided that all fixed to 48kHz is OK.

Forget Atmos, even speaking about 2 channel audio, why should I use USB DAC to convert to analogue and feed to my receiver via RCA, then my receiver will convert back to digital to apply room corrections and bass management, then convert it yet again to analogue...

All we need is to transport the Apple Lossless/Atmos form Apple Music app to the receiver, and Apple has crippled the HDMI output on their latest M1 chipsets.

I am unsure why you would say that a NAD AVR's DAC/Pre would always be better than a USB DAC solution. You may be surprised (at least for stereo), how some USB DACs are more than impressive. The goal still remains, do not let the Mac process the files. Whatever item can process and play that is external would be a goal over Apple's nonsense. Honestly, I think they back when kept the audio at that level to match iTunes 256 AAC. - Keep people thinking it is better than MP3 (which in most cases yes) and that is all they will ever need or want.

 

[marstan]

I am unsure why you would say that a NAD AVR's DAC/Pre would always be better than a USB DAC solution. You may be surprised (at least for stereo), how some USB DACs are more than impressive. The goal still remains, do not let the Mac process the files. Whatever item can process and play that is external would be a goal over Apple's nonsense. Honestly, I think they back when kept the audio at that level to match iTunes 256 AAC. - Keep people thinking it is better than MP3 (which in most cases yes) and that is all they will ever need or want.

Most assuredly there are differences in DACs. Go to BenchmarkMedia's site to read up on what makes a good DAC.

But really there is no point in getting a high quality DAC until you fix other devices in the audio chain that produce orders of magnitude greater errors than a DAC or any electronic device. And I am, of course, talking about monitors/speakers and room acoustics and EQ and recordings themselves. USB is the standard high quality interface for DACs although thunderbolt and even ethernet and other proprietary interfaces are used as well.