# Mac OS X Music Players - alternatives to iTunes



## Currawong (Feb 26, 2019)

There seems to have been an explosion lately in "audiophile" music players for Mac OS X lately. Though iTunes wiped out the need for competition when it was introduced, it has become a huge, multimedia and store program, leaving many people wanting something simpler.  For a while, that was Play and one or two others, but then Amarra came on the scene. Offering higher-quality playback, it has become famous among audiophiles, alongside its biggest competitor, Pure Vinyl (and now Pure Music).  As those two have fought it out in the commercial arena, the developer of Play came up with a free program, AyreWave, in conjunction with Ayre, which combined the simplicity of Play with high-quality 64-bit playback. This now leads the pack of the free players (after the association was dropped and the program re-named Decibel) if you want a simpler program and potentially better sound than you get using iTunes.

 Many people feel that using the audiophile-oriented music players improves the sound with their equipment. At the very least, they offer features not available in iTunes, such as upsampling and access to the audio filters built into Mac OS X. The latter is especially useful as Mac OS X has a built-in 31-band equalizer which is very handy for learning about frequency response. However their main advantages over iTunes for improving the quality of the computer's output is a dedicated playback engine different to the one in Mac OS X or iTunes, as well as the ability to switch the system output to the sample rate of the track being played, which is important if you have a mix of high-resolution as well as CD quality music and wish to have bit-perfect output every time. Additionally, they can entirely take over the output device ("hog mode") giving the program exclusive access which prevents system beeps and other programs interfering with music playback.

 So for the curious, here is a list of the players currently available that I know of, along with some basic information about them.

*Feb 2019:* Removed Decibel, Nightingale and Fidelia as they haven't been updated in years.

*Amarra Luxe by Sonic Studio*
http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/
_Commercial, demo available for download. Apple, iOS and Windows._
Amarra sQ+ for Mac, Amarra Play for iOS and Amarra Luxe for Mac and Windows. The latter is a fully-fledged player which supports DSD, FLAC and MQA and includes up-sampling and EQ options. They were one of the very first companies to come out with a player focussed on improving sound quality and have changed their offerings over the years.

*Audirvana Plus*
_Commercial, demo available for download. Apple and Windows._
http://audirvana.com/
 Aimed at the high-fidelity crowd, contains a plethora of features ranging from iZotope or SoX-based up-sampling (with comprehensive options) to device integer and exclusive access modes. It can also suspend Spotlight and Time Machine for dedicated music servers and either directly play DSD files for supported players over USB or on-the-fly convert them to high-res PCM. Playback can be via its own playlist, iTunes library sync or using an iTunes Integrated Mode. The latest versions include support for TIDAL, quobuz and HighResAudio streaming.

*BitPerfect*
_Commercial, Apple._
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bitperfect/id455545700
 Integrating with iTunes, this software sits in your menu bar and feeds music via Integer Mode to your DAC, matching the sample rate in the process. Great if you want a simple and cheap solution while still using iTunes. Now supports up-sampling and DSD playback.

*Elmedia Player*
_ Free/Commercial, Apple_
http://mac.eltima.com/media-player.html
_Free with commercial "pro" version available with more features._
 A multi-media player that also supports Youtube. The commercial version is required to be able to save Youtube videos and stream to Airplay devices.

*HQPlayer*
http://Signalyst.com
_Commercial._
 An up-sampling (or re-sampling) music player that allows the user to choose numerous algorithms and even DSD conversion and network transmission, potentially allowing for improved sound quality from DACs with good hardware but poor or no (ie: non-oversampling) digital filter implementations. Can be used with Raspberry Pi and similar acting as endpoints, with the NAA daemon installed.

*JRiver Media Player (Mac)*
http://www.jriver.com/mac.html
_Commercial_
 Well-known for its fully-featured Windows software, which includes video playback.

*Pure Music by Channel D*
http://www.channld.com/puremusic/index.html
_Commercial, demo available for download._
 Based upon Pure Vinyl and using its own playback engine, like Amarra, integrates with iTunes, running in a window alongside and can re-sample music on the fly. Unlike Amarra, it requires iTunes to be running to select tracks, but offers a considerable slew of other options.

*Roon*
https://roonlabs.com
_Commercial_
 Intended to completely revisit the storage and playback of music in a way that is more interesting, it can play back music locally, from storage or from TIDAL or Qobuz, and gives a highly graphical and carefully curated interface to your music. With the software installed on computers, including Raspberry Pi and similar, it can play music from the server to any device on your network, including multiple devices separately at the same time, and be controlled by any of them too.

*Swinsian*
http://swinsian.com
_Commercial, 30 day trial period._
 Designed to entirely replace iTunes, including iDevice sync support. It has, among other features Last.fm integration, watch folders, device sync transcoding rules, a duplicate finder and Airplay support.

*VLC (VideoLan Client)*
http://videolan.org/vlc
_Free._
 A multimedia client which plays back most audio and video formats and also supports streaming and other features.

*Vox by Alessio Nonni*
http://coppertino.com/
_Free, except their Music Cloud music storage system._
 While it has maintained its simple player interface, the features have grown this player into something interesting to audiophiles with automatic sample rate switching, device hog mode, neat playback features such as auto-crossfade between songs, LastFM and Soundcloud support, autoload from folder and a bunch of other features worth checking out. The makers are now offering a service allowing to upload and stream your music, as well as sync it with Vox on your iPhone.


----------



## CEE TEE

I thought I was going to have to buy a Netgear Ready-NAS + Logitech Squeezebox...so I could bypass my Mac completely.
   
  Until I can afford that set-up, I will investigate these options further.  (The 4-bay Ready-NAS that I want <without drives>  is ~$700.)
   
   
  Thanks, Currawong!


----------



## DavidMahler

Currawong, this thread is insanely helpful!  Great!!!


----------



## grokit

Great idea for a thread, thanks and subscribed.


----------



## Vader815

I don't mean to seem stupid, but I don't completely understand the differences between them. What's best to output lossless? I don't really know what 'filters' are either I'm embaressed to say. Also, do the equilizers make a big difference? Any feedback would be great, and thanks for the post! Super helpful regardless!
  -
  -Vader


----------



## gzone3lement

Interesting. I am aware that when it comes to Windows, there is a kmixer driver, so we typically would use the program Foobar to bypass that driver. For Mac OS X, there is no kmixer, but there is "com.apple.audio.coreaudiod.plist," or Core Audio driver in short. Does iTunes use this driver? Is there anything wrong with this driver like the kmixer?


----------



## DigitalFreak

Maybe I'm just being a simpleton by asking this but all I want is a simple plugin that works with iTunes and makes iTunes recognize FLAC. My second choice would be a player that rips in AIFF or FLAC. Any suggestions from anyone out there oh and by the way I'm a Windows user.


----------



## Currawong

I just realised before reading the replies that I'll have to write a second article just on setting up these programs, though they all come with instructions in some form or another.
   
  In iTunes, there is, for example, a 10-band equalizer.  However, that doesn't cover the entire audible spectrum very well. However there is a system EQ that can be accessed in any program that can call it.  Play and Vox can as they enable the use of the Mac OS X built-in effects filters.  In Vox, the second button from the left on the controller window opens the effects window.  Clicking on "Add" pops up a menu under which is an "Apple" sub-menu with a list of AUwhatever filters. AUGraphicEQ is the one you want.  You can draw curves with it by holding down the control key and literally drawing a curve, the sliders jumping to the mouse location as it passes over. In Fedelia, the main window has three menus below the playback controls where effects can be added.
   
  gzone3lement: a .plist file is a property list (a set of preferences for something) rather than the driver itself.  I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with CoreAudio as such, especially as over the years Apple has improved it. However it may not be set up to get the highest fidelity out of the system.  This is really a question we'd have to ask of someone who was writing one of these programs as to what CoreAudio could do better.


----------



## turimbar1

good to see this on the front page, very useful info, thanks currawong!


----------



## Valens7

I absolutely adore Decibel.  It has completely replaced iTunes in my dock.  Thanks for the handy compendium!


----------



## sphinxvc

Has anyone felt that Decibel was an improvement over itunes?  Any success with hogmode?  I keep hearing clicks in the background when I use it.
   
  Edit: Too bad there isn't anything that integrates with Front Row.


----------



## stozzer123

Good article, nice to see a up to date list of whats going on with osx.
   
  Personally when just listening to music i use a program called Ecoute.  It uses your itunes library but runs independently so not hogging resources etc. The interface is excellent simple yet good looking and very functional. 
   
  Bit of an old video and theres more features now.
   
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVqFNtog0hg&feature=related


----------



## rosgr63

I would like to mention the Digital Power Station plug in and Hear.
  Even though DPS is not a stand alone player, it customizes the sound.
  Hear is not a player but a system sound modifier.


----------



## uelover

I have Amarra (latest version) and I went on to try Decibel and Audirvana after reading this post.
   
  I felt that while Amarra sounds good, both Decibel and Aurdirvana sounds more natural to my ears. I am playing ALAC files and have not faced any problems with either of the softwares (i.e., no clicking sounds). Audirvana sounds really clean and have a dark background just that it doesn't work with my iQube V2.
   
  Thank you Currawong for sharing this and allowing me to love my mac even more!
   
   
PS: Would be great to know if anyone have found a good video player for mac with good audio quality that plays various video file format. VLC is a very versatile video player but I find that there is more to be desired from its audio quality.


----------



## gregjnjarvis

Can any of these play iTunes' Lossless (ALE?) files?


----------



## Yekrut

I was using songbird for a couple of months, until a recent update they released which actually destroyed part of my music library. During the update process the application would freeze every single time not allowing a full update. The only way to remedy this was to delete the previously saved library and start everything from scratch. This meant I had to import all of my music back into the app which was very frustrating. There were lots of features that I really enjoyed, like native FLAC playback, last.fm scrobbling, additional artist info, tour dates and many more online integration features. Yet I also found the program to be  laggy in OSX, especially with the search feature. My music library is about 4000 songs which isn't much. After the crash I switched back to iTunes simply for the stability and speed that it offers. I can't recommend Songbird to anyone just for the stability issue alone which was a huge let down.


----------



## ZERUNG

I use Amarra, Decibel and Audirvana.  I would gladly settle for the latter two if they offered what Amarra does, to use Itune as the music manager. I used to be alarmed by the early cost for Amarra, it has since come down, still expensive.
   
  On the other hand these music players are primarily for management of high resolution audio. I don't think I have seen debate on the quality of Highrez to standard 16/44 digital music in Head-Fi. Perhaps I have not looked?


----------



## iamoneagain

Decibel has a nice script you can download that allows you automatically load and play your selected iTunes tracks.  Even if Decibel isn't open, it opens it for you.
   
  I've played around with most of these and like Amarra best for sound, especially in cache/playlist mode.  It's current version is probably the most buggy of all these players.  They promise an update any day now, so we'll see if it's more stable.  Pure Music has the best iTunes integration but it's too clean sounding.  Amarra has a tube-like sound and Pure Music is very digital.  Pure Music is more dynamic and has better soundstage but missing the rich, liquidy texture.  Decibel captures this texture pretty well.  It's my second favorite soundwise. Not a fan of the other players interfaces.  They don't have a direct iTunes integration.  I want to be able to select tracks in iTunes and have it automatically loaded in other player or be seamless like Amarra/Pure Music.


----------



## Roger Strummer

Great list Currawong!
   
  Although not a music player per se, a nice addition to the list would be Audio Hijack Pro. It hijacks the audio of pretty much any app and lets you use any sort of plugins, which include the graphic or parametric equalizers (Apple's and third parties'), so it makes iTunes a much more capable player.


----------



## Eronel

+1 for Pure Music. This program literally traansformed the sound of my system. There was a five fold increase in soundstaging, tonal realism and instrument separation. It has many cool odds and ends as well such as reverse play, automatic sample rate changes, dithered volume control and memory play. For the price compared to amarra its a no brainer and a obvious improvement over itunes sound quality. do all of yourselves a favor and pick this up, at least for the 15 trial and i assure you you wont be disappointed
  \


----------



## kwkarth

Great job Amos!
   
  Might want to note that *VOX* also supports *three cross feed methodologies*, which are great for us Head-Fi types and don't forget to add *Audacity* for Mac, one of the best free editors out there.
   
  Oh, and Rogue Amoeba/HiJack Pro is good stuff too.  I've used it for a couple years.


----------



## JIGF

Thanks a lot for this Amos


----------



## aamefford

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Great job Amos!
> 
> Might want to note that *VOX* also supports *three cross feed methodologies*


 

 That is great to know.  Pure Music is very intriguing to me as well.  This is an outstanding and needed thread!  Thank you!


----------



## smial1966

Mac users, 
   
  I've been using Decibel for a while now, both initially when it was AyreWave and latterly with it's present moniker. The sound is fulsome, musical and dare I say it 'analogue' to my ears. The interface is minimalist and somewhat basic, but it's reasonably specified and functions well. There is a comprehensive thread regarding this music player and it's development on Computer Audiophile (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/AyreWave-New-OSX-Audio-Player-Released-RMAF) so if head-fi users are experiencing problems with Decibel, posting a message there usually elicits a helpful response from other users.     
   
  Cheers,
   
  Andy.


----------



## dreadforge

I've been looking for an iTunes replacement for quite some time as there seems to be very few worthy ones out there, I downloaded Decibel and noticed an immediate improvement in my HD650s performance, might just be placebo but I felt compelled to post.


----------



## leechi

Thanks for the list! I'll have to give these players a try. Right now, I have music stored on an external HD and some still on my macbook's HD. Will these players be able to automatically integrate the music from different locations? I haven't had time to try to figure it out on iTunes.


----------



## V-DiV

Nice job Currawong.  Hopefully, one or more of these programs will mature to make for an easy way to manage our music libraries (hopefully with iTunes) plus allow hi-res file playback with output control as well as access to equalization via core audio or third party plug-ins.  I didn't like the Pure Music interface (the funny, unsmooth way that it hangs on iTunes).  Amarra is too expensive, Decibel and Fidelia look promising but don't work with my desktop computer (G5, OS 10.5).  The others are too simple/limited to make a good alternative to iTunes.
   
  Cog is another simple music player.  Is it still in active development or did it die?
  
   
  Quote: 





digitalfreak said:


> Maybe I'm just being a simpleton by asking this but all I want is a simple plugin that works with iTunes and makes iTunes recognize FLAC. My second choice would be a player that rips in AIFF or FLAC. Any suggestions from anyone out there oh and by the way I'm a Windows user.


 

 DigitalFreak, Max will convert FLAC files into ALAC and put them into your iTunes library.  (http://sbooth.org/Max/)


----------



## Hero Kid

Cheers for this topic Amos! The only player you forgot that I think is worth mentioning is Clementine.
   
  I've played around with Amarra 2.1 (with iTunes and all my music in ALAC), Decibel which is what I use recently, Vox was my go to player for a long time after giving up on library based players and Clementine before that. I've tried to love Audivarna but can't, same with Songbird. fidelia looks like it might have potential, but I'll have to see.
   
  My problem was getting so caught up in which player is the best and what can I live with, that I neglected the fact I don't have an external DAC, so it all seems a bit fruitless until I buy one. What I have learned from my time with all these players is using finder as a music manager, and maintaining a standard of tags and naming (which is VERY time consuming) is the best solution that will allow you to easily experiment with different players and even operating systems.
   
  There is no be all and end all player in my opinion, so my advice to anyone who cares to listen is try as many as you can and decide from there. Placebo or not, all these players offer something unique. You just have to find the right one for you.


----------



## grokit

I would like to know which of these players are FLAC compatible, and which ones will interface with my iPod. I suppose I could click on all the links and do my own homework, just putting it out there in case anyone already knows.


----------



## Vader815

Most of the good ones are snow leopard only. 
   
   
  Sigh.


----------



## holland

Clementine and Cog are a couple of others.  I haven't found one I totally like.  There is a foobar2000 port, using X11 though.


----------



## clams

fidelia is suprisingly good but I have a feeling it will be quite expensive when it comes out. Decibel is quite good and a pretty noticeable improvement over Play. The only thing I miss in Decibel are libraries but I can easily get around that.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





leechi said:


> Thanks for the list! I'll have to give these players a try. Right now, I have music stored on an external HD and some still on my macbook's HD. Will these players be able to automatically integrate the music from different locations? I haven't had time to try to figure it out on iTunes.


 

 Looks like Pure Music might do what you want, but it will cost you.
   
  Vox is very simple, it goes where you point it and treats everything in the current directory you point it to as a playlist.
   
  So for standard iTunes downloads and a lot of rips, I just let iTunes manage those files, but for all of my HD stuff I download as FLAC to conserve space, then I set up a simple directory structure by vendor, album, or genre, or however it strikes my fancy, and play that with VOX.  Best part i that it supports all the geeky pluggins I want and three different cross feed algorithms, and it's freeware.


----------



## JIGF

Just saw the price of Amarra, I thought it was going to be something like $100 tops. Very, very steep for a player. I hope Fidelia is not as expensive as I am enjoying it quite a bit.


----------



## Hero Kid

The price of what *JIGF*? But yeh some of the prices are ridiculous.


----------



## Richiyaado

Am also enjoying Fidelia, and hope it won't be too high-priced. I already own Pure Music, and like that as well. Also, downloaded Phile Audio from the new Mac app store to rip CDs... very nice, as it will save several codecs simultaneously (have set mine to create both ALAC and AAC for iTunes/iPod).


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





hero kid said:


> The price of what *JIGF*? But yeh some of the prices are ridiculous.


 

 Fixed.


----------



## JIGF

Here's a thread where people are posting impressions on the Fidelia player.


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





jigf said:


> Fixed.


 

 I'm confused now... :/  Y u do dis ;_;


----------



## Currawong

I forgot about Clementine and had forgotten the name of Cog.  I'll add them shortly.  I've put in a request for info with the makers for Fidelia on pricing.
   
  It's funny reading impressions -- I found Amarra to be the harshest and Pure Music the smoothest, with Decibel and Fidelia close to spot-on for me.  It would be interesting to compare the DACs being used with the impressions of the players.  I know, for example, my DAC has dithering on by default, so the dither available in Amarra and Fidelia will likely have no effect. Up-sampling, especially if it uses a very good algorithm, may have some benefits for some DACs but not others as well.


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I'll add them shortly.  I've put in a request for info with the makers for Fidelia on pricing.


 
   
  Great! Lets see if we get a number.
   
  Be sure to mention them head-fi users are providing impressions on the Fidelia.
   
  @Hero Kid: I meant Amarra.


----------



## Currawong

I had another look at Cog -- it hasn't been updated for some time and the last version has a serious bug, so I haven't included it.


----------



## Hero Kid

Yeah Cog is not worth mentioning.


----------



## Bacci

So how do these players claim improving the sound over Itunes? In OS X sound options you can specify system sounds to be routed to the internal speakers so they don't go to your headphone and even set their volume low or disabled. Don't need hog mode for that. The other 'features' in the article are intended to change the sound of the source, quite useless as most audiophiles are looking for the best possible reproduction.
Bit perfect playback would be useful, but this OS X shortcoming as far as I understood it is not addressed by any of these players.


----------



## AVU

The sound quality between many of these and itunes is quite obvious.  Amongst themselves, it's a bit harder to tell.  But Amarra 2.1, full version $700, is my favorite by a hair.  Then Decibel, which is amazingly free, then Pure Music or Pure Vinyl (I've tried both, they're identical) which is like $200, Amarra's lower versions would seem to be identical for the 16/44 files I'm playing, but they're clearly not - the difference is quite obvious.  Then Play, which is good, then the lower versions of Amarra and Pure Music. Those are all I've tried.  
   
  In terms of usability, Amarra is the best, since it integrates with itunes, but its also unfortunately the buggiest.  Pure Music also integrates perfectly, and I'd use it if the SQ were better.  Decibel, like Play, unfortunately has no integration with itunes, so you have to reimport your library or select individual tracks.  Sound makes it worth the trouble through.  And there's no psychological buyer's bias in my case since I have them all free from school. If anything, I'm biased AGAINST amarra since it can be so #@*$& buggy. 
   
  But there's no use bothering about what other people think - you can try all of these yourself for free.  they all have trial versions - see which one you like the best yourself!
  
   
  Quote: 





bacci said:


> So how do these players claim improving the sound over Itunes? In OS X sound options you can specify system sounds to be routed to the internal speakers so they don't go to your headphone and even set their volume low or disabled. Don't need hog mode for that. The other 'features' in the article are intended to change the sound of the source, quite useless as most audiophiles are looking for the best possible reproduction.
> Bit perfect playback would be useful, but this OS X shortcoming as far as I understood it is not addressed by any of these players.


----------



## gzone3lement

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I just realised before reading the replies that I'll have to write a second article just on setting up these programs, though they all come with instructions in some form or another.
> 
> In iTunes, there is, for example, a 10-band equalizer.  However, that doesn't cover the entire audible spectrum very well. However there is a system EQ that can be accessed in any program that can call it.  Play and Vox can as they enable the use of the Mac OS X built-in effects filters.  In Vox, the second button from the left on the controller window opens the effects window.  Clicking on "Add" pops up a menu under which is an "Apple" sub-menu with a list of AUwhatever filters. AUGraphicEQ is the one you want.  You can draw curves with it by holding down the control key and literally drawing a curve, the sliders jumping to the mouse location as it passes over. In Fedelia, the main window has three menus below the playback controls where effects can be added.
> 
> gzone3lement: a .plist file is a property list (a set of preferences for something) rather than the driver itself.  I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with CoreAudio as such, especially as over the years Apple has improved it. However it may not be set up to get the highest fidelity out of the system.  This is really a question we'd have to ask of someone who was writing one of these programs as to what CoreAudio could do better.


 

 Thanks for the correction, Currawong. I'm glad CoreAudio improves over time. I'm not sure if there is anything wrong with CoreAudio either, but what I can say is that it is currently impossible to bypass it throughout the entire audio system.
   
  Currently, I still use iTunes as of today. I personally like to double-click album artworks and select songs from there. I admire the idea of integration, and I see iTunes to be a stable, if not clean, program. so I probably will consider either Amarra or Pure Music. I have not tried out either products yet, but if I do hear difference in sound, I definitely will think about purchasing either one in the near future.
   
  For Amarra, "the licence either requires an iLok USB key or the software is locked to a single computer which can't be transferred." I normally restore my laptop either once or twice a year. If this is the case, I should get an iLok USB key, right? I just want to make sure.
   
  I played around with iTunes equalizer today, and the sound did indeed change depending on frequency. When using equalizers, don't they decrease sound quality because of sound skewness? For Pure Music, I hear the software supports VST and and AAU plugins, so it is possible to use a software equalizer with Pure Music. Does anyone know such a software that takes advantage of the Mac's EQ?


----------



## suhaybh

Is there any way to have audiophile sound coming from itunes on a mac? I just love the interface of itunes...


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I forgot about Clementine and had forgotten the name of Cog.  I'll add them shortly.  I've put in a request for info with the makers for Fidelia on pricing.
> 
> It's funny reading impressions -- *I found Amarra to be the harshest *and Pure Music the smoothest, with Decibel and Fidelia close to spot-on for me.  It would be interesting to compare the DACs being used with the impressions of the players.  I know, for example, my DAC has dithering on by default, so the dither available in Amarra and Fidelia will likely have no effect. Up-sampling, especially if it uses a very good algorithm, may have some benefits for some DACs but not others as well.


 

 Weird, I don't find Amarra Mini 2.01 or 2.1 to be the least bit harsh with any of my DACs.  I haven't tried the others, but it's better than Core Audio in my Macbook.  I was so impressed with the Amarra demo at RMAF that I went right out and bought a copy.


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





suhaybh said:


> Is there any way to have audiophile sound coming from itunes on a mac? I just love the interface of itunes...


 
   
  Check out Amarra and Pure Music, but prepare to pay for it :/


----------



## paconavarro

I use neutrino    http://www.machinecodex.com   but Im testing fidelia and liking it very much... the fact that it has a iphone app for remote control is very cool!!!


----------



## rosgr63

Amarra did not offer much/any improvement on my high end systems, but AyreWave did.


----------



## mrspeakers

I think Amarra uses iZotope, just as Fidelia does.  The Fidelia BEta app crashed on my system, and was too unstable to use.  Their tech support was very prompt, but I wanted to just get to it and not wait for them to fix this, which I would bet they will.  The software was 10x as slick as Pure Music from a UI perspective, but I stuck with Pure Music, which has been ideal for switching between my different DACs, and whose upsampling is both transparent and incredibly good sounding.  Pure Music easily switches my devices to support the different sample rates of source and/or upsampling.


----------



## middachten

Currawong, 
  Thanks for this overview. I was just searching for a player to start using as THE player. Until now I've been playing with iTunes (resource hog, no FLAC/HD support, not sure if its bit-perfect, sounding less good than Cubase/Wavelab), VLC (lean, playing everything you throw at it, lousy library support, not sure about being bit perfect), Spotify (good library support, great streaming/music sourcing, not bit perfect, no HD support(?)). 
   
  So, if do some serious listening, I started to use Cubase(!) because its capable of 100% bitperfect output. And I have this software already for my music production / project studio activities. Since a few months Wavelab has been released for OSX. Another professional audio package that provides bit perfect output. Then I tried Audacity (comparable to Wavelab, but free!) which sounds great too. But all these options are pretty complex to use and have no library support. Not something for daily music listening.
   
  There is nothing wrong with Audio Units (perhaps it was not perfectly stable a few years ago). It provides the possibility for bit perfect audio output at all resolutions, without any audio processing. Unless the software explicitly includes DSP units in the audio path.
   
  Anyway, I will definitely try some of the options you've mentioned. And I hope one day I find the ultimate player!


----------



## Kremer930

I am a fan of Pure Music too.  It could be more refined on the GUI side but the sound and capabilities are great.  I tried it side by side against Fidelia and though Fidelia is pretty good, my personal view is that Pure Music sounds clearer and less veiled.  Well worth the money.


----------



## aorbinati

Incredibly helpful post, thanks very much!


----------



## desktophifi

I have been curious about Audirvana, a couple of friends recommended it to me.


----------



## leechi

Thanks for the reply. I'll look into these as well as the other ones. I'm willing to make some rearrangements with the music files if I can find a good player. Don't think I'm willing to pay for anything yet though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Looks like Pure Music might do what you want, but it will cost you.
> 
> Vox is very simple, it goes where you point it and treats everything in the current directory you point it to as a playlist.
> 
> So for standard iTunes downloads and a lot of rips, I just let iTunes manage those files, but for all of my HD stuff I download as FLAC to conserve space, then I set up a simple directory structure by vendor, album, or genre, or however it strikes my fancy, and play that with VOX.  Best part i that it supports all the geeky pluggins I want and three different cross feed algorithms, and it's freeware.


----------



## Insilin1i

I grabbed Fidelia, and I'm really liking it. I'm not sure if it's a placebo effect but it seems like it makes my music sound smoother? Not sure if that makes sense, but I like it.


----------



## Richiyaado

One of the advantages of using Fidelia is that it allows you to use up to three VST or AU plug-ins. As I have slight hearing loss in my left ear, I'm using Canz3D in the default mode, with the balance shifted slightly left. I'm also using Canz3D in Pure Music, but I can't seem to access or change its settings, whereas I can using Fidelia. Apart from adjusting for balance, I like the way Canz3D creates a more realistic sound stage, particularly with recordings that have extreme stereo separation (like many of the recently released Beatles stereo remasters).


----------



## hamyqueso

Thanks for this! I had no idea that changing my music player would make a noticeable difference


----------



## bulmanxxi

I have Amarra Jr., Pure Music, Decibel, Audirvana and Fidelia demo.  Out of all these, currently, Pure Music does the best job and it is the most stable although not the prettiest.  It is reasonable cost given that it can be installed on a number of machines without issues.  Amarra Jr. sounds good but does not have a smooth transition from track to track.  It also does not support upsampling.  It's worst aspect is that it is a single license.  Decibel sounds very good and it is pretty simple (a good thing) but does not seem to support upsampling.  While I am not sure there is a benefit to upsampling CD quality music, it is nice to have the option to do that and Pure Music and Audirvana allow for that.  Both Decibel and Audirvana are free for now but are also work in progress.  Fidelia sounds nice but it is buggy and do not seem to sound better than Pure Music.  Final version and mostly price will be critical.  I think below $100 is the right price for it but we will l see.  Strangely enough, they are already selling their iPhone remote app while Fidelia itself is not available.  I would not buy the remote until I know whether I'd buy the main app itself.  It is also worth pointing out the Pure Music works with Apple's iTunes Remote - FREE!  The UI is quite cheesy but who cares, it's about the sound and it sounds great.


----------



## melomaniac

aside from the fact that COG should be mentioned here as well, I would like to report that I use PureMusic as well as the SqueezeServer, and unfortunately every time I play FLAC files in PureMusic, it later pops up as a ghost folder in the SqueezeServer list of items. 
   
  meaning that when you use PureMusic to play a hi-rez or other format through iTunes/PureMusic, a dummy folder for that album is created, and that dummy folder (which in iTunes just points to the FLAC files) then becomes a separate folder, which won't stream anything.


----------



## Currawong

Cog hasn't been updated for years and is seriously buggy, so I didn't include it.
   
  What would be helpful is if people included the DAC and connection (USB, optical or coax) they are using with the results.
   
  There are three types of software available it seems: Those that are designed to provide a feature-rich alternative to iTunes, such as Songbird.  Those that are designed to be simpler and use less memory, such as Vox, and those that are designed to provider better-sounding playback for audiophiles, such as Amarra, Pure Music, Fidelia and Decibel.
   
  Other than preventing re-sampling (having bit-perfect output) and caching in memory, I can only imagine that the audiophile players claim to have better software for playing music.  I do recall that early Amarra builds required the user to manually set the output to be clocked by the computer's audio input clock (which might be more accurate, I don't know) so, without knowing the details, they may interact with the hardware better.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Cog hasn't been updated for years and is seriously buggy, so I didn't include it.
> 
> What would be helpful is if people included the DAC and connection (USB, optical or coax) they are using with the results.
> 
> ...


 
  Amos, do you not perceive any sonic merit to using VOX?  Why would it be classified as a non audiophile product?


----------



## bulmanxxi

I have used the following external USB Dacs - Centrance Dacport (24/96), uDac-2 (24/96) and Apogee One (24/48).  Music is 100% Apple Losless 16/44.1 CD rips through iTunes.  Amarra, does not play nice with all DACs, so much so that they have a list of tested/approved DACs.  The others don't have this limitation.


----------



## paconavarro

Quote: 





richiyaado said:


> One of the advantages of using Fidelia is that it allows you to use up to three VST or AU plug-ins. As I have slight hearing loss in my left ear, I'm using Canz3D in the default mode, with the balance shifted slightly left. I'm also using Canz3D in Pure Music, but I can't seem to access or change its settings, whereas I can using Fidelia. Apart from adjusting for balance, I like the way Canz3D creates a more realistic sound stage, particularly with recordings that have extreme stereo separation (like many of the recently released Beatles stereo remasters).


 


  Same for me... Im testing it because of the AU and VST with Canz3d and StereoTool and also the iPhone app is very cool as Remote control.  I haven't got bugs or anything on more less 24 hr of use... but we'll see what will be the final price for it...


----------



## V-DiV

I'm playing with Neutrino.  It runs fine on my older Mac (G5, Leopard).  Nice interface.  More full featured than iTunes.  Pulls up the iTunes library and play lists.  Can also add non iTunes folders of music files into a "Watched Folders" list.   Can insert plug-ins, multiple parametric and graphic (10 & 31 band) plus lots of others.  It grabs album art from iTunes.  It plays high-def files that I had Max stuff as ALAC into iTunes.  It will open and play FLAC files,  but it won't play high-def FLAC files.  Wouldn't play a web radio station from the iTunes library.  I don't hear a difference between iTunes and Neutrino.  The price is quite reasonable at $30.  It has a 30 day free trial.  No signs of the ability to change the output rate to match the native resolution like Pure Music.  Verdict: nice alternative player with more features than iTunes and no store, but no audiophile control.  Next!
   
  edit: using CI Audio, VDA-2 DAC via optical cable


----------



## sphinxvc

Can anyone test if Fidelia works with an Apple remote?


----------



## hdufour

Quote: 





sphinxvc said:


> Can anyone test if Fidelia works with an Apple remote?


 


  Nope - not on my iMac.  Bummer...


----------



## Richiyaado

I have a MacBook Pro, and use a Nuforce HDP DAC/Amp connected via USB. I've been switching between Pure Music and Fidelia the last week or so. I know PM upsamples to 96K when necessary (as it says so in the interface)... not sure about Fidelia, but I assume it does as well. Currently, I'd give Fidelia a slight edge in terms of SQ, and it seems to be less prone to problems with gapless playback (and other occasional hiccups).


----------



## mrspeakers

Pure music works with the iPhone and iPad remote.  I like this, as my Mac Mini is connected to a home-theatre projector, and I can use my phone rig with Pure Music without turning on the surround processor and projector.


----------



## uelover

I have downloaded the trial version of pure music and while the SQ is definitely good, it kinda irritates me that it pops up my itune everytime the next track in my itune library was played. I was typing some documents and that definitely got me so fed up that I went straight to uninstall it.
   
  The latest version of Amarra supports lossy file formats but tend to hang and stop playing music on my macbook pro after a short while. It work flawlessly with lossless though. Not so user friendly to someone like me who have a mixed of lossy and lossless files in my iTunes library.
   
  Tried Fidelia too and the auto-import function doesn't import ALAC files from my iTunes library even though Fidelia could play them. It looks decent enough but I am going to lose access to it soon after the 15 days of trial since they have yet to sell it officially.
   
  I will stick to Decibel/Audirvana for now as they are free, simple, clean, and reproduces the sound files with great quality.


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Amos, do you not perceive any sonic merit to using VOX?  Why would it be classified as a non audiophile product?


 

 I think he means it's not targeted at "audiophiles" as it doesn't have any specific "audiophile" features besides tapping into the EQ. I love Vox, but I find myself booting up Decibel now. All I need is for it to work with the media keys and apple remote and include a better option for artwork and I'm set.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





hero kid said:


> I think he means it's not targeted at "audiophiles" as it doesn't have any specific "audiophile" features besides tapping into the EQ. I love Vox, but I find myself booting up Decibel now. All I need is for it to work with the media keys and apple remote and include a better option for artwork and I'm set.


 
  Have you tried any of the crossfeed settings in VOX?


----------



## adornoserbe

hey guys,
   
  how long did it take Fidelia to load the Itunes Library in your experience? For me it just disappears and never comes back in the process of loading it... Seems to be very buggy...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I like Vox for the implementation of AU plug-ins. Would like that feature for Decibel too


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Amos, do you not perceive any sonic merit to using VOX?  Why would it be classified as a non audiophile product?


 

 Not sure to be honest. I was grouping the players according to their intended purpose.
  
  Quote: 





uelover said:


> I have downloaded the trial version of pure music and while the SQ is definitely good, it kinda irritates me that it pops up my itune everytime the next track in my itune library was played.


 

 You can switch this off in the preferences. Also, if you hide the application, it only shows as a tiny line that floats across iTunes to indicate that it is working.
   


  Quote: 





adornoserbe said:


> hey guys,
> 
> how long did it take Fidelia to load the Itunes Library in your experience? For me it just disappears and never comes back in the process of loading it... Seems to be very buggy...
> 
> ...


 

 The first few times I used it all sorts of things didn't work, now it works fine. I suggest not starting it up if you have any of the other music players open, especially if they are in interface "hog" mode.  I found using Decibel in hog mode would cause issues with Firefox because presumably flash couldn't access the audio interface.
   
  Presently my favourite for sound quality is Fidelia using iZotope up-sampling and Dither. That's specifically for my system though, tested with a lot of Chopin to see which gives the most realistic piano (to my ears).


----------



## uelover

I went into preference but I couldn't find it. Maybe I have missed it.
   
  Anyway, I second that Amarra sounds a little harsh but that was when I am using macbook pro --> stagedac --> aktimate speaker.
   
  Out of curiosity I went to compare Amarra together with other players on macbook pro --> iqube v2 --> ck100. Surprisingly, the harshness is gone and Amarra sounded better (clearer) than Decibel on my iem. I guess its that my amp smooths out the edginess that makes it more pleasant to my ears.
   
  It is just fun to switch around and determine which would sound best for you.
   
  Fidelia looks promising. Perhaps they could have some introductory prices to head-fiers =D


----------



## paconavarro

Im enjoying very much Fidelia, I haven't got any problem so far with it, Im even using the iPhone app for remote control and its cool.
  My first option was Play then I switched to Neutrino, I hope we have some prices soon for Fidelia cause it's noticeable the SQ in it.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

This is a great topic Currawong!  I have heard that Decibel will only be free for a little while longer, then it may cost some money to use.  I don't think we will be able to use the older versions because sbooth seems to build in expiring updates.
   
  The good news is that sbooth mentioned it will be very much affordable so even if/when it starts costing money the cost will be something manageable.


----------



## bulmanxxi

UE lover, PureMusic should not be popping anything.  Just make sure to enable Memory Play and Track Pre-loading.
   
  Adornoserbe, you should NOT need to load your iTunes library - it should already be linked under the iTunes Library below the Fidelia library.  If you iTunes library is not showing under the link, go to preferences>iTunes> and manually point to your iTunes Music Library.xml file.  That should do the trick.  But yes, it is a bit buggy, as it worked right away on one computer but took quite a few tries to work on a second one for the same reason.


----------



## Irick

iTunes is bit perfect if you turn off any mixers/auto-volume adjust, put the volume on max and pipe it through optical or USB audio. I'm pretty sure it is the same with most of the players on the list.
(PS: erf, not only did it not quote reply, but it didn't show me there was more then one page! what's going on with my browser today? =/)


----------



## hdufour

Quote: 





adornoserbe said:


> hey guys,
> 
> how long did it take Fidelia to load the Itunes Library in your experience? For me it just disappears and never comes back in the process of loading it... Seems to be very buggy...
> 
> ...


 

 My library of ~4500 ALAC tracks took about 10 mins to show up.....I had only safari and mail open at the time, though I was playing a track in Fidelia for "testing" purposes....


----------



## SoupRKnowva

ive been a big fan of ayrewave for quite a while now, i think it does sound better than iTunes, so does audirvana. My only gripe is that lack of library support in either, though what i do is just make my entire library a playlist in Decibel(ayrewave) and just have it save the playlist, yeah it takes it a bit to open the program that way, but it works for me


----------



## JamesMcProgger

from all the list i just know songbird. which IMO is nowhere near Foobar2000, too bad foobar is only available for windows...
   
  btw doesnt the zune softweare runs in MAC OS too? i think it does.


----------



## elcoholic

Would any of these really offer a significant improvement in either of these two playback modes - a) iMac head phone out to a receiver driving speakers or HP's or b) airport extreme with optical out to receiver?  Most of my serious listening is all analog.  Most of my digital music is CD's ripped with iTunes to 256k VBR, the priority was fitting 10,000 songs on my 80 gb iPod.  However I'm thinking about ripping my 1100 CDs in full res and going for higher SQ at work where I play my iPod through an Onkyo receiver and modded HP-1's.  This might lead me to do more serious listening on my main home setup as long as I can still use the remote app on my wife's touch and use my 3 airport extreme links.


----------



## sphinxvc

^ There's really no reason to rely on opinions, all these options are free to use or at the very least, free to try.
   
  I think I hear a improvement going from iTunes to Fidelia but it's so imperceptibly small, if it exists at all, that I can't help but wonder if it's in my head.  And I'm sure it doesn't help that my usb input can only process 44/16.


----------



## bulmanxxi

Nothing wrong with using a receiver but instead of using the headphone out of the iMac use a TOSlink/fiber optical - it's actually a dual analog and digital output.  You will need a mini toslink adapter.  That should do it for you.  Airport express is convenience but there is a lot of opinions that it is not best for sound quality due to jitter.  In any case, if you can make a direct connection between your iMac and receiver via optical that should serve you well.  The headphone out of your receiver may not be "the best" but you'd have to check for yourself.  For speakers it should be fine.  If headphones is your main intent and you find that your receiver is not good enough, you could also try a cost effective solution such as the uDac-2 or uDac-2 (HP) which are both just around a $100 and sound pretty good with less demanding headphones.  It just depends on your equipment and preferences.


----------



## bulmanxxi

If you can, you should rip your CDs in lossless though as this is the most important factor - your source sound quality and resolution.  If your music is not as good as possible, nothing down the chain would solve that.


----------



## turimbar1

audirvana takes the cake for me, if it had an EQ and a binaural converter it would be perfect, I notice a difference between it and VOX (got max upsampling and hog mode on) but it could be placebo


----------



## mrspeakers

I rip lossless and switch between phones and using HDMI audio out on the Mac Mini to the surround processor, or via coax to my Burson.  I definitely appreciate the upgrade in SQ, but don't hear much when source is 256K, but as noted, it's FREE to try, so what harm in trying?


----------



## bulmanxxi

The "problem" may be the 256K rips.  HDMI or optical from the Mac Mini to your received should both be fine.  Not sure how you get coax out of the Mac Mini (unless you are going to your receiver first and then getting the coax from the receiver to the Burson) but, in any case, the digital connections should be fine.


----------



## bulmanxxi

Actually, HDMI to your receiver should be "technically" better than optical.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





bulmanxxi said:


> The "problem" may be the 256K rips.  HDMI or optical from the Mac Mini to your received should both be fine.  Not sure how you get coax out of the Mac Mini (unless you are going to your receiver first and then getting the coax from the receiver to the Burson) but, in any case, the digital connections should be fine.


 

 Oh, I totally know the 256 is the problem.  For music I like I've been repurchasing CDs.  No more online for me unless it's lossless 16/44.1, 24/88.2 or 24/96 FLAC.  
   
  I get coax out via the HiFace adaptor (see my signature).  Up to 24/192 coax output.


----------



## Jcvalenz

First let me apologize for a very dumb question... but is Amarra really worth $695? For the people who have it, what benefits do you get with it? Thanks a lot for your comments.


----------



## bulmanxxi

MrSpeakers - got it on the coax.
   
  JCvalenz - I only have the cheapest Amarra version - Amarra Jr.  It is buggy enough and SQ is not apparently better than the free options - Audirvana and Decibel.  It seems Amarra is seriously overpriced given the outstanding free options.  If you want to "pay" then Pure Music is a much much better value.  Fidelia may be a worthwhile option too, depending on its price when its released.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





jcvalenz said:


> First let me apologize for a very dumb question... but is Amarra really worth $695? For the people who have it, what benefits do you get with it? Thanks a lot for your comments.


 
   
  Only if you have at least $556 you don't care about.  Just joshing, I haven't played with Amarra.  But being more "purist inclined" I'd never touch most of the features, and it just seems extraordinarily pricey for what it does. 
   
  As far as I could tell they license the iZotope software (doing this from memory, with a headache, so apologies if I'm mangling brand names), which Fidelia also uses.  Pure Music has their own engine, and Fidelia is going to be priced to compete with Pure Music, it seems.  So I'd look at Pure Music and Fidelia.  Again, they can be tried for free, so it'll be easy to decide if it's worth it to you to purchase....  And Amarra requires dongles, I'm told, which I find abhorent.  It's so early '90s.


----------



## melomaniac

well, yes... on the other hand, come on now - many people here have spent that amount and more on a pair of cans, on cables (forsooth!), or even on stands. so why not if we are chasing the elusive last 5% of audio goodness? I personally have been focusing on getting the computer further away from the transducers, because even my mini server isn't completely silent, and I won't even mention the noises emitted by my laptop right now as I type this. anyway, for me the mac audio software isn't the most tractable bottleneck, there's cabling and software formats and tubes and other tweaks that will have more of an impact than whether or not I turn to PureMusic or Cog to play a Flac file here (I probably could not tell the difference without looking, but I haven't tried). if people are at the point where picking a dedicated apple-mac program is chosen, try anything that floats your boat.


----------



## turimbar1

Quote: 





jcvalenz said:


> First let me apologize for a very dumb question... but is Amarra really worth $695? For the people who have it, what benefits do you get with it? Thanks a lot for your comments.


 


  I have heard alot of dumb questions before, and I dont think this is one of them. if you believe that an 800 dollar usb cable makes your DAC more "resolving" then yes I would get it, because you obviously have too much money. 
   
  if you are a starving college student like me (who is using school and food and rent money to save up for a DAC), use audirvana (free!) or vox(also free!).


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





melomaniac said:


> well, yes... on the other hand, come on now - many people here have spent that amount and more on a pair of cans, on cables (forsooth!), or even on stands. so why not if we are chasing the elusive last 5% of audio goodness? I personally have been focusing on getting the computer further away from the transducers, because even my mini server isn't completely silent, and I won't even mention the noises emitted by my laptop right now as I type this. anyway, for me the mac audio software isn't the most tractable bottleneck, there's cabling and software formats and tubes and other tweaks that will have more of an impact than whether or not I turn to PureMusic or Cog to play a Flac file here (I probably could not tell the difference without looking, but I haven't tried). if people are at the point where picking a dedicated apple-mac program is chosen, try anything that floats your boat.


 

 I think the key here is still "try it it's free" and anyone can decide if it's right for them.
   
  But I actually do have some logic here, flawed though it probably is:  since iTunes will output bit perfect, unless you want a complete new UI and don't like iTunes, the real value to a paid player is upsampling and sample rate switching to avoid Audio Midi and lot's of iTunes relaunches.  
   
  Upsampling can't "create" true missing data, though in some instance if the interpolotion is really good, it can synthesize it, but the real benefit is to get potential aliasing artifacts out of audio band.  And for this I really like the upsampling and it's easily worth the $130 for Pure Music, to me, others don't notice or aren't bothered by it and don't care.  I couldn't get Fidelia to run, but I really liked the way it looked, and they were super-response for customer support, but I had no time to spend on this so I will try in a few months when they have it stable.
   
  The Amarra uses the same scaling engine as Fidelia, and is 1/5 the price, more or less, and provides a nice UI, so I just can't see needing Amarra unless you have some very specialized needs, and of course someone will.  Pure Music is totally utilitarian but sure sounds nice to me, and makes their own upsampler.
   
  As you note, there are other areas to invest in and one I find valuable was adding HiFace, as a lot of 24/96 USB devices don't support 88.2 because they use the tenor chip, so 88.2K files downsample to RedBook, which just conceptually bugged me so much I had to find a solution.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  The HiFace card worked for me after I upgraded the driver, as I could use coax, and both my USB devices that couldn't take 88.2 over usb could take it over coax.  That was definitely "extra 5% goodness" and totally made the most of Pure Music.  I think the coax sounds better, but I may just be imagining it too.  Haven't bothered to test A/B as I'm happy...


----------



## holland

I just have to say that Clementine gives me fits about internet radio streams.  75% of the time, it fails to connect, whereas iTunes (and Foobar) work just fine.


----------



## cukis350

Can someone give me a rundown of Izotope? is it a seperate program file that some of the Audio programs utilize to enhance audio output?
   
  thanks,
   
  Cuki


----------



## leechi

I've listened to Fidelia, Vox, and Play so far. Some of the other ones require Snow Leopard and I only have Leopard. =(
   
  Out of those 3, I think I like Fidelia the best. The music sounds crisper compared to Vox, Play, and iTunes. I'm not audiophile by any means, so I'm not sure what it is that I'm hearing. It feels like the other plays have an extra "layer" and it doesn't sound as clear. I think iTunes sounds warmer compared to Fidelia and so do Vox and Play.
   
  I think Play comes in under Fidelia for my preferences.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> The Amarra uses the same scaling engine as Fidelia, and is 1/5 the price, more or less, and provides a nice UI, so I just can't see needing Amarra unless you have some very specialized needs, and of course someone will.


 

 I'm not sure what this means but I don't think Amarra sounds the same.  I have Amarra Mini and in cache/playlist mode, it sounds better than all the other players I've tried.  I really want to like another player's sound more because Amarra is buggy.  I thought Decibel sounded pretty good but then compared it again to Amarra and Amarra was clearly better.  I'll have to try Fidelia again, but I didn't even like the sound as much as Decibel.  I'm testing these only using optical but clearly hear differences between all these player with just 44/16 tracks.


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


leechi said:


> I've listened to Fidelia, Vox, and Play so far. Some of the other ones require Snow Leopard and I only have Leopard. =(
> 
> Out of those 3, I think I like Fidelia the best. The music sounds crisper compared to Vox, Play, and iTunes. I'm not audiophile by any means, so I'm not sure what it is that I'm hearing. It feels like the other plays have an extra "layer" and it doesn't sound as clear. *I think iTunes sounds warmer compared to Fidelia* and do Vox and Play.
> 
> I think Play comes in under Fidelia for my preferences.


 

 I agree with this.  iTunes does sound a tad bit warmer & smoother as well.  
   
  (Fidelia's support team replied to me & they won't be supporting the Apple Remote)


----------



## Loevhagen

New version of Fidelia released just this minute, including "Advanced Settings". Check it out. $20 basis version and $50 for unlocking the advanced features.


----------



## bulmanxxi

Yes, Fidelia is finally available for purchase and the price is FANTASTIC!  They support has been truly outstanding and very responsive.  Just for that, the price is worth it.  But it is also a very good player.  Further testing is pending, but it is an even better and more handsome alternative than PureMusic unless one must have iTunes running for whatever reason.


----------



## Loevhagen

Hm. For some unknown reason the Add-Ons are empty in their store p.t. I´m sure it was there just recently. Have used Fidelity today, and I like what I hear from the headphones. I still like Audirvana, but WANT other music players to provide support for the Remote App just like Pure Music. A bit awkward if they don´t, since I´m used to the flawless GUI and stability of it all. Well, evolution takes time and meanwhile we´ll enjoy HQ music from the Mac.


----------



## Richiyaado

I agree, Fidelia support has been great, and with or without the advanced features, well worth the price.


----------



## bulmanxxi

The Advanced add-on is there.  It's a bit confusing whether the Basic is required to purchase the advanced though...


----------



## Loevhagen

Not anymore; They have added text to the add-on (i.e. require basic version).
   
  $20 isn´t that bad. Not sure if I really need the extra features for an $50 extra, but I guess within this hobby we get restless if we don´t "go advanced". 
   
  I have used PM for awhile. And AyreWave (now Decibel) and Audirvana. The latter is really good in my rig. My initial impression of Fidelia is that it has some edge enhancement to the music I´m not quite sure I like (yet). I´ll use the next 2 weeks to decide.


----------



## djjhin

decible looks great but i only have mac ox x 10.5.8! none of them are working for me...


----------



## gzone3lement

Quote: 





djjhin said:


> decible looks great but i only have mac ox x 10.5.8! none of them are working for me...


 

 You can always get Snow Leopard for $30. Amazon has the same operating system for about the same price.
   
  Fidelia sounds very interesting. You can also sync your library from iTunes. That should save a lot of time organizing.


----------



## Richiyaado

I heard from Fidelia support that they're sorting out an issue on their store... a little trouble setting it up to make sure people already have their basic license before purchasing Fidelia advanced. I expect they'll have it fixed quickly. Meantime, I'm enjoying the new version, with some nice added features.


----------



## elcoholic

Quote: 





bulmanxxi said:


> Nothing wrong with using a receiver but instead of using the headphone out of the iMac use a TOSlink/fiber optical - it's actually a dual analog and digital output.  You will need a mini toslink adapter.  That should do it for you.  Airport express is convenience but there is a lot of opinions that it is not best for sound quality due to jitter.  In any case, if you can make a direct connection between your iMac and receiver via optical that should serve you well.  The headphone out of your receiver may not be "the best" but you'd have to check for yourself.  For speakers it should be fine.  If headphones is your main intent and you find that your receiver is not good enough, you could also try a cost effective solution such as the uDac-2 or uDac-2 (HP) which are both just around a $100 and sound pretty good with less demanding headphones.  It just depends on your equipment and preferences.


 
   
  The receiver next to the computer is an Onkyo TX-8511 all analog, no digital.  I already have 3 systems in my house using airport express.  I use digital music at home for flooding the house for back ground or parties, not serious listening.  I haven't heard jitter over airtunes, but then again I'm not listening intently to digital music much anyway.  This series Oinker has a pretty decent HP section with mucho power to spare.  30-40% volume drives my HP-1's as loud as I need save for the infrequent 50% goose bump song cranking.  I have another TX series but smaller Oinker at work that may come home for a 4th system since I have a set of speakers for it.  I'm thinking of getting a Lyr for work pending favorable reviews.  At that point I would consider ripping my CD's in a non-compressed format for my iPod.  My main system has a Denon AVR-3801 where I mostly listen to vinyl on a Dual CS-5000/Ortofon MC3 Turbo.   
   

  
  Quote: 





bulmanxxi said:


> If you can, you should rip your CDs in lossless though as this is the most important factor - your source sound quality and resolution.  If your music is not as good as possible, nothing down the chain would solve that.


 
  I get that in spades.  What I was after, is that if all things are equal, would any of these players sound better than iTunes over airport express?


----------



## mrspeakers

I did a little more research: Amarra definitely uses the iZotope dithering algorithms, and also uses the 64-bit Sample Rate Converter (SRC) in version 2.  
  
  So if this is correct, Fidelia and Amarra should sound the same when sample rate conversion is used, and if it's not used, I don't get why it would sound different from any other bit-perfect playback, especially with any device that has quality re-clocking in it (which ensures that "bits are bits" instead of "bits are mostly bits).  Unless you need the fancy features Amarra offers around EQ, it seems Fidelia or Pure Music are the upsampling products to consider based on functionality and price, and further, if you aren't worried about sound-shaping, Fidelia will in theory sound identical to Amarra.
   
  Full disclosure:  I haven't tried Amarra, and it's inevitable someone will say it sounds better who has compared, but I think if that's so, it would be great to have some analysis to say WHY it sound better, as I can find nothing in the specs or manuals to explain a difference and neither product makes their own upsampling engine....  Could it be a "powerful placebo?"


----------



## JIGF

Fidelia's support is impressive. What's more is their very open to implement requests made by users.
   
  So far my suggestions have been:
   
  - Integration of album art keeping the unobtrusive nature of the player
  - Playback in RAM
  - Add genre, year and composer columns
  - Add a button in the player hub that toggles up the library
   
  After listening for a while I find the sound more pleasing and less harsh when all the iZotope additions (converter and dither) are turned off.
   
  Edit: have been using Decibel as well, I like how it takes over the MIDI output completely and does playback through RAM. Sounds great to me too.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> I did a little more research: Amarra definitely uses the iZotope dithering algorithms, and also uses the 64-bit Sample Rate Converter (SRC) in version 2.
> 
> So if this is correct, Fidelia and Amarra should sound the same when sample rate conversion is used, and if it's not used, I don't get why it would sound different from any other bit-perfect playback, especially with any device that has quality re-clocking in it (which ensures that "bits are bits" instead of "bits are mostly bits).  Unless you need the fancy features Amarra offers around EQ, it seems Fidelia or Pure Music are the upsampling products to consider based on functionality and price, and further, if you aren't worried about sound-shaping, Fidelia will in theory sound identical to Amarra.
> 
> Full disclosure:  I haven't tried Amarra, and it's inevitable someone will say it sounds better who has compared, but I think if that's so, it would be great to have some analysis to say WHY it sound better, as I can find nothing in the specs or manuals to explain a difference and neither product makes their own upsampling engine....  Could it be a "powerful placebo?"


 
  i understand that it doesnt make any sense, and i didnt believe it would either. but even at 16/44.1 without any upsampling, i can clearly hear the differences between iTunes and Decibel, to the point that i cant listen to iTunes on my headphone rig anymore. i need to put some more time in comparing audirvana to decibel though before i pick between those two


----------



## mrspeakers

So does Decibel use Core Audio?  If not, that is the source of the difference.  But they don't use iZotope or their Channel D software, so they must be rolling their own or using Core Audi.  If the latter, they ought to sound the same so it's quite curious...  If not, that's the source of the difference.


----------



## bulmanxxi

Elcoholic,  if you use the optical out of Airport, there shouldn't be a jitter issue.  I have not tried any of those with Airport Express but since you'd have to use Airfoil to send the audio - you may want to email Airfoil (Rogue Amoeba) cust service and ask them if they application affects the SQ.  Or, you can just try Decibel and Audirvana since both are free, or even try the free demo versions of Pure Music, Fidelia, Amarra, etc.  You'd have to make the call.  Airport or not - the question is the same - which one sounds the best to you and offers the right feature set for you and the right price.  The answer is not so easy as you can see many people use several and the still can't decide - probably because they are all not that much different after all. Beware, of any claims of DRAMATIC improvement.  The differences, if any, are VERY subtle...  The chow is more easily made based on feature set and price than sound quality alone.


----------



## elcoholic

Quote: 





bulmanxxi said:


> Elcoholic,  if you use the optical out of Airport, there shouldn't be a jitter issue.  I have not tried any of those with Airport Express but since you'd have to use Airfoil to send the audio - you may want to email Airfoil (Rogue Amoeba) cust service and ask them if they application affects the SQ.  Or, you can just try Decibel and Audirvana since both are free, or even try the free demo versions of Pure Music, Fidelia, Amarra, etc.  You'd have to make the call.  Airport or not - the question is the same - which one sounds the best to you and offers the right feature set for you and the right price.  The answer is not so easy as you can see many people use several and the still can't decide - probably because they are all not that much different after all. Beware, of any claims of DRAMATIC improvement.  The differences, if any, are VERY subtle...  The chow is more easily made based on feature set and price than sound quality alone.


 

 I use Airfoil so I will email them and see what they think.  Thanks.


----------



## Jcvalenz

Thanks a lot for your answers (bulmanxxi, mrspeakers, turimbar, etc). I think most peolple are on the same page. In my case, money can be spent on many other areas of the system before software... Actually it woukd be nice to spend that ammount in music


----------



## drandall

Okay Gents...
   
  I'm a relative newb to high-fidelity computer-sourced audio. Out of curiosity, I downloaded Decibel and could most definitely hear a difference over itunes through my uDAC, little dot mkIII and senn HD600's. The sound is a bit crisper, with a bit more low-end punch and definitely more forward vocals. I guess my question is...why.
   
  Why does 64 bit floating point precision matter in a player? What are these apps doing that itunes is not?
   
  I have gone A-B on a bunch of different tracks and heard differences each time so I know it's not my imagination. I am interested in learning why I'm hearing what I'm hearing.
   
  many thanks!
   
  david r.
   
  PS. my material is 320kb AAC's ripped from standard CD's.


----------



## bulmanxxi

drandall,
   
  You should rip at least Apple Lossless.  That would make an even nicer difference for you.


----------



## leechi

Quote: 





djjhin said:


> decible looks great but i only have mac ox x 10.5.8! none of them are working for me...


 


  I only have Mac OS X 10.5.8 too. Some of them didn't work for me, but I was able to use Fidelia, Vox, Play, Ecoute and Songbird. So it's not all lost.


----------



## iamoneagain

I just tried Fidelia again and compared against Amarra Mini.  Amarra still won.  It's just has something to do with the texture of the bass and the layering.  I feel the music more with Amarra.  It's the same issue I have with Pure Music.  When I switch to Decibel, I get the same feeling I do with Amarra.  I guess these players do PRAT (pace, rhythm, attack, & timing) better.  Some players are better at dynamics, soundstage, or clarity.  
   
  I was ready to buy Fidelia if it sounded the same.  Somehow this weird looping bug on Amarra is getting worse to the point I'm ready to stop using it.  Might have to stick with Decibel until it's fixed.  It's just the last 10 seconds of the track start to loop when cache mode is on.  Don't have this problem in any other player.  
   
  Edit: Oh, I didn't have Decibel in memory mode or exclusive access.  Now it sounds just as good as Amarra without the bugs.


----------



## cukis350

Has anyone experiencing music sound at a lower volume when using Fidelia? I seem to turn up the volume on my amp to get a decent listening level.


----------



## gyrofx

has anyone tried "Hear" software audio EQ for the Mac? It's a system wide EQ app that works in the background and has many tweaks like up to 96 band EQ, 3D effects, Limiter, Fidelity changes, and a whole lot of other things. It goes fairly deep in sound in how you'd like to change your sound. I just got it and the settings are a bit overwhelming. I just wanted to know if any of you Mac users have tried this EQing method.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





gyrofx said:


> has anyone tried "Hear" software audio EQ for the Mac? It's a system wide EQ app that works in the background and has many tweaks like up to 96 band EQ, 3D effects, Limiter, Fidelity changes, and a whole lot of other things. It goes fairly deep in sound in how you'd like to change your sound. I just got it and the settings are a bit overwhelming. I just wanted to know if any of you Mac users have tried this EQing method.


 

 Looks like fun!
http://www.joesoft.com/products/hear.php


----------



## Mink

Great thread, however, I think I may just stick with iTunes, just out of convenience, because the increased sound quality with Vox and Decibel is only marginally and not with every MP3 or AIFF file.
  Vox sounds indentical to Decibel when under Preferences > Audio > _Built-in Output_ is selected and not _System default_ (it then sounds indentical to iTunes}
  True with some music, Grizzly Bear's Two Weeks for instance, the bass is mellower and slightly more textured, not as hard hitting as with iTunes.
  With some Classical CD's like Handel's Theodora (Christie) however I cannot hear any differences.
   
  The lack of playlists and sort functionality with Vox and Decibel decides me to stick with iTunes.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





mink said:


> The lack of playlists and sort functionality with Vox and Decibel decides me to stick with iTunes.


 

 For Decibel, you can download the script from their page and then still use iTunes sort of as a front-end.  Highlight the tracks in iTunes and then use the script "Play with Decibel" and it starts right up in the player.  I have it sitting to the right of iTunes.  You can also drop and drag tracks into Decibel.  I didn't like Fidelia because I couldn't just take tracks from iTunes but instead were supposed to used their limited browser.  Amarra and Pure Music try for seamless integration where you can just use iTunes as you always have and the output goes through their player.  Amarra still has some work to get this to happen flawlessly.  Seems their latest update is delayed but they promise good things.  Kind of wish they'd just fix what's wrong before adding new stuff that will probably have bugs.


----------



## Mink

Thanks, that script wil be pretty handy


----------



## Currawong

I ended up paying for Fidelia and selling Amarra Mini. The only thing Fidelia needs for me is to recognise the folders I have in my playlists, and for me to get the remote app for my iPhone for when I use it in my speaker rig.
   
  A couple of thoughts:
   
  The "audiophile" apps are best for people whom, such as myself, appreciate quality jazz, classical and other acoustic music and have a good DAC for playback. Compressed pop isn't going to benefit much and I wouldn't bother with mp3s.
   
  I have a theory that different DACs will be affected differently by the improvements, especially if up-sampling is switched on.


----------



## aamefford

I am considering both fidelia and pure music.  I really like the way pure music integrates directly into itunes as far as using itunes for music management.  While itunes may not be perfect for music management (ok, isn't perfect), it is very familiar.  If any fidelia users out there would care to comment briefly on how well fidelia accesses the itunes library, I'd appreciate it.  I know I can, and I will download the test drive of each.  I only ask, as my listening time is always short, quickly interrupted, and occasionally spaced far apart (those of you with kids understand).  A 15 day license might easily get me only 2 or 3 sessions with each.  I'm just hoping to benefit from the experience of the lucky souls who can bury themselves in a nice long listening session regularly, and have given these a proper test drive.  Thank you!


----------



## ccklone

Hey Now,
   
  Can Pure Music output to an Airport Express? I can't figure out if it can or not. Having no luck. Thanks in advance for any info.
   
  --
  Finest kind,
  Chris


----------



## Capo Morra

This is exactly what a friend and I were discussing the other day
  "there has to be an alternative to itunes"
   
  this post is of divine providence.
  Thanks for posting.


----------



## ccklone

Quote: 





gyrofx said:


> has anyone tried "Hear" software audio EQ for the Mac? It's a system wide EQ app that works in the background and has many tweaks like up to 96 band EQ, 3D effects, Limiter, Fidelity changes, and a whole lot of other things. It goes fairly deep in sound in how you'd like to change your sound. I just got it and the settings are a bit overwhelming. I just wanted to know if any of you Mac users have tried this EQing method.


 

 Hey Now,
   
  I got HEAR back in December 2008. It really helped my desktop speakers out (Harmon Sound Sticks), it sounded much fuller and dynamic. The EQ settings can get overwhelming. I used the stored settings as a baseline and tweaked from there. It was kind of fun playing around to see how the different effects changed the sound signature. Learned a little bit along the way.
   
  Before HEAR, there was a program called Volume Logic which did a very similar dynamic on the fly processing of the sound. It died with OS X upgrades. I think it might still be available on Windoze. It was easier to use.
   
  I don't use HEAR much anymore. I am running the data stream out to a DAC and then feeding some Audio Engine A2s, Sound Sticks are long gone 8^). I might have to start HEAR up again and give it a twirl, it has been a while.
   
  --
  Finest kind,
  Chris


----------



## holland

Fidelia and Decibel don't support cuesheets.   half my library is with cue and a single flac or ape image.  bummer.  
   
  Fidelia seems bright.  I can't tell if it's boosted or not.  I'd have to compare to my main system.
   
  Audirvana and Decibel can't control the volume on my DAC.
   
  I don't know...this Mac stuff isn't all that great.  I can't find anything with the features I'm used to (foobar2000) and the lack of libraries are annoying.  Not to mention the lack of all the codecs I have used in the past, flac is just one of them, but I have ape as well.


----------



## ccklone

Hey Now,
   
  I played around with Hear again last night. I have also been testing out Pure Music as well. Hear actually can control the output of PM as well as iTunes. I was able to adjust the sound to increase the bass a bit for the Fostex T40s and reduce the treble on the SR325s and then save the profile for each headphone as separate presets. I used the pre-stored headphone settings (of which there are many) as a baseline and worked from there. 
   
  I am going to futz with Hear some more with the other headphones and see what happens. I did notice that with newer recordings the settings I saved sounded pretty good, but the same setting on older recordings didn't sound as good. I am going to inventory these settings on different genres and recordings. It is a highly adjustable application with a somewhat steep learning curve. I'll admit, when I got Hear I set it up to improve the sound of the Sound Sticks and basically, set it and forgot it. Now this idea of making custom settings for different headphones sounds kind of fun. Off to listening and learning some more 8^).
   
  --
  Finest kind,
  Chris


----------



## elcoholic

I can't imagine an equal or better music manager than iTunes for the price ($0), especially since I use an iPod for portable music.  The players that seamlessly integrate with iTunes hold some appeal for me.  That said what happens when the next iTunes update comes along?  Anybody have experience with that?


----------



## middachten

After reading a lot about all these audio players for OSX I thought I'd just try some for myself. 
   
*My test setup:* Macbook Pro > TC-Konnekt 24D (FireWire) > Straightwire Rhapsody > Stax SR404/SRM-1MkII
   
*The Software* I tried: Audirvana, Clementine, Decibel, Fidelia, iTunes, Pure Music, VLC and Vox.
   
*The music:*

 Spanish Harlem / Rebecca Pidgeon
 Ganges Delta Blues / Ry Cooder + V.M. Bhatt
 Famous blue raincoat / Jennifer Warnes
   
  I choose the first two tracks because I have the original CD release and the recent 24/96 release on HD-Tracks of both tracks. I included Famous blue raincoat (16/44.1) because I think its still a great recording and I use it for more than 20 years now to evaluate audio equipment. All songs where played from FLAC files.
   
  Until recently I always used VLC to play a few tracks, or iTunes for albums and playlists. The main reason for using VLC was that it plays everything you throw at it. I don't know of any other player that is able to play so many audio/video formats.
   
 The comparison  Overall there are 3 leagues for me:

 players that sound significantly better (Decibel, Clementine, Fidelia and Vox)
 average players (VLC, Audirvana)
 players that don't play the tracks in the first place (iTunes, Pure Music)
   
  IMO the differences between these players within the same category are noticeable, but not huge. 
   
  All players in the *first category* had a few things in common: better details, wider soundstage, smoother highs and more controlled bass. I found Decibel and Fidelia sounding best, both in 'exclusive mode'. Where Decibel had slightly smoother highs and more lucid mids with the 24/96 recordings.
  Clementine came quite close. In comparison it is losing some detail and soundstage.
  Vox was also good, but there seems to some sort of loudness curve going on. Slightly increased bass and highs. Soundstage and detailing are slightly less good, but only by a small margin. If there is some DSP involved here, its incredibly good! Nice for late-night listening, but I prefer to use an equalizer that can be switched off. NB: be aware to check the audio settings. Standard it re-samples to 44.1k! 
   
  In this category Clementine has by far the best library support. Vox and Fidelia support the use of AU plugins. Vox already includes several cross-feed plugin options. but you can also use an AU plugin such as Canz3D.  
  As far as I could find out only Fidelia and Decibel give manual control over the sample rate settings. Allowing to choose the original sample rate of the song. I noticed that Clementine also does this(by watching my TC-konnekt panel while switching tracks), but there is no setting to choose for fixed sample rate.
   
  The *second category* only disappointed me. I had never realized that I was missing out on such a noticeable improvement by using VLC. The soundstage is small, two dimensional and lacks detail. The bass is a bit muffled and the highs rather rough. 
  Surprisingly enough the same applies to Audirvana. Only with 24/96 it sounded better than VLC. Not worth keeping on my system though……
   
  The *third category* is simply not interesting for me. Since I have my entire CD collection ripped in FLAC, and bought several HD albums in the same format.
   
 Conclusion  Overall *I found Decibel the best sounding player*. Clementine is not far off, and has good library support. Apart from the nice interface, I see no additional value in Fidelia.
   
  so I have decided to keep Clementine
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 as my 'general player' and use Decibel
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 when I want to sit down and only enjoy music. 
  VLC will stay on my system, but only because I might need it when I want to play some sort of exotic format (SF2 anyone
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)
  And iTunes will also stay on my system because……, well just because?
   
  All the others are removed to make space for some music


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





middachten said:


> I found Decibel and Fidelia sounding best, both in 'exclusive mode'. Where Decibel had slightly smoother highs and more lucid mids with the 24/96 recordings.
> Clementine came quite close. In comparison it is losing some detail and soundstage.
> 
> Conclusion
> Overall *I found Decibel the best sounding player*. Clementine is not far off, and has good library support. Apart from the nice interface, I see no additional value in Fidelia.


 
   
  That echoes a lot what I have been listening, although I did like Fidelia for speakers (not headphones).
  
  Edit: Great post btw.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





middachten said:


> After reading a lot about all these audio players for OSX I thought I'd just try some for myself.
> 
> *My test setup:* Macbook Pro > TC-Konnekt 24D (FireWire) > Straightwire Rhapsody > Stax SR404/SRM-1MkII
> 
> ...


 

 Well done!  Thanks for the write up!


----------



## khollister

I agree that Fidelia and Decibel are the best sounding players along with the insanely expensive (and buggy) Amarra. I think Fidelia is a little more detailed, has greater depth, but has a very slight edge (not brightness, but a harder edge to transients) and a very subtle midrange coloration I don't like on the HD650's (which could also be what gives the greater perception of depth. Decibel is smoother sounding (and not in a necessarily good way), but is slightly more effortless sounding and the midrange doesn't have the very slight hooded or honkiness I sometimes think I hear in Fidelia. I still think Amarra has the best sound overall, but it is hard to deal with due to quirkiness and bugs. 
   
  On the other hand, Fidelia definitely sounds much more resolving and dimensional with 96/24 material - go figure.
   
  Love the feature set of Fidelia (the IOS remote app is reall handy), the sound of Amarra and the simplicity of Decibel.
   
  Audirvana and Pure Music don't get for me sound-wise.
   
  I also feel that there is a very slight improvement in the sound of playing back uncompressed audio (AIFF) versus ALAC or FLAC. Perhaps some additional overhead in realtime expansion of the lossless compressed files?


----------



## limpidglitch

I read all these testimonial of improved sound quality using Fidelia, Amarra and other players of their ilk, over iTunes, but could someone please tell my _why_ this should be so?


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





limpidglitch said:


> I read all these testimonial of improved sound quality using Fidelia, Amarra and other players of their ilk, over iTunes, but could someone please tell my _why_ this should be so?


 

 there is no answer to this riddle, grasshopper


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





limpidglitch said:


> I read all these testimonial of improved sound quality using Fidelia, Amarra and other players of their ilk, over iTunes, but could someone please tell my _why_ this should be so?


 

 You'd have to ask a software programmer.


----------



## limpidglitch

So we're left with just assuming? That's not very satisfying.


----------



## aamefford

Regarding Clementine:
   
  I have tried to play from my itunes music folder, and by importing the library and I get:
   
   
   
  Can anyone offer any help?  Nothing obvious jumped out at me.  File is either apple lossless or AAC.
   
  EDIT - Never mind - AAC plays, ALAC (Apple Lossless) does not.  So - Transcode from ALAC to FLAC to use Clementine - one point down on Clementine for me.


----------



## vert

Audrivana has integer mode now. I preferred Decibel easily before, but with the integer mode Audirvana sounds really good. Don't think it's as stable though.


----------



## AVU

Fidelia sounds quite good. Sometimes as good or even better than Decibel.  They are both very similar.  But after a lot of A/Bing, I still prefer Amarra 2.1 (full version) - it's fuller and richer, without sacrificing any detail.  It just sounds more lush and musical, with greater bottom end, at least on my JH13s.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





limpidglitch said:


> So we're left with just assuming? That's not very satisfying.


 

 Search for my explanation of oversampling and anti-aliasing/interpolation.  I don't want to write it up a 3rd time...  If you still have questions, fire away.


----------



## turimbar1

Quote: 





vert said:


> Audrivana has integer mode now. I preferred Decibel easily before, but with the integer mode Audirvana sounds really good. Don't think it's as stable though.


 
   see this is what Ive been trying to tell ppl, you have to turn the settings to MAX in order to get amazing. the others are really good, but the ease of use, the sound quality, and hog mode all make audirvana my current fave.
   
  the fact that when you open a folder you get ALL the music in that folder AND the folders that are in that folder, so you can load your ENTIRE itunes library in one click. makes it easier than Decibel where you have to pick every song one by one, or do a SHIFT + right click to select and add all. yes ive tried using the script, I have not found it useful, my itunes library does not have all of my best quality music in it (itunes cant support 24/192, or even normal flac without tricking it) 
   
  But i go to vox in a pinch, hog mode can be annoying when you want to listen to other apps, but useful if you dont


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Search for my explanation of oversampling and anti-aliasing/interpolation.  I don't want to write it up a 3rd time...  If you still have questions, fire away.


 

 that wouldnt account for people like myself who are using redbook rips without any upsampling...yet still hearing differences


----------



## cukis350

How does one enable "hog mode" for Fedelia on MacBookpro?


----------



## Bones13

I just learned that Fidelia has attached a price to Fidelia (base version) of 19.99.  You have to also purchase the "advanced" add on for another 49.99 to enable Hog mode.  Total is ~$70 for both parts, about half of Pure Music, and a whole lot less than Amarra.
   
  Funny that a year ago or so Amarra was loved, but considered too expensive.  2 great competitors are out now, and competition does great things for features, and price.
   
  I have been using Pure Music for about 6 months, and love the sound in hog mode.  Fidelia came close without hog mode, and seems to be less affected by other things I do on my computer.  Not sure if Hog Mode in Fedelia will come away clean as well.  It at least has a dedicated iPhone remote program, even is cost another $10.


----------



## bulmanxxi

Cukis350, for Hog Mode you need to have Fidelia Advanced and then enable Exclussive Access from Advanced preferences.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

[size=medium][size=medium][size=medium]The only players that I have used are VOX (the latest, and is one of my favorites due to being able to play FLAC), iTunes (great for media management), and twice Pure Music. iTunes was quickly put on the back burner since I download a lot of FLAC media (from all the typical Hi-Rez sites). VOX is just the simplest thing to use and is able to manage my folder based music library (plays all the music in the same folder). Thankfully, Pure Music also supports native FLAC (introduced in v1.7), and uses iTunes for music management and cataloguing. The combination provides a very pleasant graphical interface, along with native FLAC support. 
   
[size=medium][size=medium]I also like that when used with FLAC files, Pure Music is basically a memory type player allocating as many tracks as can be fit into available memory. I currently only have 2GB memory on my older iMAC, so it's almost one track at a time, but reliable and predicable. [/size][/size]
   
[size=medium][size=medium]My first experience with Pure Music was its pre-FLAC days, and while it was OK, it wasn't the most reliable player out there. So, VOX became my favorite lossless player. The simplicity, flexibility, small footprint, and feature set (cross feed was a nice touch) really lent itself to a nice user experience. And I felt it sounded better than iTunes. [/size][/size]
   
[size=medium][size=medium]Some time ago I moved to the Wyred 4 Sound DAC. This thread piqued my interest and I decided to give Pure Music another try. It immediately recognized my DAC. Nice. It definitely plays native FLAC media at the appropriate bit depth and sampling. Another nice. It uses iTunes for cataloguing. Pretty pictures. And to my pleasant surprise, it definitely provides a bump in sound quality over VOX. It's also a better value, at least compared to Amara. [/size][/size]
   
[size=medium][size=medium]I don’t have a clue why any of these players would provide improved SQ, but PM definitely sounds better than VOX, at least in my kit. I have several more days before the trial period runs dry, but I’m already getting my CC ready. So far, PM is definitely more stable than it was, and I assume it will only improve when I upgrade to a new Intel MAC and add a bunch of memory.  That it runs on my limping G5 is pretty remarkable. [/size][/size]
   
[size=medium][size=medium]BTW, in memory play mode (FLAC), CPU utilization is anywhere between 1% and 30%, depending on how much I move my mouse around! That's pretty reasonable! [/size][/size]​[/size]
​[/size]
​[/size]


----------



## drandall

Since reading this article, i have done some back-to-back comparisons between itunes, decibel, and fidelia using the same tracks (44.1khz CD rips, 320kbps AAC) and switching between them in 3-5 second intervals. Listening through a uDAC feeding a tube-rolled little dot mkIII and senn HD600's, I have a hard time nailing down any hard differences.
   
  Maybe I have a tin ear or my system can't resolve the differences, but in my case there simply weren't any substantial improvements. Of the three, Decibel seems to differ the most from itunes and seems to have a bit more sparkle on the high end, and a bit more authority on the low end with more forward mids...but with eyes shut, I have to A/B repeatedly to draw that conclusion and even then, i'm not sure i'm right. This also extends to using hog mode.
   
  i would love to think that a simple change of software could yield a tangible sonic improvement, but i'm still waiting for the magic. perhaps at my modest level of investment, such determinations are impossible to make. i've even done some encoding tests with apple lossless and AAC's encoded not in itunes but through XLD and pitted them against each other to see if differences in encoding could reveal more dramatic differences in playback. Aside from the fact that lossless sounds a smidge better than 320kbps AAC's, i still got nothing.
   
  deep shame. : (


----------



## CHansen

Quote: 





drandall said:


> Since reading this article, i have done some back-to-back comparisons between itunes, decibel, and fidelia using the same tracks (44.1khz CD rips, 320kbps AAC) and switching between them in 3-5 second intervals. Listening through a uDAC feeding a tube-rolled little dot mkIII and senn HD600's, I have a hard time nailing down any hard differences.


 
   
  You are severely handicapping yourself by using AAC files. All of these players are designed for better sonic performance than iTunes. Using AAC files for comparison is like trying to compare racing tires on a Fiat 600. It just ain't gonna make much difference.
   
  The second problem is your protocol. Three seconds??? DON'T BELIEVE ALL THAT BALONEY THAT HUMANS HAVE A SHORT AURAL MEMORY!! When your mother calls on the telephone, do you have a hard time recognizing her voice? Of course not! Why? Because you heard it every day of your life for at least twenty years.
   
  So pick three of your favorite songs that you have been listening to a lot lately. Then listen to ALL three, ALL the way through. Then switch to a different player and repeat. The order doesn't matter. Don't try to focus in on little details and remember what the treble sounds like or the bass sounds like. Just listen to the music and notice how it makes you feel. Are you into it or is your mind wandering and you are thinking about bills you have to pay? You will hear differences. Anybody can, as long as they are familiar with the music. Your system makes almost no difference.
   
  Have fun!


----------



## kwkarth

One thing that has hardly been mentioned here is what settings were used when listening to each of these players.  The variables are myriad and could easily account for the "differences" people hear between one player and another.  So does anyone have a consistent baseline of setting they use for evaluating each player?  We need to compare apples to apples.
   

   

   

   
  And then there's the program material...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Agreed. It's difficult to get apples to apples comparisons with some of these. For example, PM defaults to memory playback for FLAC in the current release. 
   
  VOX settings should be set to "Synchronize sample rate with application;" the output should be set to whatever the playback device is, in my case Wyred 4 Sound 24/192. I've been using FLAC media, the playback device syncing with the sample rate, anything between 44.1 and 192 via USB.


----------



## middachten

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Search for my explanation of oversampling and anti-aliasing/interpolation.  I don't want to write it up a 3rd time...  If you still have questions, fire away.


 

 Based on the difference I noted between 'exclusive mode' and normal operation I think there is also a system resource/interpolation issue going on here. I always thought that AU provided a bit perfect path from software to audio card. Apparently it doesn't do that as long as 'exclusive mode' or 'hog mode' is not selected.
  I havn't been able to check, but if I can find the time I will do a 'loop test' with a pre-defined signal to check which software is actually bit-perfect (in non-upsampling modus that is).


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





middachten said:


> Based on the difference I noted between 'exclusive mode' and normal operation I think there is also a system resource/interpolation issue going on here. I always thought that AU provided a bit perfect path from software to audio card. Apparently it doesn't do that as long as 'exclusive mode' or 'hog mode' is not selected.
> I havn't been able to check, but if I can find the time I will do a 'loop test' with a pre-defined signal to check which software is actually bit-perfect (in non-upsampling modus that is).


 
  i did several tests about a year ago, using DTS encoded WAV files through iTunes, and as long as the volume in iTunes was set to the max, running optical out of my macbook into my reciever the DTS stream was picked up and decoded. As soon as i lowered the volume in iTunes though the dts stream went away, or if any other program made noise it went away. so even iTunes is bit perfect. though i havent tried it with decibel at all...but if they are all bit perfect i still dont understand how they can sound different, though i dont doubt my ears
  
   
  Edit: just checked again, in both iTunes and decibel, and using the DTS encoded WAV file, both are bit perfect, and in decibel that was with HOG mode on or off, both were bit perfect


----------



## middachten

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> One thing that has hardly been mentioned here is what settings were used when listening to each of these players.  The variables are myriad and could easily account for the "differences" people hear between one player and another.  So does anyone have a consistent baseline of setting they use for evaluating each player?  We need to compare apples to apples.
> 
> And then there's the program material...


 

 I think I've been pretty clear on my test parameters:

 As a starting point I've used the sample rate/bit depth of the track. For Vox I used exactly the settings that you show, except for the prescan MPEG (since I used FLAC). Perhaps the only item of interest that I didn't mention was that I used 'none' as the option for noise shaping in the Fidelia settings.
 When I deviated from that I described it (e.g. Fidelia in up-sampling modus)
 I mentioned the tracks I used. (BTW: some excellent recordings!)
   
  If you wan't more detailed info on the settings I used I will be please to share them.
  I might learn something here that will improve my next review.


----------



## middachten

Quote: 





souprknowva said:


> i did several tests about a year ago, using DTS encoded WAV files through iTunes, and as long as the volume in iTunes was set to the max, running optical out of my macbook into my reciever the DTS stream was picked up and decoded. As soon as i lowered the volume in iTunes though the dts stream went away, or if any other program made noise it went away. so even iTunes is bit perfect. though i havent tried it with decibel at all...but if they are all bit perfect i still dont understand how they can sound different, though i dont doubt my ears
> 
> 
> Edit: just checked again, in both iTunes and decibel, and using the DTS encoded WAV file, both are bit perfect, and in decibel that was with HOG mode on or off, both were bit perfect


 
   
  Interesting!
  I'm not familiar with DTS encoded WAV files. Are you sure there is no error correction mechanism, interpolation or other signal re-construction going on?
  I was planning to do a 'file compare' test with Wavelab. But I'm currently traveling and don't have the Synchrosoft key with me


----------



## middachten

Quote: 





chansen said:


> Three seconds??? DON'T BELIEVE ALL THAT BALONEY THAT HUMANS HAVE A SHORT AURAL MEMORY!! When your mother calls on the telephone, do you have a hard time recognizing her voice? Of course not! Why? Because you heard it every day of your life for at least twenty years.


 

  Couldn't agree more.
  BTW this is the best explanation I've read since years!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:  


> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by *CHansen*
> ...


 
  Yes, this a good rule of thumb to start with, but as subtleties grow, memory typically shortens.  So we're not talking about huge differences any more, we're typically dealing with subtleties on the order of many people not being able to discern differences under any conditions.  At that point, you can throw away your perfect aural recall and go back to ABX switching.


----------



## vert

Quote: 





> Using AAC files for comparison is like trying to compare racing tires on a Fiat 600. It just ain't gonna make much difference.


 
  Ha ha, I could easily hear differences between Decibel & Audirvana before with FLAC. Before Audirvana got it's integer mode, it sounded mechanical in my setup. Decibel was easily better. But now with integer mode, the soundstage is huge in Audirvana and everything else seems to have improved.
   
  Gotta say, it's nice to have all of these software playback choices. The Mac's reputation for having high quality third-party software proves itself again, and it's amazing how fast it's taking off as a music server.


----------



## drandall

and here i thought that by keeping the comparison sections short i would be better able to hear nuances between them! will try full songs.
   
  if AAC at 320kbps isn't gonna get it done, should i use apple lossless, FLAC, what would you (or others) recommend? other than the fact that it's a form of compression, is there other reasons why AAC isn't desireable?
   
  learning...
   
  thanks,
   
   
  david r.
  Quote: 





chansen said:


> You are severely handicapping yourself by using AAC files. All of these players are designed for better sonic performance than iTunes. Using AAC files for comparison is like trying to compare racing tires on a Fiat 600. It just ain't gonna make much difference.
> 
> The second problem is your protocol. Three seconds??? DON'T BELIEVE ALL THAT BALONEY THAT HUMANS HAVE A SHORT AURAL MEMORY!! When your mother calls on the telephone, do you have a hard time recognizing her voice? Of course not! Why? Because you heard it every day of your life for at least twenty years.
> 
> ...


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





drandall said:


> Since reading this article, i have done some back-to-back comparisons between itunes, decibel, and fidelia using the same tracks (44.1khz CD rips, 320kbps AAC) and switching between them in 3-5 second intervals. Listening through a uDAC feeding a tube-rolled little dot mkIII and senn HD600's, I have a hard time nailing down any hard differences.
> 
> Maybe I have a tin ear or my system can't resolve the differences, but in my case there simply weren't any substantial improvements. Of the three, Decibel seems to differ the most from itunes and seems to have a bit more sparkle on the high end, and a bit more authority on the low end with more forward mids...but with eyes shut, I have to A/B repeatedly to draw that conclusion and even then, i'm not sure i'm right. This also extends to using hog mode.
> 
> ...


 

 I think you hit it on the head....lots of systems may not be resolving enough to hear differences which are more apparent on more resolute systems.  I know my headphone system cannot give me big differences in usb bridges for example but my speaker based system can very easily.  It is all relative.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





limpidglitch said:


> So we're left with just assuming? That's not very satisfying.


 


  No,..............listen grasshopper................ do not assume


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





bixby said:


> No,..............listen grasshopper................ do not assume


 
   
  My thoughts exactly. I can't believe this had to be said!


----------



## mrspeakers

Apple lossless and flac are best. The better your source material the better thte results, always... But 320 or 256 aac isn't bad, but they are lossy, so there is always at least a minor degradation in detail.... Mileage will vary.


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote: 





bixby said:


> No,..............listen grasshopper................ do not assume


 


  I do listen, and then I think, and then I doubt.
   
  I read up a bit on oversampling and anti-aliasing/interpolation (on 'pedia, couldn't find mrspeakers' explanations), and I have to ask as 'Knowa did: Won't that be moot when I only play 16/44.1 files and my DAC does the oversampling and digital filtering?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I ripped all my CD's to FLAC using XLD. Even my 16/44 medeia sounds better with Pure Music (vs. VOX), keeping things at the same bit/sample rates. Could there be fewer errors due to memory playback?


----------



## carebebear777

Awesome thread man thank you.


----------



## Currawong

The scary thing for me now is, with Fidelia, seeing just how much of my favourite music is brick-wall filtered. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Couple of notes:
   
  In Vox, the "Tracked Music" settings can be ignored.  They are for a special, obscure type of music file.
   
  When comparing things that make subtle differences, I tend to use them for a while when listening, then see how I feel using something different. I tend to get feelings such as _"Hmm, the music sounds better (or worse) today. What did I change in my rig recently?_". I've found that to be as effective, if not more than quick A-Bing Subtle changes add up with hours of listening.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





vert said:


> Ha ha, I could easily hear differences between Decibel & Audirvana before with FLAC. Before Audirvana got it's integer mode, it sounded mechanical in my setup. Decibel was easily better. But now with integer mode, the soundstage is huge in Audirvana and everything else seems to have improved.
> 
> Gotta say, it's nice to have all of these software playback choices. The Mac's reputation for having high quality third-party software proves itself again, and it's amazing how fast it's taking off as a music server.


 
   
  I just tried the latest Audivana and you might be right.  I think I might like it better than Decibel.  A little richer and soundstage a little more open.  Sounds more natural.  Not a fan of the fake CD player interface but if it sounds better, so be it.  Still hoping Amarra gets it's act together soon because still prefer the idea of seamless iTunes integration.


----------



## ttan98

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> I just tried the latest Audivana and you might be right.  I think I might like it better than Decibel.  A little richer and soundstage a little more open.  Sounds more natural.  Not a fan of the fake CD player interface but if it sounds better, so be it.  Still hoping Amarra gets it's act together soon because still prefer the idea of seamless iTunes integration.


 

 Recently I have been comparing various music players from Window and Mac platforms, I agree that the latest Audirvana sounds better than Decibel, the former is more natural, whereas Decibel's sound has an emphasis on the mid to the high frequencies, which tends to be perceived to have a "clearer" sound. It can sound tiring if you listen at close range and esp. you have  a bright pair of speakers or even  headphone for some of you.
   
  Audirvana sounds more natural than Decibel and I prefer it.


----------



## KingStyles

Quote: 





> The scary thing for me now is, with Fidelia, seeing just how much of my favourite music is brick-wall filtered.


 
  Agreed. The little time I used it i was surprised to see what all my music looked like.


----------



## vert

Well, KingStyles, everything ought to sound pretty darn good through your Skylla and Eddie Current. Don't think you're missing a thing in regards to those components.


----------



## mrspeakers

Having spent some time with Pure Music and Fidelia, I have to say I do like them both. However, I find myself using PM so I can use the iPad remote, a function Fidelia doesn't support at the moment. This allows me to have my projector off, which I appreciate. it is difficult to precisely articulate the differences, but in general I think PM sounds a bit smoother and less edgy. More to come on that...

From an audio perspective, they both sound great, but I prefer the Pure Music because it give me ups sampling conversion control that is harder to figure out how to execute with Fidelia. I will do some playing around through my home theater which will make it easier to tell the sample rate fro Fidelia...


----------



## KingStyles

Quote: 





> Well, KingStyles, everything ought to sound pretty darn good through your Skylla and Eddie Current. Don't think you're missing a thing in regards to those components.


 
  Actually quite the opposite. The more revealing the system is, it makes mistakes and badly recorded music sound even worse. A lot of times I like a song in my truck, but when I get home, I cant stand it on my headphone rig. Also nicely recorded music, especially classical, my truck makes it sound like crap, but my home rig is awesome.
   
   Thats why I prefer amarra over fidella. Amarra is smoother with less emphasis on  the highs. Fidella comes across really precise, with the highs a little more brought out. Maybe it does this to make it sound like it has more detail. It is just to precise and crisp for a setup which has more detail and resolution than needed. I been doing a lot of tube swapping lately to try to bring more warmth and smoothness to the sound to help balance its signature. Amarra was a help in that area also.


----------



## mrspeakers

That sounds like my impression of pm vs. Fidelia....


----------



## KingStyles

I think Fidella is a great player for the money and that it has a lot of potential. I think it would sound really good on a setup that is a little dark or warm or a setup that would like or could use more detail and transparency.


----------



## vert

"Actually quite the opposite. The more revealing the system is, it makes mistakes and badly recorded music sound even worse."
   
  Oh, I'm well aware of this. My Chord DAC will kick any source material to the curb that isn't up to snuff. I was referring to good or remastered recordings, you should have a field day with your setup. Actually, your setup with the skylla, balancing act, and LA7000 is one of the few I've seen that I'd really like to listen to.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





limpidglitch said:


> I read up a bit on oversampling and anti-aliasing/interpolation (on 'pedia, couldn't find mrspeakers' explanations), and I have to ask as 'Knowa did: Won't that be moot when I only play 16/44.1 files and my DAC does the oversampling and digital filtering?


 

 DACs that oversampleare most often 20 or 24-bit integer oversampling schemes, which are nowhere near as high resolution as a 64-bit floating point.  As such, the interpolation is definitely not as good on the chip.  Usually the reason it is done on chip is to allow use of a more phase correct filter with a gentler slope to avoid phasing in the high frequency bandwidth, as much as aliasing.  However, if an 88.2/96K/192K signal is being input they won't oversample, because the signal already allows use of the gentler filters.  Ergo, if it's done in 64 bits at the source the output of the whole system ought to be higher quality.


----------



## limpidglitch

So what you're saying, in essence, is that the upsampling is better dealt with at the computer?
  But I don't need a proprietary player to do this, output sample rate can be set in the audio MIDI menu, up to 96k. Or is this different?


----------



## Bacci

I'm very sceptical about the improvement a software player can make over Itunes but will give it a try as soon as I finished soldering my AMB y2 DAC together.
I tend to convert all FLAC and audio CD to Itunes ALAC using XLD, both formats are qualitatively equal to .wav and losslessly convertible into each other.
For most electronic I find the 256kbps Itunes store music satisfactory, except when many layers of samples are used (e.g. Burial). For other genres I settle only for lossless.
Remember to restart Itunes after changing the output sample rate, set volume to max, and to disable equalizer, song volume matching, crossfading etc. 
Radiohead albums are always a good benchmark. If there's any improvement, songs like 'Kid A' or '15 step' will likely reveal it.


----------



## mrspeakers

Being skeptical makes total sense around here, but that said, software is simply implementation of an algorithm that is flexible, vs. Doing a hardware implementation that is rigid. And in this case, at least for the software with up sampling, you can not get comparable performance from a chip.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





kingstyles said:


> I think Fidella is a great player for the money and that it has a lot of potential. I think it would sound really good on a setup that is a little dark or warm or a setup that would like or could use more detail and transparency.


 


  This is actually something to consider about all these players.  It really depends on the system you are feeding.  So something I think sounds perfect might be too warm or too clear on someone else's system.  Sort of like changing out tubes or amp chips.
   
  For now Audirvana is working out really well in my setup.  Everything is very clear, dynamic, and has a big soundstage, but also has the richness that seemed to be missing from Pure Music.  I've had just the occasional bug of a track skipping but only happened twice or so, nothing like Amarra.  Someone also created a script, so you can highlight tracks in iTunes and have it automatically added to player.  Can also drag songs or whole album over.  I haven't compared sound to Amarra because I've sworn them off until the next update.  Just too frustrating to use in it's current state.


----------



## Yoga Flame

OK. Just so I'm clear, with each of these music players the digital signal that goes to the DAC is slightly different, depending on the algorithm used by the player. And some sound better than others. Meaning, we're not talking about bit perfect, right?


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





yoga flame said:


> OK. Just so I'm clear, with each of these music players the digital signal that goes to the DAC is slightly different, depending on the algorithm used by the player. And some sound better than others. Meaning, we're not talking about bit perfect, right?


 

 I think they are all bit-perfect unless you start oversampling or using some other effects.  I believe it's the precise timing that's effecting the sound, kind of like jitter.  I may be wrong about this.  But there are definitely subtle differences in each player.  Even after I use Audirvana and go back to iTunes alone, I'm surprised at how close the sound really is.  It's the extended listening that brings out the slight differences.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





yoga flame said:


> OK. Just so I'm clear, with each of these music players the digital signal that goes to the DAC is slightly different, depending on the algorithm used by the player. And some sound better than others. Meaning, we're not talking about bit perfect, right?


 


  They are all bit perfect when set to 0db on their volume controls.   The digital signal going to the dac is exactly the same with all players, same 1s and same zeros, no algorithms at work when set at 0db.  Some sound better than others, yes.


----------



## DavidMahler

If your files are stored as WAV rather than compressed lossless, how can sending a digital signal be affected by what program you use.  Why should iTunes sound any different from anything else if the information is purely digital and entirely decoded?  I'm still not sure I understand how ALAC files can sound different from program to program.  It would seem to me that the difference in sound would be entirely decided by source and connection to source.  But without changing the computer, how can different programs effect the sound without implementing optional effects?


----------



## mrspeakers

The same way magic power cables affect sound quality.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  If upsampling is not being used and an application is "bit-perfect," there should be no issue unless for some reason there is jitter specifically associated with the app.  However, using a device like a HiFace, or reclocking circuitry in the DAC will eliminate this variable anyhow.  
   
  Of course, there's always someone who believes they perceive a difference, and short of A/B testing (which will never happen), there is no way to say for sure that someone in fact can't hear a difference.  With due respect to Bixby, I would question his ability to hear a difference under truly blind conditions, but I have to freely admit that he could be 100% right and there's something not obvious to consider or that I can't hear.  Computers ARE very complex, though beyond jitter and upsampling I am not aware of any material consideration that affects SQ, it doesn't mean it's impossible.  My $.02 is it's just not likely.  
   
  So my real point is that everyone should listen to the players, as most are free or have demos, and if possible really try to separate what they EXPECT to hear from what they CAN hear.  And that's really hard, as our expectations absolutely do affect our perceptions...
   
  That said, I'm generally pretty sensitive to distortion and I honestly can't hear any difference at all between players using ALAC for redbook media, unless upsampling is involved, and then the difference is there, but it's subtle (like I want to listen longer and just feel more immersed in the music).   I have used almost all the players discussed, except Amarra.


----------



## KingStyles

I havent heard a difference in power cables yet, but I have no problem in hearing differences in the different players. I dont have an explanation of why this is, but there is a lot going on in a computer. A usb.spdif converter just supplies a clock. So you eliminate clock jitter, but you havent done anything with how the music is processed, or how the core audio is bypassed, or how stressed the processor is causing jitter there. You just know that all the bits have arrived and were timed by the clock in the converter. We can go between different computers  for front end and have bit perfectness and sound different and I dont think anybody questions that. Why cant software have an equal effect? Obviously we are missing some other variablres. Just curious, how do you decipher bit perfect. Does it check every bit that arrives compared to with what is on the disk or does it check against what was processed? I know some dacs have bit perfect checks, but what exactly are they checking?


----------



## vert

I'm going to back Bixby here. You just need to have a resolving and transparent enough system to hear the differences in players.
   
  I had a Leben amp paired with a Chord DAC, both very transparent and resolving components. I could EASILY hear the differences between Ayrewave & Audirvana. Before Audirvana added its integer mode, it was very mechanical and digital sounding in my setup.
   
  Once I switched to an iDecco amp, not so much. It just didn't have the transparency and resolving power for critical listening to discern between components.


----------



## mrspeakers

Either that or it had a reclocking system that was superior and overcame the timing issues. You really don't know...

At the end of the day, players are different, but mostly when they process the audio in some way, when not using Core Audio for eq or other functions... Systems with lesser reclocking would in theory be more prone to show "difference" with bit perfect audio with varying degrees of jitter.

Again, reclocking would be the answer. And good reclocking can be less than 10 pls, which is way lower than you woucl perceive... 

Just theorizing on this, but I am an EE and in audio and computers, and to me this appear the only immediate answer to why people really could hear a difference on "bit perfect" output.


----------



## Currawong

When I first used Amarra, it was necessary to set up Mac OS X to use the _input_ clock as the clock source. That might have something to do with it.  Directly interfacing with the hardware and bypassing any processing by Mac OS X must be helping in some way too. It would be good if we could get more info from a knowledgable software engineer on this or if someone measured the digital signal output with suitable gear while each player was being used.


----------



## bixby

Currawong is most likely on to why we hear differences.  It is most likely how the program reacts with our hardware, which stacks are involved and which are bypassed.  It is also interesting to note that differences in sound occur when programs are running along with the player and when they are not.  System resource use while playing a file may be another variable.  
   
  I do not think differences are necessarily caused by clocks although async devices with their own clocks actually make it easier to hear differences in players for me, probably because of the increase in timing accuracy and lower jitter.  I think a lot has to do with system noise and perhaps some type of quantization noise.  At least when you use a volume control on any of these players you are introducing a BIG variable.  That variable is how the volume control works in each player.  In some, you throw away resolution and you do hear that difference, in others you add dither  and their are many ways to dither with different algorithms that actually do sound different.  They are quite audible on a highly resolving system.  
   
  I am not going to work too hard on understanding why players sound different, I just accept the fact that they do.  That being said, I also have heard audible effects in changing some power cables and lots of folks do not.  I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## mrspeakers

This explanation makes no sense to me digitally, in bit perfect mode, which was what I thought we were discussing?  I have been saying that differences will exist as soon as you modify the signal, and I guess we're on the same page.  I think your comment on re-clocking is probably exactly correct when considering non-bit-perfect playback (e.g. upsampling).  Eliminating the jitter should reveal the qualities of the scaling and shaping algorithms more clearly...
   
  That said, once a signal is digitized, there's no such thing as added  "quantization noise" *if it's bit perfect*.  So dithering with noise to cover quantization from digital volume adjustment or EQ/effects is definitely going to vary based on if its Core Audio algorithms, or proprietary.  If Core Audio, they should be identical between apps, but if proprietary will certainly vary.  Again, if bit perfect, there is no quantization or dither being added, so you are simply reduced to jitter as the variable.
   
  "System noise" would be analog that affects the power supply of the DAC, but it can't modify the 1's and 0's, except possibly as jitter.  So any software purporting to be bit perfect will put out the same bits, and reclocking will eliminate any possible electrical difference unless there are uncorrectable transmission errors, which usually result in signal drops or audible problems.  
   
  Don't take this wrong, I'm kind of clowning around because the word-play is cute:  When it comes to suppositions about audible differences, you are OK to believe so you hear, while I don't believe so I don't hear.  Neither approach is absolutely right, and both approaches have limits, so as usual the truth will be in the middle, and in reality we both probably follow both approaches to a point.
   
  That said, I think the main advantage to my approach is that it saves me a lot of money on power cords and cables unless I can see (and usually measure) the benefit, and as many claims are engineering nonsense or utterly unprovable, I seldom am tempted.  Being in the audio business made me a cynic about that stuff...


----------



## DavidMahler

If you have a source which re-clocks everything then why would it matter the clock functionality of the program you use.  Not every DAC does this, but if you do have one, how would the sound change from program to program?


----------



## mrspeakers

I agree with Bixby that by eliminating jitter, you're going to reduce one of the more obvious variables in the digital chain.  For any player that's not running bit perfect (using digital volume, EQ or upsampling, for example), you will be better able to hear the effect of the processing because the overall system will be more resolving of fine details.


----------



## DavidMahler

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> I agree with Bixby that by eliminating jitter, you're going to reduce one of the more obvious variables in the digital chain.  For any player that's not running bit perfect (using digital volume, EQ or upsampling, for example), you will be better able to hear the effect of the processing because the overall system will be more resolving of fine details.


 


  I'm sort of repeating myself, but what about DACs which reclock everything which comes into it?  Would the application used for the files be relevant at this point in terms of jitter correction.


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





			
				mrspeakers said:
			
		

> I agree with Bixby that by eliminating jitter, you're going to reduce one of the more obvious variables in the digital chain.  For any player that's not running bit perfect (using digital volume, EQ or upsampling, for example), you will be better able to hear the effect of the processing because the overall system will be more resolving of fine details.


 
   
  Quote: 





davidmahler said:


> I'm sort of repeating myself, but what about DACs which reclock everything which comes into it?  Would the application used for the files be relevant at this point in terms of jitter correction.


 
   
  Is it even possible to eliminate jitter entirely? Or is it more realistic to try and reduce it as much as possible, one stage at a time? I don't know, but I doubt any re-clocking system is "perfect" as far as jitter elimination is concerned, and I'm pretty sure "bit perfect" is another thing entirely. More like you're getting your song file processed into analog in the same digital form that the file was in when it is played at the transport level. Not upsampled during conversion, for example.
   
  If the bit rate, sample rate and bits per sample are all unaffected, it must be "bit perfect", no?
   
  I think you can EQ digital music any which way you want, it doesn't affect the bit rate so the music will still be bit perfect, just equalized for playback purposes. Just like in the analog realm, there are good digital equalizers and bad ones; I personally avoid them all. Adjusting the volume is just attenuation; It can affect the FR with a limiting effect if you do it in the wrong place, like on your digital source.
   
  But I could be wrong


----------



## mrspeakers

A good re-clock will essentially have such low jitter it's not possible for their to be jitter artifacts.  CEntrance claims 1 picosecond of jitter, which is 10 to the -12, or a trillionth of a second.  Since the audio sample rates are measured in tens to hundreds of thousands of samples per second, this is to all intents and purposes, eliminating it.  There are many other products that have low jitter, others ignore the issue completely or rely on a cheap chip to regenerate the clock, so the mileage will vary.  
   
  Since jitter is pretty universally accepted as "bad," looking for DACs with low jitter is always a good consideration factor, though not the only one...
   
  Lastly, "bit perfect" only means one thing: the 1's and 0's in the playback stream are exactly what was in the audio file.  There is no change due to any adjustment by volume, oversampling, etc.  This is not the same as "time perfect," where the data doesn't arrive regularly, which is jitter.


----------



## Bones13

True "bit perfect", to me, means that the bits are picked up from the media (CD/HDD) and moved to the DAC with no change.  Since the 0s and 1s are transmitted via a wave analog signal across whatever interface, I do think Jitter can matter, as the frequency that the 0s and 1s get moved along and read by the DAC can be non-constant, or different than its supposed to be.  It is up to the DAC to convert the analog signal from what is sent to it, and convert it to true 1s and 0s.  Again, timing can be an issue.  Some of the more recent DACs do this much better than was available before, and using a single clock to control the frequencies at both sending and recieving ends is not as important as it once was.
   
  Nowadays, the information stream from the media to the DAC is much more complicated, in that the OS of whatever computer you are using will do something to the sound, rescale, mix with system sound, or just paw through the data a lot on the way to the sending hardware.  Cutting out this manipulation has been the goal since I started Computer Audio several years ago.
   
  Even more recent are then new software programs which actively involve data manipulations, first by keeping it out of the computer audio stream, and secondly actively resampling, and resculpting the data as it is passed along to the DAC.  Some of the interest here comes from the much more available hi resolution DACs that are popular now.  Back when your DAC only did 16/44.1 or 16/48, there was not much point in upsampling 16/44.1 files.  EQ and manipulating the data further was eschewed by the audiophile community, while popular and common in the "pro" community.
   
  While there have been software players other than iTunes for quite awhile now, they mainly offered simplicity over iTunes ever growing capabilities (ie other than music playing).  Amarra broke the ice with a program that sidestepped Core Audio on the Mac, and did something to the data, other than just pass it off to the DAC.  In doing so the sound is "better" and made music listening more enjoyable.  If the price had been lower back then, and the software security less draconian, I think we would have seen the renaissance of software players that make the sound "better'.  PureMusic put the first pressure on, and Fidelia is really stirring it up currently.  I think that these three all sound a bit different, and can be configured to do different things within the programs, allowing customization for listening tastes, and different systems.
   
  Between "hog mode" of both sidestepping Core Audio (while retaining access to some of the functions) and preventing other use of that DAC by the computer, combined with the  (optional)resampling by some very nice software resamplers, the new software sets a new basis for what an audiophile computer playback system needs to provide.  Prices now allow testing more than one of the players, and try them on all of you music systems.  Fidelia strikingly improved my travel laptop/DACPort system, and I would have never paid for another expensive license just for that computer.
   
*I am excited to see what comes next.*


----------



## V-DiV

Consensus (?): if the players just deliver files to the system output and DAC then the players should sound the same.  If the players process files (upsampling, volume attenuation, equalization) then they can sound different if they use their own algorithms rather than those embedded in the OS.
   
  I think someone said that it is better (potentially) to do upsampling in software rather than in hardware.  My CI Audio DAC upsamples to 24/192.  Is it better to have Fidelia upsample 16/44.1 files to 24/96 before sending them to the DAC or just send the native 16/44.1 files to the DAC?
   
  I've been playing with Pure Music, Fidelia, Decibel, and others.  Those three can match the ouput sample rate to that of the files they play.  But none of them automatically changes the bit depth.  Why not???  I have to manually change the bit depth back and forth between 16 bit and 24 bit in Audio/Midi.  Is there any benefit or harm in just leaving it set at 24 bit?


----------



## V-DiV

Bones13, nice post.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





bones13 said:


> True "bit perfect", to me, means that the bits are picked up from the media (CD/HDD) and moved to the DAC with no change.  Since the 0s and 1s are transmitted via a wave analog signal across whatever interface, I do think Jitter can matter, as the frequency that the 0s and 1s get moved along and read by the DAC can be non-constant, or different than its supposed to be.  It is up to the DAC to convert the analog signal from what is sent to it, and convert it to true 1s and 0s.  Again, timing can be an issue.  Some of the more recent DACs do this much better than was available before, and using a single clock to control the frequencies at both sending and recieving ends is not as important as it once was.


 

 This is both partially right and also incorrect.  The right: timing is what I have been talking about and that is jitter. I am not sure I get what you mean by a "wave analog signal."  All signals are inherently analog, if we're being literal, but when there are only two possible values it's digital.  As long as the transition can be detected correctly, the only question is how jittery the signal is (I.E. when we detect a digit changes value vs. when it should change value). 
   
  The unclear:  Jitter can not change a 1 to a 0, etc.  It does have an effect on the analog output of the DAC by potentially distorting the waveform phase around the highest frequencies, where smearing in the time domain is measurable.  But proper reclocking DOES eliminate time domain errors from jitter.  Totally.  If a DAC doesn't reclock well, all bets are off on jitter, particularly with USB. 
   
  The incorrect:  A DAC takes 1's and 0's and makes analog.   Going from analog to 1's and 0's is done by an ADC.


----------



## uelover

I have listened extensively to PureMusic (Trial) and Fidelia (Trial) over the past 1 week. I find Pure Music to be the most natural sounding and engaging to me though the UI is another story altogether. Fidelia is the one I got headache over its software setting. I know that the Dithering setting and the iZotope Sampler amount will have an impact on the sound but I just couldn't determine which setting sounded better. I have no apparatus to analyze the resulting audio waveform either. I got tired of playing around with the settings on Fidelia so I went back to just enjoy music on PureMusic while at the same time trying to cover its UI with some other windows. Fidelia is seriously slick. However, the only manual for dithering and sampling on iZotope website wasn't comprehensive enough for a newbie like me.
   
  Things that puzzle me:
  1) I cannot delete playlist I created on Fidelia
  2) I cannot auto-repeat a single track on Audirvana


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





v-div said:


> Consensus (?): if the players just deliver files to the system output and DAC then the players should sound the same.  If the players process files (upsampling, volume attenuation, equalization) then they can sound different if they use their own algorithms rather than those embedded in the OS.
> 
> I think someone said that it is better (potentially) to do upsampling in software rather than in hardware.  My CI Audio DAC upsamples to 24/192.  Is it better to have Fidelia upsample 16/44.1 files to 24/96 before sending them to the DAC or just send the native 16/44.1 files to the DAC?
> 
> I've been playing with Pure Music, Fidelia, Decibel, and others.  Those three can match the ouput sample rate to that of the files they play.  But none of them automatically changes the bit depth.  Why not???  I have to manually change the bit depth back and forth between 16 bit and 24 bit in Audio/Midi.  Is there any benefit or harm in just leaving it set at 24 bit?


 

 Consensus?  Not possible around here...   But that is my perspective, if jitter is eliminated by reclocking at the DAC, bit perfect output should sound identical.  Others will argue, but it's just different opinions...
   
  Hardware upsampling is usually specified as "24-bit" but the real resolution is closer to 20-bit, and it's not floating point, so more prone to quantization.  That said, some "hardware" resampling is using 32-bit floating point DSPs, and has better resolution, so it's worth checking to see how your particular DAC upsamples.  If it's in the DAC chip itself, the results are not so impressive, but a DSP can be much better.  However, the Mac software uses 64-bit resolution, which is as good as you'll get.  
   
  Just leave it at 24-bits.  That way if you upsample, which you should, IMHO, you get optimal results, but there's no penalty for 24 bit with 16 bit data, you're just adding some empty data.


----------



## vert

"But that is my perspective, if jitter is eliminated by reclocking at the DAC, bit perfect output should sound identical.  Others will argue, but it's just different opinions..."
   
  You're talking theoretical and/or marketing. From my experience, even when the DAC reclocks the signal and drops it into a ram buffer, the DAC cannot handle a high jitter source without sound degradation.
   
  I've experienced this on an high-end Chord, and on an iDecco. Both claim essentially zero jitter.
   
  If you have any doubts, just feed a DAC that reclocks the signal a toslink connection from your Macbook. Then compare this to a low jitter USB converter. No comparison.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





vert said:


> "But that is my perspective, if jitter is eliminated by reclocking at the DAC, bit perfect output should sound identical.  Others will argue, but it's just different opinions..."
> 
> You're talking theoretical and/or marketing. From my experience, even when the DAC reclocks the signal and drops it into a ram buffer, the DAC cannot handle a high jitter source without sound degradation.
> 
> ...


 
  I'm afraid I agree.  I had a dac that claimed to eliminate jitter and used ASRC to attenuate jitter.  Guess What?  when fed a signal from a async usb to spdf converter the sound was noticeably better to my ears.  I also owned a dac with the venerable JET technology to re-clock all inputs.  Although it was clean sounding it was still not as good as many other dacs.  So even if it was doing a fairly good job with the jitter, the sound of this dac was way below other standard bearers.  Now on that device I don't blame the jitter attentuation circuit so much as the analog circuit and power supply.  It is onel thing to get the signal to the dac cleanly and in time, it is quite another to get it out fo the dac with enough audio integrity to put it up against some truly great sounding dacs.


----------



## KingStyles

My understanding of jitter is there is many types of jitter. There is no standardized way to measure jitter. A lot of companies will measure the jitter on just a small frequency range and post that they have only 1pico of jitter. When in fact when measured across the entire frequency band it could have terrible jitter. You cant go by the jitter specs of manufactures. Since there is no standardized method of measuring  jitter, they will measure it whatever way gives them a good number for marketing. Also Steve from Emperical audio seems to believe this,
   
  Quote: 





> I would only add that the spectrum of the jitter is probably more important than the magnitude, and there have been no studies to show which spectra are more objectionable for listeners.


 
  Also for dacs that reclock, if they have poor power supply or cheap clocks, they could be introducing more jitter into the audio stream them what was actually arriving at the dac.


----------



## JulienM

I've tried a few of these players recently.
  I found Pure Music fatiguing and forward. It does give you a feeling of more detail initially...
  Fidelia is pretty good. Sounds very lush and full with a big sound stage. Very tube like, warm, but with detail. I like it! But after a while that enhanced sound feels a bit artificial.
  iTunes still is my preferred player. The most faithful IMO. It is the least intrusive of all. Recordings sound different from each other, some excellent, others average, and some poor...
   
  Most listening was done at 44/16. I still prefer the source files untouched.
   
   
  system: mac mini - Audio-gd ACSS system (DI - NFB8 - C39MK3 - C10SE) - Thor speakers (TL using SEAS high end drivers) - very reveling...


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





julienm said:


> I've tried a few of these players recently.
> I found Pure Music fatiguing and forward. It does give you a feeling of more detail initially...
> Fidelia is pretty good. Sounds very lush and full with a big sound stage. Very tube like, warm, but with detail. I like it! But after a while that enhanced sound feels a bit artificial.
> iTunes still is my preferred player. The most faithful IMO. It is the least intrusive of all. Recordings sound different from each other, some excellent, others average, and some poor...
> ...


 

 JulienM your findings have led me believed further that as each software process the digital signal differently, the way they interacted with different dac and audio gears will produce vastly different result (Pure Music to me sounded just natural, not forward, compared to Amarra and Fidelia which are more forward sounding on my gear).
   
  For Fidelia, if you disable dithering and all the audio-processing in the preference setting, you will be able to remain faithful to the original sound file.
   
  Decibel is also a very simple audio playback software that present to us the option of hog mode that is unavailable with itune. It is faithful to the original recording in a sense that it doesn't really add/subtract anything from the original data.
   
  The other softwares boost of additional features that alter the original audio signal, for the better or for the worse, depending on the setting applied by the end-user, the suitability for the particular genre as well as the synergy of the post-processed signal with the audio gears. Of course, you can disable all of them to leave the source file untouched. Many a times a particular setting that I find lovely for some specific genre will sound horrible and artificial on another genre. We just can't apply the same set of filtering to different genres to make them sound 'nice'.
   
  iTunes do sound very faithful to the original recording but is a little 2 dimensional. Maybe this shortcoming will become less pertinent if one has a super high end dac + speaker. I can't tell as I don't own one myself. But as of now, I am able to achieve an audio-playback that is close to a hi-fi setup on my Mac itself. Clean and full sounding.
   
  I guess this is the reason why many choose to use other playback softwares instead of the always reliable iTunes =)


----------



## grokit

I agree, nice post, but you may want to fix this part as a DAC (digital to analog converter) converts 1s and 0s (digital) to an analog stream; your explanation of this seems backwards.
  
  Quote: 





bones13 said:


> True "bit perfect", to me, means that the bits are picked up from the media (CD/HDD) and moved to the DAC with no change.  Since the 0s and 1s are transmitted via a wave analog signal across whatever interface, I do think Jitter can matter, as the frequency that the 0s and 1s get moved along and read by the DAC can be non-constant, or different than its supposed to be.  *It is up to the DAC to convert the analog signal from what is sent to it, and convert it to true 1s and 0s.*  Again, timing can be an issue.  Some of the more recent DACs do this much better than was available before, and using a single clock to control the frequencies at both sending and recieving ends is not as important as it once was.


----------



## bixby

Could the audible difference be this simple?
   
  My friend who is a big skeptic but who has great ears (and can easily hear the differences in his system) pointed out to me the most logical cause for sonic differences in players even though they are getting the same 1s and 0s.
   
Codecs!  Yes, different codecs used by different players.  How do we know the codec that Apple uses for decoding ALAC or AIFF or WAV for that matter is the same one used by Pure Music or Decibel.  There are a number of codecs developed by the open source community that we have no idea who is using what and how they may differ in sound.  
   
  Could this be our answer?  Perhaps.
   
  2-26 EDIT:
   
  The more I look into it the more Codecs are probably not the answer, sorry


----------



## Bones13

Quote: 





grokit said:


> I agree, nice post, but you may want to fix this part as a DAC (digital to analog converter) converts 1s and 0s (digital) to an analog stream; your explanation of this seems backwards.


 
   
  The signal carried by the USB or SPDIF cable is indeed an analog signal itself, there is high and low, whichever is 0 and which ever is 1.  As this digital signal leaves the source, the chip converts the 1 / 0, or on/off in the logic circuits into electricity by raising and lowering the electical signal in that cable.  At the DAC end there is an SPDIF or USB receiver chip that gets this electric signal, and converts it back to the 1/0 and stacks it into the words, depending on the word size (16 or 24 or whatever).  The DAC takes these digital words and converts it to digital.  This is still simplifying it a lot from the small part that I understand.   There really is some analog to digital conversion done at the SPDIF or USB receiver in the DAC.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Right now I'm using Amarra and iTunes.   I like the way Amarra can access iTunes exactly the way I have it set up.
   
   
  For me a player MUST be able to have the category "DATE ADDED".  This is the main way I listen to my music. "Date Added".    Some of these players do not allow this category.   Can anyone lay out which players do?
   
  I was using the Fidelia Demo and it did not have a "Date Added" option but I understand that it now does.  Can anyone verify this?  
   
  Thanks.


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> For me a player MUST be able to have the category "DATE ADDED".  This is the main way I listen to my music. "Date Added".    Some of these players do not allow this category.   Can anyone lay out which players do?
> 
> I was using the Fidelia Demo and it did not have a "Date Added" option but I understand that it now does.  Can anyone verify this?
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Thanks!  I'll be picking up the full fidelia this weekend!


----------



## V-DiV

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Hardware upsampling is usually specified as "24-bit" but the real resolution is closer to 20-bit, and it's not floating point, so more prone to quantization.  That said, some "hardware" resampling is using 32-bit floating point DSPs, and has better resolution, so it's worth checking to see how your particular DAC upsamples.  If it's in the DAC chip itself, the results are not so impressive, but a DSP can be much better.  However, the Mac software uses 64-bit resolution, which is as good as you'll get.
> 
> Just leave it at 24-bits.  That way if you upsample, which you should, IMHO, you get optimal results, but there's no penalty for 24 bit with 16 bit data, you're just adding some empty data.


 


  Thanks mrspeakers.
   
  I've been listening to Fidelia (trial).  I like that it will automatically change the sample rate to match the song and that it includes access to AU and VST plugins as well as allowing you to make EQ presets so I can nudge the sound a little bit different for each headphone (but no more than about 3 dB).  I don't recall Pure Music allowing presets.  My Trial ran out.
  In Fidelia with the Apple 31 band eq I got some distortion with bass boosted by only 3 db.  I don't get that when using the 10 band graphic eq in Fidelia or in iTunes either (with iTunes "preamp" turned down a bit to compensate for boosted freqs).  Other than that, Fidelia works great with my MacBook Pro/Snow Leopard.  It's a little balky (misses a beat now and then) running on my dual 1.8 GHz G5 running Leopard (they just put the Leopard compatible version back up).
   
  Is there anything in the Advanced edition that's not in the Trial version?  Does the Advanced edition just activate the stuff that's on the Advanced tab of the Fidelia Preferences?


----------



## mrspeakers

Fidelia advanced has the functions that I personally would use...  The sample rate conversion for upsampling and dithering, of course.  But what really catches my eye are the filter controls.  I may buy this just to play.  It'd be fun to compare linear phase filters to Butterworth, etc.  In the past, I had to go through huge gyrations to simulate this, and it was not so accurate, and I couldn't process files real time.  
   
  With 64-bit resolution and a clean UI, it'd be very revealing to hear real time....  Filter control will make a difference in SQ, and being able to play with this is a total geek fest.  It's not for everyone, though...   
   





   
  http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/fidelia/


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





bixby said:


> Could the audible difference be this simple?
> 
> My friend who is a big skeptic but who has great ears (and can easily hear the differences in his system) pointed out to me the most logical cause for sonic differences in players even though they are getting the same 1s and 0s.
> 
> ...


 
   
  It's an interesting idea, and probably true for some codecs and file formats, but it should not be the case for the big ones like AAC, MP3, ALAC and FLAC.  These codecs are governed by standards bodies, are proprietary, or are open source and codecs and (to my knowledge, it's probably a safe bet there are some exceptions for clone codecs, etc.) the major codecs are expected to perform bit-perfect validation against a reference file or test set.  If they weren't, the codec's consistency would be questionable, performance too variable, and the codec would get a bad rep.  Could you imagine a company like Apple allowing a non-perfect ALAC or AAC codec?
   
  For fun, take a look at this.  It's kind of an eye opener to see how many codecs are out there...
   
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_codecs
   
  For an example of validation process:
   
  http://blog.kfish.org/2010/05/how-oggz-validate-works.html


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





bones13 said:


> The signal carried by the USB or SPDIF cable is indeed an analog signal itself, there is high and low, whichever is 0 and which ever is 1.  As this digital signal leaves the source, the chip converts the 1 / 0, or on/off in the logic circuits into electricity by raising and lowering the electical signal in that cable.  At the DAC end there is an SPDIF or USB receiver chip that gets this electric signal, and converts it back to the 1/0 and stacks it into the words, depending on the word size (16 or 24 or whatever).  The DAC takes these digital words and converts it to digital.  This is still simplifying it a lot from the small part that I understand.   There really is some analog to digital conversion done at the SPDIF or USB receiver in the DAC.


 
  your understanding is incorrect bones. the square wave signal is digital, its a series of on and off pulses that represent 1's and 0's, there is no digital to analog  conversion being done before it gets sent down the USB cable to the dac, it is of course being presented by an analog signal, because any waveform is going to be analog technically even though its modulation is digital. There are never any hypothetical little number 1's and 0's running around. those 1's and 0's are stored as either a north or south magnetic poles in the hard drive and as square waves of some kind the whole way through your computer. And that square wave is exactly what the DAC chip inside your dac see's as well, after all the processing at the reciever is done(splitting apart the separate channels and such) the square wave is sent to the dac.
   
  i really dont mean to be rude, thats not my intention at all, but there really is too much disinformation(unintentional most of the time) running around on this site, and ive found being as blunt as i can to be the best combatant of that.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





souprknowva said:


> your understanding is incorrect bones. the square wave signal is digital, its a series of on and off pulses that represent 1's and 0's, there is no digital to analog  conversion being done before it gets sent down the USB cable to the dac, it is of course being presented by an analog signal, because any waveform is going to be analog technically even though its modulation is digital. There are never any hypothetical little number 1's and 0's running around. those 1's and 0's are stored as either a north or south magnetic poles in the hard drive and as square waves of some kind the whole way through your computer. And that square wave is exactly what the DAC chip inside your dac see's as well, after all the processing at the reciever is done(splitting apart the separate channels and such) the square wave is sent to the dac.
> 
> i really dont mean to be rude, thats not my intention at all, but there really is too much disinformation(unintentional most of the time) running around on this site, and ive found being as blunt as i can to be the best combatant of that.


 
   
  I don't think he meant that the signal is converted to an analogue one, what he means is, look at a digital signal as being akin to an analogue transmission of a square wave, which is what is going on in the underlying hardware.  You absolutely don't get a cleanly transmitted square wave in most gear from what I've seen. The switch between 0 and 1 and back doesn't have an instant transition. As well, many of the factors affecting the transmission are not jitter related at all (from my limited understanding), but relate to many other factors depending on how the signal is being transmitted physically and, in this discussion, possibly how it it being handled by the software. I think we tend to use jitter as a catch-all term for any imperfections in the physical transmission of the digital signal without really understanding what is going. We really need, and I really want to see some proper technical information on these things and some measurements as well. I just hope that at some point someone, at least with a decent oscilloscope or other gear, can be encouraged to make some.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





v-div said:


> Thanks mrspeakers.
> 
> I've been listening to Fidelia (trial).  I like that it will automatically change the sample rate to match the song and that it includes access to AU and VST plugins as well as allowing you to make EQ presets so I can nudge the sound a little bit different for each headphone (but no more than about 3 dB).  I don't recall Pure Music allowing presets.  My Trial ran out.
> In Fidelia with the Apple 31 band eq I got some distortion with bass boosted by only 3 db.  I don't get that when using the 10 band graphic eq in Fidelia or in iTunes either (with iTunes "preamp" turned down a bit to compensate for boosted freqs).  Other than that, Fidelia works great with my MacBook Pro/Snow Leopard.  It's a little balky (misses a beat now and then) running on my dual 1.8 GHz G5 running Leopard (they just put the Leopard compatible version back up).
> ...


 
  PM does allow presets in AU for things like EQ
   
  Pure Music menu > Audio Setup > Audio Plugins.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I'm interested in some form of SW implementation of the apodizing filter used by Meridian and/or Ayre. One of my interests in these SW based players is using an external DAC in combination with SW streaming. I don't know if the filter can be applied in SW ahead of the DAC, or if it can only be applied after the DAC, and hence requires a HW implementation. Anyone know?


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





souprknowva said:


> your understanding is incorrect bones. the square wave signal is digital, its a series of on and off pulses that represent 1's and 0's, there is no digital to analog  conversion being done before it gets sent down the USB cable to the dac, it is of course being presented by an analog signal, because any waveform is going to be analog technically even though its modulation is digital. There are never any hypothetical little number 1's and 0's running around. those 1's and 0's are stored as either a north or south magnetic poles in the hard drive and as square waves of some kind the whole way through your computer. And that square wave is exactly what the DAC chip inside your dac see's as well, after all the processing at the reciever is done(splitting apart the separate channels and such) the square wave is sent to the dac.
> 
> i really dont mean to be rude, thats not my intention at all, but there really is too much disinformation(unintentional most of the time) running around on this site, and ive found being as blunt as i can to be the best combatant of that.


 
  Thanks for bringing this up.  Good job!
  It is important to understand that the is technically no A/D or D/A conversion going on in these instances where the digital data is being transmitted / transported from one place to another.  There is no logical interpretation / reconstruction / processing of the waveform as such, in these instances.  If one uses Toslink, the electrical pulse train is converted to an optical pulse train and back again by the toslink transceivers at either end of the optical cable, but it's still the same logical pulse train.  When one uses a USB cable to take data from one's computer and move it into the external DAC, the there is another level of data interpretation and reconstruction essentially taking place at either end of the USB cable analogous to the toslink scenario mentioned above.  The USB receiver chip has it's own level of reconstructive logic to try and reassemble a clean pulse train before that pulse train is sent to the actual DSP / DAC.
   
  So, yeah, I think it's helpful to understand the distinctions here.  When the system does actually process the pulse train to convert it analog audio or otherwise manipulate the data in DSP, it then has to deal with interpretation of glitches in the pulse train, timing errors, noise in the pulse train, and the like.  It is in the interpretation of the pulse train where sometimes "guesses" have to be made by the system.  When ultimately the data is converted back to the original analog waveform (music) is where we then hear those "guesses" that were made by the system as artifacts in the signal.  The "sound" of the artifact bears no resemblance to the nature of the glitch in the pulse train at that point.  I hope to help in your understanding of what's going on in your systems.  Thanks also to Currawong for further clarification as well.


----------



## kwkarth

By the way, these "guesses" made by transceivers at either end of digital data transmission paths can accumulate in terms of ultimately corrupting the digital data.  So it pays to keep things as electrically and optically clean as possible and to minimize potential points of interference.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I'm interested in some form of SW implementation of the apodizing filter used by Meridian and/or Ayre. One of my interests in these SW based players is using an external DAC in combination with SW streaming. I don't know if the filter can be applied in SW ahead of the DAC, or if it can only be applied after the DAC, and hence requires a HW implementation. Anyone know?


 
   
  Out of my depth here, but as I understand it, the application of same is most critical in A/D, and not as critical or effective in D /A.  Further, if I understand this correctly, "stacking" of such filters doesn't necessarily bring any further improvement to filtering the data outside of the allowed passband.
   
  In the digital domain, hardware implementation means code committed to silicone, to assist in effective real time processing.  If you're alluding to apodization filtering of an analog signal...
   
  Here's part of a discussion I lifted from another discussion on computer audiophile
   
   
You want to apply a filter which already has been applied, and it has unknown properties. Well, be my guest to get that right ...
Of course you can try to relate all to how things show after the SRC without applying your own, but do you really think you can get a steeper resonse ? (to name something). You can get a more slow roll off allright, but now find an SRC that's so steep that you'd want that.
If you really want to get the merits of this, start off with NOS filterless (and I mean : NOS filterLESS).
Btw, Minimum Phase means : throuhout the passband the phase remains unchanged.
 Passband : the frequencies you indicate as those to remain audible (never mind it rolls off underway).
The less "minimum phase" the less pre-ringing, and the less pre-ringing the more post-ringing.
 Or : the less pre-ringing, the more the phase will change towards the higher frequencies.
Or (now work this out yourselves) : the less pre- and post ringing, the more imaging.
And what about this one : the less ringing the earlier your amp will die.
Last one : the more ringing, the less digital sound (one to sleep on).
Apply this all to an OS DAC, and you really won't know what will happen.
PS: The less ringing with mimum phase, the earlier the roll off.
 PPS: only the sun rises for free. But who says ringing is bad ?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Yeow! Sounds like the Abbot and Costello routine! Or, "It's just a harmless littl' bunny... " "...Run away, run away!" 
   
  EDIT: I think I'll stick with whatever filter my Wyred 4 Sound DAC uses.


----------



## holland

You can do the filtering in software.  The easiest way is with a scope and examining the impulse responses, and square waves.  sinc is good too.  The downside is the interaction with the hardware filters.  Ideally, if you can disable the HW filters, the SW filters will supply everything.  That is, of course, assuming a good receiver and SPDIF connection.  The advantage of the hardware filters is that it occurs post receiver and operating on (usually) the IIS from the receiver.  Using a FPGA or DSP before the DAC and disabling the onboard filtering is what some of the high end manufacturers do, for the highest resolution and most accurate representation of what the DAC will actually receive.
   
  apodizing filters are done in the digital domain, not analog.  The analog filters are usually a single pole low-pass filter.


----------



## nkoulban

Currawong, thank you for thus thread.  I have installed Decibel and it is audiably better than iTunes.  This has been the cheapest upgrade I have ever made.


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I don't think he meant that the signal is converted to an analogue one, what he means is, look at a digital signal as being akin to an analogue transmission of a square wave, which is what is going on in the underlying hardware.  You absolutely don't get a cleanly transmitted square wave in most gear from what I've seen. The switch between 0 and 1 and back doesn't have an instant transition. As well, many of the factors affecting the transmission are not jitter related at all (from my limited understanding), but relate to many other factors depending on how the signal is being transmitted physically and, in this discussion, possibly how it it being handled by the software. I think we tend to use jitter as a catch-all term for any *imperfections in the physical transmission of the digital signal* without really understanding what is going. We really need, and I really want to see some proper technical information on these things and some measurements as well. I just hope that at some point someone, at least with a decent oscilloscope or other gear, can be encouraged to make some.


 
   
  Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Thanks for bringing this up.  Good job!
> It is important to understand that the is technically no A/D or D/A conversion going on in these instances where the digital data is being transmitted / transported from one place to another.  There is no logical interpretation / reconstruction / processing of the waveform as such, in these instances.  If one uses Toslink, the electrical pulse train is converted to an optical pulse train and back again by the toslink transceivers at either end of the optical cable, but it's still the same logical pulse train.  When one uses a USB cable to take data from one's computer and move it into the external DAC, the there is another level of data interpretation and reconstruction essentially taking place at either end of the USB cable analogous to the toslink scenario mentioned above.  The USB receiver chip has it's own level of reconstructive logic to try and reassemble a clean pulse train before that pulse train is sent to the actual DSP / DAC.
> 
> So, yeah, I think it's helpful to understand the distinctions here.  When the system does actually process the pulse train to convert it analog audio or otherwise manipulate the data in DSP, it then has to deal with interpretation of *glitches in the pulse train, timing errors, noise in the pulse train*, and the like.  It is in the interpretation of the pulse train where sometimes "guesses" have to be made by the system.  When ultimately the data is converted back to the original analog waveform (music) is where we then hear those "guesses" that were made by the system as artifacts in the signal.  The "sound" of the artifact bears no resemblance to the nature of the glitch in the pulse train at that point.  I hope to help in your understanding of what's going on in your systems.  Thanks also to Currawong for further clarification as well.


 
   
  Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> By the way, these "guesses" made by transceivers at either end of digital data transmission paths can accumulate in terms of ultimately corrupting the digital data.  So it pays to keep things as electrically and optically clean as possible and to minimize potential *points of interference*.


 

  
  Is it possible that these "*imperfections in the physical transmission of the digital signal, **glitches in the pulse train, timing errors, noise in the pulse train, **and **points of interference" *all translate into timing errors that can become audible? I have no idea, just wondering if jitter as a catch-all for the source of audible artifacts could have _some _basis in reality.
   
   
  Quote: 





nkoulban said:


> Currawong, thank you for thus thread.  I have installed Decibel and it is audiably better than iTunes.  This has been the cheapest upgrade I have ever made.


 

 Sold! Will be comparing the demo with Pure Music's soon


----------



## Phelonious Ponk

A music player moves bits from one place to another, adding a database and a user interface along the way. At the end of the day there is data, noise, and timing. If you hear difference between players, look for it in #2. Maybe, in really severe cases, #3. Isolate. Re-clock. You still hear a difference? Look to your perceptions.
   
  Tim


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





grokit said:


> Is it possible that these "*imperfections in the physical transmission of the digital signal, **glitches in the pulse train, timing errors, noise in the pulse train, **and **points of interference" *all translate into timing errors that can become audible? I have no idea, just wondering if jitter as a catch-all for the source of audible artifacts could have _some _basis in reality.


 

 Only as jitter.  A bad waveform can also cause jitter because the detection of the 1 or 0 may not occur at the right time.  It's all sources of jitter.  Again, re-clocking is the best solution.  A good USB receiver with an excellent clock and galvanic isolation is excellent (a la the Burson), alternatively a USB->coax adaptor like the HiFace.  I can hear no difference on either interface on my rig.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Only as jitter.  A bad waveform can also cause jitter because the detection of the 1 or 0 may not occur at the right time.  It's all sources of jitter.  Again, re-clocking is the best solution.  A good USB receiver with an excellent clock and galvanic isolation is excellent (a la the Burson), alternatively a USB->coax adaptor like the HiFace.  I can hear no difference on either interface on my rig.


 

 How can you throw that all in to the catch all bin of jitter?  That's crazy.  If the pulse train has a bad signal to noise ratio the receiver could misinterpret 1's and 0's.  That a data error resulting in all sorts of artifacts including drop outs.  What the rest of the system does with erroneous data depends upon the design of the system.  But to call any problem jitter?  Well, I guess if it works for you...  Bottom line is it's not bit perfect any more no matter what you call it.  Good transceivers can only go so far to recover a crappy signal.


----------



## mrspeakers

If the system is having transmission errors then there are methods used to correct bad bits, but this only works within limits. If there is too much bad data you get dropouts or noise. If a system is so lame that you are getting transmission errors causing dropouts then the issue of player quality is moot, you should be fixing the system because the player can't fix transmission errors. 

So if it's not an actual error, it is really manifested as jitter, whatever the cause (transmission line reflections, poor transmitter quality, a flaky cable, etc). And if it is an uncorrectable error there is a serious device or cable problem to fix.

And isn't that so obvious it doesn't need to have been said? Give me a break...


----------



## V-DiV

Quote: 





bixby said:


> PM does allow presets in AU for things like EQ
> 
> Pure Music menu > Audio Setup > Audio Plugins.


 
   
  In Pure Music you can save an EQ setting, but you can't save several different NAMED settings for different headphones.
   
  Pure Music and Fidelia are neck-and-neck for features and interface.  I will be picking one soon and plunking down my money.
  Right now it seems Fidelia leads in the interface and in better control of resampling schemes/customizability of sound.
  Pure Music leads in being able to play from memory.  What else am I leaving out?


----------



## bixby

correct.............. just one setting, sorry for the confusion on my part.
   
  On a subject a bit further back, I stated that codecs might be the reason we hear differences in players.  After researching, I no longer think that is the reason.
   
  I think Gordon Rankin's comments in this message make as much sense to me as anything.
   
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/428550/amarra-anyone-using-it/75#post_5777950
   
  cheers


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> How can you throw that all in to the catch all bin of jitter?  That's crazy.  If the pulse train has a bad signal to noise ratio the receiver could misinterpret 1's and 0's.  That a data error resulting in all sorts of artifacts including drop outs.  What the rest of the system does with erroneous data depends upon the design of the system.  But to call any problem jitter?  Well, I guess if it works for you...  Bottom line is it's not bit perfect any more no matter what you call it.  Good transceivers can only go so far to recover a crappy signal.


 
   
  Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> If the system is having transmission errors then there are methods used to correct bad bits, but this only works within limits. If there is too much bad data you get dropouts or noise. If a system is so lame that you are getting transmission errors causing dropouts then the issue of player quality is moot, you should be fixing the system because the player can't fix transmission errors.
> 
> So if it's not an actual error, it is really manifested as jitter, whatever the cause (transmission line reflections, poor transmitter quality, a flaky cable, etc). And if it is an uncorrectable error there is a serious device or cable problem to fix.


 

  Both of these posts make sense to me, that actual data errors can cause dropouts, but that jitter truly is a catch-all for all other types of interference that manifest as timing errors. I read analogy quite a while ago that described dropouts as missing notes in the music (very obvious to the ears), while timing errors are just that; the musical notes are not in the right place (not as obvious but still quite noticeable to the ears).
   
  And thanks for the link bixby, that was a good post. Here's the jitter-gist:
   
  "There is no jitter inside a computer, heck not even on the USB link. Amarra does not change the jitter in the system.

 I did the following test today with exactly the same results and you can do this also:

 MacBook Pro----->Benchmark --------WCLK output TAS1020===>Wavecrest

 iTunes, GarageBand, Amarra, it didn't matter the jitter was the same for all of them.

 Look people software changes the character of sound. You should all realize this. Even if you get bit perfect output the difference in using say Foobar on a PC and iTunes or even Amarra on the MAC will make things sound different.

 BUT THIS DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH JITTER!

 Guys look... everything effects sound. Why is a mystery that will live forever."


----------



## mrspeakers

This is logically impossible...  There is no jitter in a system, AND the players are bit perfect, yet they sound different?  
   
  First, ALL digital systems have jitter because every clock ever made for a digital system has jitter, so that statement is just wrong.  The question for a clock is how stable is the oscillator, and in a given system is will it materially affect the output.  Further, any transmission line, USB, or coax, has an electrical effect on waveforms that change the shape of the square waves, introduces ringing, etc. which can change when a bit transition from 1 to 0 occurs, which is also jitter.  No way around it.  And other sources of jitter exist.
   
  The "test" only shows that the Benchmark DAC has it's own clock, which of course will be unperturbed by upstream gear (which is what I've been trying to say all along about re-clocking).   "When Benchmark unveiled UltraLock™, it caused quite a stir. Benchmark claimed that this proprietary clock-syncing system made their converters immune to jitter. UltraLock™ keeps jitter-induced distortion at or below -135 dB FS (well below audibility)."
   
  Anything that's bit perfect sounds exactly the same on my system, and I've done everything possible to eliminate jitter.  And yes, I've listened quite carefully to VOX, Fidelia, Pure Music and iTunes.  
   
  There's no mystery here except why people expect (or seem to want) bit-perfect audio to sound different, especially when jitter is eliminated.  If it sounds different, it's not bit perfect (upsampled, for example), you have a jitter issue and don't know it, or it's placebo/voodoo.


----------



## svertel

I just downloaded the demo version of Pure Music and I'm blown away.  So much clearer and warmer than Amarra!  Best player I've heard yet.


----------



## grokit

Last two posts lol...


----------



## limpidglitch

Please Wait...
 /img/barber_loading.gif


----------



## attenuated 3db

mrspeakers said:


> This is logically impossible...  There is no jitter in a system, AND the players are bit perfect, yet they sound different?
> 
> First, ALL digital systems have jitter because every clock ever made for a digital system has jitter, so that statement is just wrong.  The question for a clock is how stable is the oscillator, and in a given system is will it materially affect the output.  Further, any transmission line, USB, or coax, has an electrical effect on waveforms that change the shape of the square waves, introduces ringing, etc. which can change when a bit transition from 1 to 0 occurs, which is also jitter.  No way around it.  And other sources of jitter exist.
> 
> ...




You know, MrSpeakers (I won't do any John Boehner jokes, I promise) I can't operate (or afford, really) an Apple Macintosh computer. My 80-year-old mother has one (my wealthy younger sister, who also has an identical iMac, Lexus SUV, custom-built "McMansion" and similar gear) gave her one last Christmas and then left it to me to be the tech support, and I abdicated my position. 

I love the fact that OS/X is built on the Darwin kernel and can trace its ancestry back to Steve Jobs' days in exile at Mach Computer before Apple brought him back after flirting with bankruptcy in the early 90s. Interesting trivia: Apple gained a major investor about the same time named Microsoft, who kept the "dare to be different" company from going under so they could use it as evidence that they really *did* have "competition" in their legal defense in the case of _Reno v. Microsoft_, where the Justice Department hired David Boies to depose Bill Gates for 20 hours after Netscape and Sun Microsystems screamed "murder" (almost literally) in the direction of Redmond, Washington. I will stick to Linux with Compiz Fusion eye-candy and muddle along with my minimal understanding of Windows 7 on this year-old Sony:

http://www.docs.sony.com/release/specs/VPCF115FMB_mksp.pdf

But reading this thread, I am reminded of my days selling high-end audio when there were a bunch of kids of a nice couple considering some Magneplanar MG-1b speakers with some Apt Corporation electronics designed by Tomlinson Holman (who went on to develop THX theater sound for George Lucas) running around in one of our carefully acoustically-designed listening rooms. This was very "mid-fi" equipment by the standards of the dealer I was working for at the time, but with those darned kids running around while I was playing the ever-popular "Jazz at the Pawnshop" vinyl demo record on a Rega Planar 2 turntable (also very mid-fi), I just gave up and said to the couple, "The signal-to-noise ratio is kind of low in here," and they smiled and said they would come back and listen to my efforts to explain audio (entirely analog in those days) later, without the kids.

The thing I _love_ about editing Wikipedia, and I am a "big time" editor of it, as you can see by my lone comment at the bottom of _this_ Head-Fi wiki:

http://www.head-fi.org/wiki/followers-and-following

...is that there is some element of classic academic "peer review" to it, kind of like why I like open-source software. I am not a Linux kernel hacker, but I like the fact that people who really know what they are doing from all over the world can pore over the source code and improve it, if their code has true merits in the eyes of a very large community of experienced coders.

In contrast, Head-Fi sometimes resembles a free-for-all where people have their own personal definitions of commonly used terms. It reminds me of the classic quote attributed to the late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who when a colleague from the other side of the aisle said that they just had a difference of opinion, Moynihan shot back: "You are entitled to your own opinions, sir, but you are not entitled to your own facts." I love that quote.

Why don't some of the people in this discussion stop the debate on the floor of the Head-Fi Senate, and go back into committee and work on reading (and perhaps improving, if they are capable of doing so), these Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-to-analog_converter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter

Obviously, there are others I could provide links to, but like the "signal to noise" analogy, I think right now more heat than light is being shed on some of these subjects.

Just IMHO, YMMV, as usual.


----------



## KingStyles

The thing I like about amarra is that it can bring out the clarity and detail in a understated way allowing the tone to stay smooth and warm while still bringing out the same amount of better qualities as the other players. A lot of the other players are yelling I am detailed when you listen to them. It allows some to hear the differences more easily making them think it is the better player. I prefer the more subtle approach of amarra. It maintains the original tone better while still delivering the goods. To each there own. I wish amarra was at a lower price point so people could consider its sound quality without having to worry about the price tag. I suppose its glitches dont help either.


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote: 





attenuated 3db said:


> You know, MrSpeakers (I won't do any John Boehner jokes, I promise) I can't operate (or afford, really) an Apple Macintosh computer. My 80-year-old mother has one (my wealthy younger sister, who also has an identical iMac, Lexus SUV, custom-built "McMansion" and similar gear) gave her one last Christmas and then left it to me to be the tech support, and I abdicated my position.
> 
> I love the fact that OS/X is built on the Darwin kernel and can trace its ancestry back to Steve Jobs' days in exile at Mach Computer before Apple brought him back after flirting with bankruptcy in the early 90s. Interesting trivia: Apple gained a major investor about the same time named Microsoft, who kept the "dare to be different" company from going under so they could use it as evidence that they really *did* have "competition" in their legal defense in the case of _Reno v. Microsoft_, where the Justice Department hired David Boies to depose Bill Gates for 20 hours after Netscape and Sun Microsystems screamed "murder" (almost literally) in the direction of Redmond, Washington. I will stick to Linux with Compiz Fusion eye-candy and muddle along with my minimal understanding of Windows 7 on this year-old Sony:
> 
> ...


 


  This is an internetforum. If you introduce reason here, where then can the ignorant masses flock to?
   
  Seriously though, I appreciate your intention, but I doubt this is the sort of place where people go to find reliable real-world information. At least I hope it's not
  It's more of an arena to compare inflated fantasies. I mean, no person with a modicum of attachment to the physical world do _really_ believe a simple piece of wire tying two audio components together can magically make the sound coming out of speakers be full of soap bubbles and spring breeze. No more than a 40 year old woman _really_ believe that a pot of $20 an ounce wonder cream really can make her look 10 years younger. But in both cases having hope in the impossible seems easier than to accepting the harsh reality: This is it. there is no cure for ageing (yet), and no magical piece of material will ever make your recorded music as large as life.
   
  Do you see mr. 3db? You can't kill these fantasies, and god knows people have tried.
  People fear the leopard too much.


----------



## mrspeakers

Thanks AT3DB.  There are lots of good things to be learned on Wikipedia, sometimes the math gets pretty tough, but there's lot's to learn about digital filters, anti-aliasing, and much more.  
   
  And LIMPID, couldn't agree more.  People hear what they want and expect.  It's normal, everyone does it (myself included), as our perceptions and senses are all tied into the same "cpu," so how we think is bound to affect what we experience.
   
  But what is interesting is there are sound engineering realities that do make the more sophisticated apps sound better, namely what algorithms are used to upsample, and what digital filters are applied to reduce aliasing artifacts.
   
  I think Fidelia's filter customer is the bomb.  And Fidelia and Pure Music both sound great on my Burson oversampled via USB or coax, I'll also see if I can really detect a material difference in SQ, since they both user different 64-bit src.
   
  I will also dally with Fidelia in a while and play with different filter types, and will share what I hear, if anyone is interested.  It's going to take a few weeks to do, though...


----------



## limpidglitch

No doubt that there are real differences between how you process a file, something Stereophile obviously is putting some pride into explaining: http://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qb-9-usb-dac-measurements
   
  I found that link in a refreshingly objective review in a different part of this forum. Tangentially relevant: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/540846/sansa-clip-review-with-detailed-measurements


----------



## DavidMahler

Are these differences in sound quality provable?  

 I remember the big debate years ago was how much better WAV or AIIFF was over Lossless.  I never heard the difference and some people were convinced of its night and day comparison.  

 I've used other programs besides iTunes and I don't recall hearing a difference.


----------



## grokit

I think one possible reason that those WAV/AIFF vs. FLAC/ALAC arguments never get resolved is because of inconsistent results between different computers. Everyone's mileage will vary according to how much processing power is available to uncompress those FLAC/ALAC files in real time, and how much processing power is actually available to do so. If the processing is bottlenecked, then errors are possible in the resultant signal timing stream.
   
  If you have a kickass computer with tons of RAM, you probably won't notice any difference as there will be no bottleneck, but if you are trying to do it on a outdated cheap laptop (for example) it's quite possible that the overtaxed computer could introduce timing errors, particularly if your DAC is is relying on the computer to be the master audio clock because it is using adaptive USB audio protocols. Conversely, if your cheap old laptop doesn't have to uncompress the WAV/AIFF file then there would be less of a bottleneck when processing it and the computer will be less prone to timing errors. At least that's the way I understand it.
   
  As far as jitter goes, geniuses like Gordon Rankin (who developed the driver-less asynchronous Streamlength receiver code), understand that if you move the master audio clock to an outbound device you can eliminate timing errors generated by that overtaxed computer, and he did it within existing USB audio protocols. This results in extremely low jitter and eliminates the need for resampling and reclocking. 
   
  Streamlength is a unique and elegant solution that is being licensed to more and more higher-end devices these days and his own line of DACs have a great reputation for sound quality. So I will take his word for it when he says, "software changes the character of sound". He does have a product to sell, but he has nothing to gain by saying that. He explains his clocking technology much better than I ever could, since we're posting links:
   
http://www.usbdacs.com/Concept/Concept.html


----------



## Dublo7

So does anyone have suggested settings for Fidelia (including advanced options)? At the moment, I'm finding it to be quite harsh.


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





dublo7 said:


> So does anyone have suggested settings for Fidelia (including advanced options)? At the moment, I'm finding it to be quite harsh.


 

 It sounds harsh to me as well (with headphones), turning off all the "extra" settings (dither and everything to do with iZotope mainly) ameliorated it a bit for me.


----------



## iamoneagain

For anyone using Audirvana or Decibel and wants to be able to use Apple's iPhone Remote app, there is a solution.  It works pretty well.  The remote app loads the whole album into the player's playlist and then you control it with the regular handheld Apple remote
   
  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Audirvana-Decibel-Remoteapp
   
   
  For Audirvana, I noticed that it was switching the bit rate to 24 automatically.  I thought this was the reason for the improvement I heard but if I just use iTunes in 24 bit mode, it actually sounds harsh and fatiguing.  Audirvana just sounds amazing to me.


----------



## Yoga Flame

Quote: 





davidmahler said:


> Are these differences in sound quality provable?
> 
> [...]


 

 One way to prove the differences is to record the output from the DAC. That is, connect the DAC's line out directly into a recording device's line in. By comparing the visual representation of the recordings, we should be able to see exactly where any differences are.


----------



## DavidMahler

Quote: 





yoga flame said:


> One way to prove the differences is to record the output from the DAC. That is, connect the DAC's line out directly into a recording device's line in. By comparing the visual representation of the recordings, we should be able to see exactly where any differences are.


 


  This is a fantastic idea.  Someone want to do this?


----------



## V-DiV

Quote: 





yoga flame said:


> One way to prove the differences is to record the output from the DAC. That is, connect the DAC's line out directly into a recording device's line in. By comparing the visual representation of the recordings, we should be able to see exactly where any differences are.


 
  Take one computer's (DAC's) audio output as input to another computer that has a program to record streaming digital audio, and then import the files into an audio editing program and compare.


----------



## middachten

Thats exactly what I did!
   
  In fact I started to doubt the bit-perfect theory after being able to hear differences between these players. Other contributors to this topic are right: "there is no jitter inside the computer". So the only way that differences occur are because the software is not 'bit-perfect'.
   
  I've buildt the following test setup: Macbook > TC-electronic Konnekt D24 SPDIF out > SPDIF in > Macbook. 
   
  As test material I created an audio file with Audacity that was completely silent except for 1 sample going to maximum value. I used a 24bit/96kHz WAV format. This file looks like this:
   

   
  Then I played AND recorded it with Audacity. It resulted in exactly the same puls shape. Conclusion: *Audacity play/record cycle is bit perfect.*
   
  Now I went on and tested it with various players. During my first measurement cycle only the first measurement with Decibel was bit-perfect. My second measurement was VLC resulting in the following shape:
   

   
  Vox, Fidelia and iTunes showed more or less the same shape. For people familiar with audio measurements the following picture of the same waveform (now with linear scale) will be more familiar:

   
  This is what a FIR digital filter response looks like!
   
  The next day, I wanted to continue with measurements. Then I discovered that Fidelia also gave a bit-perfect measurement!!!
  But as soon as I had opened VLC or iTunes the original shape (see second picture) came back! Just to check if I was just creating ghost with my measurements I tested the dither settings in Fidelia. And they confirmed that my measurement setup did actually measure the player differences. The following pictures show 16bit and 24bit dither:

   

   
   
  So, how come that the measurements are so different?
  My theory is that as soon as VLC or iTunes are playing, the kernal/AU is using a different digital audio path.
  When I closed VLC and/or iTunes and played a piece with Fidelia or Decibel in 'exclusive mode' the system was sort of Reset again. When i played the test file they both provided bit-perfect output.
  It is not possible in this setup to test the 'exclusive mode' of these players because Audacity cannot record the input stream anymore (hence 'exclusive' 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 )
   
  Anyone with an audio interface with SPDIF in AND out can verify this test.
  If you need the test file please PM me and I'll mail it.
   
  I'm very curious to hear what you think of these measurements.
  Have I forgotten something?
  Is there something not correct in my setup?
  I would be pleased to get your input!


----------



## turimbar1

that impulse response with vox itunes and fidelia is pretty impressive, i am curious what upsampling would look like in this procedure (I cant imagine it looking too different), it would also be cool to see a log sweep of the audible freq spectrum.
   
  very nice test, thank you middachten


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





yoga flame said:


> One way to prove the differences is to record the output from the DAC. That is, connect the DAC's line out directly into a recording device's line in. By comparing the visual representation of the recordings, we should be able to see exactly where any differences are.


 


  With a complex audio signal, you'll hear differences before you see any.  Too much going on real time.
   
  An impulse response test is not music.  Do a square wave test at 30Hz, 300Hz, and 3000Hz, and see what happens.


----------



## middachten

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> An impulse response test is not music.  Do a square wave test at 30Hz, 300Hz, and 3000Hz, and see what happens.


 

 I just wanted to check the 'bit perfect' hypothesis.
  The only thing my measurements show is that in this setup the mentioned players are not (always) bit perfect.
  At least Decibel and Fidelia CAN be bit-perfect.


----------



## paaj

I've tried the Amarra ('full') demo and Decibel and compared them to iTunes. I didn't hear a difference with Amarra, but in Decibel, the memory-mode seemed to put my system into 'warm' mode. Now I'm getting confused, the difference in sound can't be that big can it? First I thought it to be a little better: smoother, warmer, less bright.
   
  But then I remembered I did hear this 'warm' sound in iTunes too sometimes, but since it only rarely pops up (1 in ~20 times I start my Mini) I thought it erroneous. Re-clicking the 24-bit output in AudioMidi (or 16-bit, same thing for CD anyway) and restarting iTunes always reset it to a sound I can replicate. I can't deliberately make it have the warmer sound. This is why I 'think' the brighter sound is the way it's meant to be, but now with Decibel the memory-mode makes the same kind of sound and it is supposed to be the best possible output right?
  Very confusing stuff.
   
  I thought I had no way of checking which signal is right, but didn't think about my Macbook as digital recording device. Maybe with your method I can capture the sound and see what is 'right'.
   
  btw:
  I use the digital out from the MacMini to my speaker system but the same warmer sound is also transmitted to my Airport Express for headphone listening, which implies it is not a DAC/optical-out fault but a software problem.


----------



## holland

That's a nice brickwall filter on the output.  It looks like you'd need 2 computers, one for play and another for record.
   
  You can also try turning off sound effects in the sound set up, in hopes that it won't open an audio connection.
   
  Playback and record a music sample.  Diff the files, I think Audacity can do that if you invert a sample.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





middachten said:


> I just wanted to check the 'bit perfect' hypothesis.
> The only thing my measurements show is that in this setup the mentioned players are not (always) bit perfect.
> At least Decibel and Fidelia CAN be bit-perfect.


 
  If I understood you correctly, you said you're taking the analog output from the DAC and re-digitizing it, and comparing?  Or did I get that part wrong?  At the very least you are converting to analog somewhere and then doing an ADC in and digital FFT and spectrum analysis.   So what's really happening?  If I did happen to understand you correctly, you will never know if you have true bit perfect or not because you're not even looking at the "bits."  You need to use a bit file comparator and compare the data files directly, before and after processing by the various players but before the data goes through a DAC..


----------



## paaj

I think he records the digital input on a macbook, so no ADC or DAC stages involved.
   
   
  according to apple it's possible:
   
  Quote: 





> connect your MacBook to a line-level microphone or optical digital audio equipment. The Audio In port accommodates both optical digital audio input and analog audio input.
> Analog line and optical digital audio input is accepted through a 3.5mm mini phone jack which does not provide power to a connected device, so you must use self-powered peripherals. The sound input jack accepts line-level stereo signals up to 24-bit stereo 44.1-192kHz sampling rate. It also accepts a stereo miniplug-to-RCA cable adapter for connecting stereo equipment to the computer.
> 
> Optical digital audio input is S/PDIF format and uses a standard Toslink cable with a Toslink mini-plug adapter, accepting up to 24-bit stereo and 44.1-96kHz sampling rate.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





paaj said:


> I think he records the digital input on a macbook, so no ADC or DAC stages involved.
> according to apple it's possible:
> 
> Quote:


 


> > connect your MacBook to a line-level microphone or optical digital audio equipment. The Audio In port accommodates both optical digital audio input and analog audio input.
> >
> > Analog line and optical digital audio input is accepted through a 3.5mm mini phone jack which does not provide power to a connected device, so you must use self-powered peripherals. The sound input jack accepts line-level stereo signals up to 24-bit stereo 44.1-192kHz sampling rate. It also accepts a stereo miniplug-to-RCA cable adapter for connecting stereo equipment to the computer.
> >
> > Optical digital audio input is S/PDIF format and uses a standard Toslink cable with a Toslink mini-plug adapter, accepting up to 24-bit stereo and 44.1-96kHz sampling rate.


 

 But it's much simpler that what is described above.  I just didn't see anything mentioned that gave me confidence that we were comparing the right things.  Most of these players will let you batch operations and pipe the output straight to the disk.  Then you just diff the input and output files.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





v-div said:


> Take one computer's (DAC's) audio output as input to another computer that has a program to record streaming digital audio, and then import the files into an audio editing program and compare.


 

 Nope, not a valid method.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





yoga flame said:


> One way to prove the differences is to record the output from the DAC. That is, connect the DAC's line out directly into a recording device's line in. By comparing the visual representation of the recordings, we should be able to see exactly where any differences are.


 

 Nope, won't tell you anything to do that.


----------



## holland

Quote:  



  


> But it's much simpler that what is described above.  I just didn't see anything mentioned that gave me confidence that we were comparing the right things.  *Most of these players will let you batch operations and pipe the output straight to the disk.*  Then you just diff the input and output files.


 

  
  Really?  How?  I know this can be done on Windows, but how is it done on a Mac?  All the players I've seen are rudimentary.
   
  Even if there were ADC, if all things held constant, and the only thing varying is the player, some differences *may* show up depending on the ADC resolution.  However, as noted, on a macbook, it's all digital.


----------



## Yoga Flame

Originally my thought was to find proof that all these players are bit perfect and yet somehow sound different. I envisioned doing an analog recording from the DAC's line output. So if the recordings from the DAC turn out to be significantly different when visually inspected, that would prove it. But it had not even occurred to me to first test whether the players are actually bit perfect in the fist place. That's definitely a better starting point. If the bits being sent from each player are different, then naturally the sound will also be different.
   
*middachten*, thank you for taking those measurements! You have gone one step beyond what most of us have done, and actually spent the effort to objectively further our knowledge.
   
*kwkarth*, what would you suggest then?


----------



## Currawong

middachten: Great work! I was starting to think the same thing, that iTunes isn't really bit-perfect when used for playback.  I wonder how Pure Music and Amarra perform in this way.


----------



## uelover

My Decibel has just expired on me and there is no way for me to revive it. Will they start to charge $$ for Decibel once it is off its beta phase?



PS: Currawong you have got a cute DP!


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





uelover said:


> My Decibel has just expired on me and there is no way for me to revive it. Will they start to charge $$ for Decibel once it is off its beta phase?


 

 Yep, Booth said it will be around the price of Amarra by 15.
   
   
  @Currawong: careful with that neck!


----------



## mrspeakers

Very interesting work, thanks for sharing. It's very odd that results vary based on when they are run. It would be interesting to try on another system, as state-dependent output is NOT desirable. 

I'm out skiing for a few weeks, but when I'm home I may unbox some test gear and see if I can do a little analog domain sleuthing, and maybe to look into capturing the data for direct comparison. I'm not a software guy, though...


----------



## turimbar1

Quote: 





uelover said:


> My Decibel has just expired on me and there is no way for me to revive it. Will they start to charge $$ for Decibel once it is off its beta phase?
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Currawong you have got a cute DP!


 

 wait, decibel will start charging? maybe 5$-15$ but im not paying amarra prices for that.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





holland said:


> Really?  How?  I know this can be done on Windows, but how is it done on a Mac?  All the players I've seen are rudimentary.
> 
> Even if there were ADC, if all things held constant, and the only thing varying is the player, some differences *may* show up depending on the ADC resolution.  However, as noted, on a macbook, it's all digital.


 

 The ONLY valid comparison that can be made must be done entirely in the digital domain with no variables other than a given lossless music file being processed by the player under test.  The processed file can then be compared to the input file.  Any other variables, you've negated the premise of the test altogether.
   
  Some players such as Vox can send their output directly to another file rather than standard output.  For the players that do not have that capability, there are programs that can be run that trap, bit for bit, any music file being "played" (sent to standard audio output device)  This captured data is then sent by the program directly to a file.  Then the input and output files can be compared as I mentioned earlier.


----------



## mrspeakers

I was curious about file-level output comparisons and found the whacky guys over at computeraudiophile had a VERY similar discussion. One of them captured the AES EBU output from iTunes and did validate it's capable of bit perfect output. I didn't read the whole thread, but here's the link...

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/iTunes-Bit-Perfect-tests-OS-X

and more...

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Playback-Engines#comment-22015

The tests in question were for iTunes using 24/96 source. They also tested amarra output for 16/44.1 and iTunes and found both to be bit-perfect. Now this is in 2009, so things may have changed, but it does argue that for bit perfect it's not at all obvious why any player would sound different. I'll spend a little time trolling around over there, as they've got some really interesting discussions related to this and let you know what I find...


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> I was curious about file-level output comparisons and found the whacky guys over at computeraudiophile had a VERY similar discussion. One of them captured the AES EBU output from iTunes and did validate it's capable of bit perfect output. I didn't read the whole thread, but here's the link...
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/iTunes-Bit-Perfect-tests-OS-X
> 
> ...


 


  good work!  We await your report.


----------



## mrspeakers

Here's another bit from a VERY long thread... One of them contacted Rob at Channel D to discuss integer/float and bit perfect operation, as well as resource consumption.

Submitted by Lars on Wed, 03/17/2010 - 14:00. Joined: 07/01/2008 .:. Offline .:. Comments: 473

I would like to share Rob's discussion about floating point and hog that you should find very interesting. Also, with the next release of Pure Music, the activation code for Pure Vinyl should also work with this program for the impatient guys like myself.

Rob's e-mail to me:

I think there is some confusion regarding "floating point conversion"
in CoreAudio. Nothing is really "converted" per se; the audio is just
placed into a different container (provided that the audio device
driver does this properly, which isn't necessarily the case). This is
the same notion as lossless audio compression (though that's not the
goal here), in that what comes out is exactly the same as what went
in. This is the responsibility of the audio driver, and floating
point, being the canonical format for CoreAudio, is what's normally
handed to the audio software by the driver, and vice versa, unless the
software takes special efforts to access the integer stream (see below
about Hog mode).

Pure Music has been verified to be bit transparent / perfect by a
poster in the CA forum thread, and independently by at least another
two other prominent, technically oriented people in the industry (one
of whom is mentioned in the Pure Music documentation; during his
testing, he found a problem in the Pure Music upsampler, which was
corrected immediately.)

That said, there are folks who might think that something "happens" to
audio when converted to a lossless format and then back again, even
though the two can be compared and proven to be identical. Maybe it's
related to physics that someone like Stephen Hawking could explain,
because this, at least to me, borders on acknowledging the influence
of mystical or supernatural phenomena (which can seem as strange or
impossible as certain topics in particle or cosmological physics).
Don't get me wrong; I don't mean to be sarcastic at all, only
interested in finding an explanation, and maybe there's a reason.
There are a lot of things we don't know about our universe. But for
the time being anyway, most folks can accept that audio "works"
according to conventional Newtonian physics, and that there's very
little mystery involved.

If we are talking the use of CoreAudio "Hog" mode and native integer
support and supposedly "bypassing CoreAudio" (and one can't do that
without first creating a device driver, which requires thorough
knowledge of the hardware details of EVERY conceivable piece of audio
hardware / DAC, etc. that it will be used with; and I doubt that audio
hardware manufacturers would care to release the necessary
information, even under an NDA arrangement), we are incorporating Hog
Mode, but whether or not it has the potential to make any sonic
difference, at least from a technical perspective (same argument as
lossless compression vs. linear PCM) is open to discussion. It may
slightly reduce the overhead of the audio driver (except that with
float to int conversions, we are talking changing the CPU footprint by
a miniscule amount). My impression is that "Hog" mode (exclusive
driver access would be a better term, but Hog conveys the idea more
succinctly) is included in the CoreAudio API to keep a developer from
trying to hack a similar functionality. Hog Mode is as old as
CoreAudio (OS X 1.0, nearly 10 years ago), and isn't something that's
generally used. Hog Mode's behavior is what it sounds like: not a nice
citizen on the computer! But it's now an optional setting in Pure
Music 1.1 (Pure Vinyl imminently) for the folks who want to use it
with compatible devices (Hog mode can optionally be enabled now;
tapping into integer streams is coming very soon).

Regarding the CPU footprint... it depends it you have lots of options
turned on or not. The CPU footprint also peaks when tracks are being
loaded for memory play... this is to be expected, but doesn't matter
because no audio is playing at that time (unless Pure Music's Hybrid
Memory Play mode is enabled, and you are willing to accept the
tradeoffs of that). With the proper settings, and these are explained
in the documentation, on a 2 GHz Mac Mini, the footprint is under 2
percent (playing redbook CD from memory at native sample rate), with
iTunes adding less than another 1 percent. This is even better than
the posts on our website for versions of Pure Vinyl, from last year.
It is very cool to watch Disk Activity in Activity Monitor and see it
at zero (after loading tracks, and nothing else happening on the
computer, and enough RAM to avoid VM paging, etc.) We've taken a lot
of effort to tune and balance the CPU load of the various internal
processing threads, and priority is given to the important ones.
Priority defined as the ability of an important thread to temporarily
shut down or pre-empt a less important thread; this is done in the CPU
hardware, and can be manipulated by the developer. For those folks
finding that handshaking between Pure Music and iTunes isn't as
instantaneous as they'd like, we may provide an option to adjust that
balance for themselves (similar to renice, except on a per thread
rather than per application basis). This capability was in earlier
builds of Pure Vinyl and it was removed to reduce complexity, but it
can be returned if necessary.

Finally, we've decided to allow those with a Pure Vinyl activation
code to be able to use it in Pure Music, as well (this will be enabled
in the next release of Pure Music). The reason is because Pure Music
launches noticeably faster than Pure Vinyl; some initialization and
"preflight" audio validation needed for reliable recording can be
skipped over. While there is tight integration between the many
features in Pure Vinyl and the iTunes Music Player mode, and it's easy
to instantly switch between iTunes, recording, or playing back
archived "flat" vinyl recordings (and soon high-res editing), it can
be more convenient to just launch Pure Music if you only want to
listen to tracks from iTunes.

Thank you,

Rob Robinson


----------



## middachten

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> The ONLY valid comparison that can be made must be done entirely in the digital domain with no variables other than a given lossless music file being processed by the player under test.  The processed file can then be compared to the input file.  Any other variables, you've negated the premise of the test altogether.


 
   
  You are right! Thats why I used a completely digital signal path and a synthesized file. And why I first tested if any of the other components affected the signal by not being bit perfect. To control the measurement variables.
  The fact that every measurement with Audacity gives a sample/bit accurate signal for the entire chain (software/interface out/interface in/software) is the proof that my method is valid.


----------



## middachten

BTW I choose the 'impuls'  as a test signal because it is theoretically impossible to reproduce this signal as soon as any analog stage is involved. And for most digital (non-IIR) based filters this is also the case. Theoretically this impuls needs a bandwith of multi MHz to reproduce. But as long as you stay in the digital domain it is the same as transporting any other form of data. It should return exactly as is.
   
  If I can find the time I will do some more experiments this weekend:
  - test with different waveform (square or stepped shape)
  - test by using the optical out of my macbook, hence allowing 'exclusive mode' for some players
   
  Any suggestions as to improve these measurements are welcome!
   
  And please DO try this at home
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  (Audacity is freeware)


----------



## kwkarth

mrspeakers said:


> Here's another bit from a VERY long thread... One of them contacted Rob at Channel D to discuss integer/float and bit perfect operation, as well as resource consumption.
> 
> Submitted by Lars on Wed, 03/17/2010 - 14:00. Joined: 07/01/2008 .:. Offline .:. Comments: 473
> 
> ...




This was very informative. Thanks!!!


----------



## holland

Quote: 





middachten said:


> You are right! Thats why I used a completely digital signal path and a synthesized file. And why I first tested if any of the other components affected the signal by not being bit perfect. To control the measurement variables.
> The fact that every measurement with Audacity gives a sample/bit accurate signal for the entire chain (software/interface out/interface in/software) is the proof that my method is valid.


 
   
  agree your method is fine.  even with adc, it is fine, as it is a basis of comparison.


----------



## Vader815

Yeah, Decibel just expired for me too, and I really hate audirvana's sound compared to the formers. 


Deep Sigh.


----------



## holland

captured some sections using a capture program as the player is playing, as kwkarth suggested, and captured to aiff.  the file was flac, 44.1khz/16-bit, a cd rip.  the 2 players were fidelia and cog.  the tracks were lined up in audacity under high magnification.  cog was inverted, and then the tracks were exported to wav.
   
  the wav file was opened in audacity with a spectrum analysis performed.  attached is that analysis.  it's not entirely meaningful as the full stack of playback was not analyzed, but at the very least it seems to correlate with my ears, as i hear a high frequency boost on fidelia compared to cog.
   
  i have not determined if cog was/is bitperfect but i've read reports that it was for cd formats.  all processing options were disabled in the players, fwiw.
   
  The level is fairly low, so I'm not sure if it matches what I am hearing exactly, but at the same time, this does seem to remind me of a digital filter being applied.


----------



## Bacci

I'm trying out Amarra in combination with Itunes, I notice it changes the sample rate on the fly. My fear is that Amarra is only changing the Midi settings, meaning the default behavior of Itunes applies. This would mean if the output sample rate was 44.1Khz at the startup of Itunes and a 96Khz file is played, Itunes downsamples first to 44.1Khz after which core audio then upsamples again to 96Khz before sending it to the DAC.
  Does anyone know if this is the case?


----------



## bulmanxxi

Decibel is now on sale for $33.  Just download the latest release from the website and click Purchase under the DECIBEL menu.


----------



## iamoneagain

I ended up back with Decibel.  It was sounding off because Audirvana automatically changes bit rate 24 and Decibel sounds best in 16 bit on my setup.  When I tested the different players they all sound close except for Audirvana, so that may be think it might be doing something with the sound and I'd rather be trying for bit perfect.  I thought about just using iTunes alone but something is just a little smother with Decibel.  It's also the only player I haven't had bugs with and plays gapless audio perfect.  And with the remote hack, I can still use my iPhone remote with it.   I'll give Amarra another try whenever the next upgrade comes out, but I think Decibel is going to work out for me.


----------



## vuntruong

Decibel Sounds great!  So far the most neutral and transparent players i have heard for the mac.  One can almost say decibel is not there.  Great work!  OWEEE


----------



## Currawong

I'm back to Decibel as well. I've had Fidelia switching songs too early and having trouble determining the bit-rate of some tracks (and not switching the output as it should). I need to put in a support ticket for it though.
   
  Seems Decibel finally has a price: US$33.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

im still comparing the newest versions of audirvana and decibel, though i better decide quick since decibel only allows 24 hours of use without paying. but i think audirvana is in the lead for me.
   
  And also, does anyone know why they always go in 24 bit mode, even when im playing 16/44.1 redbook files? the sample rate is right in audio midi setup, but the bitdepth isnt. i even tried closing audirvana/decibel and going in and manually setting the bit depth then reopening and it just switches it back to 24 bits...


----------



## rosgr63

Purchased Decibel.
  It seems a fair price for a great player.


----------



## Eating Pie

Quote: 





middachten said:


> Thats exactly what I did!
> 
> In fact I started to doubt the bit-perfect theory after being able to hear differences between these players. Other contributors to this topic are right: "there is no jitter inside the computer". So the only way that differences occur are because the software is not 'bit-perfect'.
> 
> ...


 
*Possible Explanations.*
   
  Core Audio has a variety of features, all of which can interfere with the sound output if you are looking for 1-to-1 (and 0-to-0 ) bit perfect output.  I'm not clear if you tested iTunes and VLC running concurrently, but any time hog mode is off, CoreAudio's mixer -- which combines output of multiple programs together before outputting -- can get involved, and that's a whole can of worms.  Heck _ANYTHING_ can be interfering at that point, even something outputting the simplest beep!  That's why hog mode is an important feature.  That alone could explain the screw ups.  (I have more to say on iTunes in a different post.)
   
  It may be that iTunes et al. are engaging some additional CoreAudio feature such as the Equalizer, which can be utilized even if you don't see the interface.  One other issue is the constant recommendation to turn System Volume and iTunes Volume to maximum to achieve bit-for-bit output. I believe this is specific to USB, but I'm not sure.  When I use SPDIF output, the System volume is greyed out, but I can still adjust volume in iTunes.  (Decibel does not allow you to adjust volume unless it's enabled in Preferences!)
  
  Also remember Core Audio deals with Floating Point.  Anything that does math -- volume applies multiplication, for example -- on the floating point sample will introduce error.  Your DAC cannot deal with floating point, so there must be some conversion back to integer before output, and this involves truncation or rounding error if you have done some math or bit manipulation to the sample in Core Audio.  Once again, the Equalizer or mixer can be major culprits here.  One engineer said the conversion to floating point is analogous to lossless compression; that's only true if you don't touch the data after conversion... once you do any math or mix or transform on the floating point data, you are dealing with something analogous to _lossy_ compression.  That means if you're not in hog mode, or if your volume is wrong, you have introduced potential error.
   
*On "Bit Perfect."*
   
  One last comment, this on "bit perfect."  Here is an oft-cited paper on Computer Audiophile "proving" bit perfect output.
   
http://www.acourate.com/OperatingSystemsHandlingOfSampleRates.pdf
   
  There is one HUGE problem, though.  *They never compared any bits! * Comparing wave forms does not prove bit perfect output.  The only way to do that is to directly compare the bits from the file (losslessly converted to LPCM) to the bits being output.  From what I can tell of your test, you've fallen in to the same trap.  Sure, that wave form looks identical in some pictures, but there still could be bits that are lost or off that error correction took care of.
   
  I appreciate your work an do not want to diminish it, but for accuracy's sake, you proved they are "bit similar" rather than "bit perfect."  They may actually be bit perfect, but you have to compare the bits, not the graphical representation of the wave form. *Bit perfect is only bit perfect if you compare the digital data bit-for-bit.*
   
  -Pie


----------



## mrspeakers

One of the computer audihiophilE links I posted did do a bit compare by taking aes ebu output. They did validate iTunes was running bit perfect, at least for 24/96 (if I recall the test correctly).


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





eating pie said:


> *Possible Explanations.*
> 
> Core Audio has a variety of features, all of which can interfere with the sound output if you are looking for 1-to-1 (and 0-to-0 ) bit perfect output.  I'm not clear if you tested iTunes and VLC running concurrently, but any time hog mode is off, CoreAudio's mixer -- which combines output of multiple programs together before outputting -- can get involved, and that's a whole can of worms.  Heck _ANYTHING_ can be interfering at that point, even something outputting the simplest beep!  That's why hog mode is an important feature.  That alone could explain the screw ups.  (I have more to say on iTunes in a different post.)
> 
> ...


 

 Well done!


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

A lot of focus on Decible, Fidelia and audirvana. Has anyone looked closely at Pure Music. I really like how it integrates with the iTunes library and the Apple Remote (no need to uses a work-around or a hack). I'm currently trying Fidelia, and while the interface is clean, it does not provide the graphical interface and library management features I prefer in iTunes. 
   
  From a sound quality perspective, I have to say I'm leaning toward Pure Music. Fidelia sounds "lush," and very "smooth," (maybe too smooth?) but it "seems' to be squashing things too. In other words, I'm not hearing natural dynamics whether they be micro vocal intonations or macro forte, full orchestra or piano forte. I enabled both the base and HOG mode add-on during the trial. I'd have to say Pure Music and Fidelia are close though!
   
  My two ¢.


----------



## iamoneagain

I liked Pure Music a lot for the reasons mentioned in the other post. I think the soundstage opens up and it's more dynamic.  You'd think these would be good things but it's that lushness and texture that I really miss.  Strips the emotion out of the music.  It's more subtle than that but over time it feels like something is missing from Pure Music.
   
  So even though Decibel is not integrated, it one of the best sounding and I found myself listen to more albums this way instead of randomly selecting tracks.  And if you use the remote script, you can still use the iPhone remote app.  One other advantage is it does gapless without having to load the complete album into memory like Pure Music.  I believe it loads the next track before the current one finishes, not sure. Pure Music can eat up all your memory if the album is tagged as gapless.  Decibel can play it gapless even if it not tagged that way.  Amarra and Audirvana both have had tiny clicks between tracks.  Haven't played with other players enough to test.
   
  And regarding Audirvana, I couldn't figure out how to get it to stay in 16 bit mode.  No matter what, sets it to 24 bit.  Decibel will keep whatever setting you have in midi already.  For me, changing the bit rate makes a noticeable difference but may not be the case with other DACs.


----------



## bulmanxxi

On SQ alone, differences are very subtle...  The other features, such as UI, library management, tech support, software updates, etc. are all important factors.  I have not yet decided on any one player but rather alternate between Fidelia and Pure Music most often with my 24/96 DAC due to the upsampling they offer and Decibel on my 16/44.1 DAC, since Decibel doesn't upsample.  I like Decibel probably the best due to its simplicity and iTunes library integration only wish it had upsampling capabilities since all the other players offer it (except for Amarra Jr.).  I like Audirvana also but for the time being it's still not quite a finished product, so for now don't use it as much as there are kinks to be worked out.  Between Amarra Jr. and PureMusic, pretty much use PureMusic exclusively, since Amarra Jr. doesn't upsample either and it is rather difficult to play especially since the sample rate and bit depth have to be reset manually after using any of the other upsampling players and also it doesn't play gapless well.


----------



## grokit

Is Decibel limited to a single computer or can you install it on multiple ones with the license? I like the fact that Pure Music lets you run it on three machines suimultaneously.


----------



## bulmanxxi

Only Amarra seems to have a single computer restriction.


----------



## K_19

I can personally confirm that the Decibel license WILL indeed work on multiple computers.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I went ahead with Pure Music. While Fidelia is a fine player, and I especially like the options for all the filters (pre-/post-echo, etc.), I still felt PM--in my system--had the edge in SQ. That PM is so highly integrated with iTunes was icing on the cake, not to mention that the Apple Remote works so well, effectively extending the GUI. Some say the UI for PM is kinda tacky, but having used it for the past couple of weeks, I find it utilitarian, practical.


----------



## K_19

As for my story, I've been experimenting around with three of the mac players... Fidelia, Decibel, and Pure music.
   
  I have settled for Decibel as my final choice it offers a very simple interface with hog and memory play, with decent sound to boot.  Pure music also sounds great but it fell out of favour early for me because I absolutely despise the interface and personally don't really care for the Itunes integration.
   
  I also really liked how Fidelia sounds and I would have definitely purchased it, if it wasn't for one critical flaw: for whatever reason it seems to stutter and skip music on my Macbook Air 11.6 ultimate! The other players play perfectly fine while Fidelia often sounds glitchy, and I have no idea why (if anyone else has experienced similar glitches and have solved it then please do let me know!)  It actually sounds the best to my liking out of the three players tested, but a player that can't even playback music smoothly for me is definitely unusable in my books... a shame really.


----------



## grokit

I will have to compare the Decibel and Pure Music demos then, as I definitely want iTunes integration.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





k_19 said:


> Pure music also sounds great but it fell out of favour early for me because *I absolutely despise the interface* and personally don't really care for the Itunes integration.


 

 I share your sentiment!


----------



## bulmanxxi

@K_19, Fidelia has an outstanding support - you should just email them through the built in support option under Fidelia.


----------



## middachten

Today I finally could find the time to do some more testing. Only to discover that both Decibel en Fidelia have expired
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
   
  Based on my experience to date I think I will be buying a Decibel license. I've also had a few stability issues with Fidelia. Sometimes there where glitches while playing trough my TC-Konnekt.
   
  Anyway, its an interesting topic. 
  Currawong, thanks again for starting this thread.


----------



## wilk0076

To all the people complaining of the Pure Music interface, you know you can completely hide it, right?
   
  I disliked it, as well, so I completely understand.  But I shut of all the windows so that when it runs, I don't see a thing - just iTunes.  The Pure Music icon, of course, is in the task bar, but that's the only indicator that it is running.
   
  I even unchecked "Notify when busy loading into memory" so that, with Memory Play enabled, I can double-click on a track and still not see any indication of Pure Music running.  
   
  Bottom line - I only hear PM, I don't see it.


----------



## K_19

Quote: 





bulmanxxi said:


> @K_19, Fidelia has an outstanding support - you should just email them through the built in support option under Fidelia.


 


  Yup, have already sent them a service ticket.
   
  It seems to have most issues while I'm browsing on websites with Flash, and while I realize that flash for the osx sucks, all the other music players are capable of smooth playback in such situations so I don't see that as an excuse...


----------



## bulmanxxi

Another thing to consider with Fidelia is whether you are running the latest version.  They've had a couple of updates since releasing it for sale already.  Also, Soundflower seemed to be causing some problems with the MIDI settings, so it may help to uninstall it.


----------



## djjhin

Quote: 





gzone3lement said:


> You can always get Snow Leopard for $30. Amazon has the same operating system for about the same price.
> 
> Fidelia sounds very interesting. You can also sync your library from iTunes. That should save a lot of time organizing.


 
  will my computer be able to handle it? i feel like putting new operating systems on computers that weren't exactly designed to handle it might cause problems. 2 ghz intel core 2 duo 3gb memory


----------



## djjhin

does anyone know if decibel rips/transcodes audio?  I'm wanting to put my cd's in alac (simply because it works on my ipod) but I do not trust itunes to make that conversion.  I'm also content if necessary with 320 mp3 but it'd be nice to have alac


----------



## Hero Kid

Use XLD to transcode audio on OS X in my opinion. Now that it has profiles nothing can beat it.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





djjhin said:


> will my computer be able to handle it? i feel like putting new operating systems on computers that weren't exactly designed to handle it might cause problems. 2 ghz intel core 2 duo 3gb memory


 
  Snow Leopard is smaller and more efficient than the previous OS', so I would expect it's actually going to run better for you.  Suggest you check the Apple support forum for more accurate feedback for your specific system.  
   
  I know my older MBP ran way faster with it, and it's about the same config you specify.


----------



## DavidMahler

Quote: 





hero kid said:


> Use XLD to transcode audio on OS X in my opinion. Now that it has profiles nothing can beat it.


 


  How does it compare to EAC these days?


----------



## turimbar1

Quote: 





djjhin said:


> will my computer be able to handle it? i feel like putting new operating systems on computers that weren't exactly designed to handle it might cause problems. 2 ghz intel core 2 duo 3gb memory


 

 yep, it will work just fine, ive got a 2.02 Ghz macbook, 2gb of ram (lol) 120 gig hd (yeaah, tough to fit much lossless in that small of a hd), and I am able to run snow leopard just fine, actually even better, mrspeakers is right in saying they optimized everything, so the os takes up much less space, and the processor usage is good. my ram and hd could use and upgrade tho.


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





davidmahler said:


> How does it compare to EAC these days?


 

 I use EAC on my windows pc and I have to say I MUCH prefer XLD. To use it is just so much easier, for example the simple process of automatically detecting the gaps when you insert a disc as opposed to doing it manually with EAC. I also much preffer the development of XLD which continues to amaze and impress me. Every feature I thought was missing has since been added, I like that. That said there are some discs that won't rip perfectly using XLD (CRC missmatches, etc) when EAC can get them (and vice-versa).
   
  In a line, I *love* XLD but I'm glad I have EAC there as well.


----------



## djjhin

Quote: 





hero kid said:


> Use XLD to transcode audio on OS X in my opinion. Now that it has profiles nothing can beat it.


 


  I downloaded xld...but sorry to be a noob but i'm not quite sure how to use it.  What are these cue sheets it is talking about?  Also, I put in a cd, and had it rip it, but I can't find the files.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





djjhin said:


> will my computer be able to handle it? i feel like putting new operating systems on computers that weren't exactly designed to handle it might cause problems. 2 ghz intel core 2 duo 3gb memory


 
  Unlike MS, I've never had issues with upgrading O/S's on a MAC.  I've done it many times on many different Macs and (knock on wood) never had any problems.  As with anything else, it's smart to back up your data before doing something like that.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I use XLD too. Absolutely essential for music on OS X. The new profile option is great! 
   
  Tried EAC on a PC, but felt XLD was simpler and more reliable. Was easier to configure too! (However, the version of EAC I have experience with is several years old. Having found XLD, there was just no need for it anymore).  
  
  Quote: 





hero kid said:


> Use XLD to transcode audio on OS X in my opinion. Now that it has profiles nothing can beat it.


----------



## KingStyles

I also use xld. Here is a metadata tip for those who use xld. http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/XLD-Mac-Metadata-Tip


----------



## mamba315

I started with iTunes, then Cog, then Play, then Pure Music, then Decibel, now Audirvana.  Frankly, I think Audirvana sounds amazing and I like it's minimal features.  Similar to how you'd look over your LP or CD collection when you're ready to listen, I enjoy scrolling through my album folder and choosing something to load into Audirvana.  It also has one of the lowest CPU footprints I've ever seen (display off, of course).  I don't find iTunes necessary, even as a backend (a la Pure Music).
   
  I find Pure Music colored (i.e. bright, a little harsh).  I'd sell my copy if I could.  Audirvana sounds more neutral and lets through more micro-detail and micro-dynamics.  I find it very natural sounding.
   
  Just downloaded Fidelia to try, although I'm not real keen on paying for another player after my Pure Music experience.  But it's worth a 15-day trial.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





mamba315 said:


> I started with iTunes, then Cog, then Play, then Pure Music, then Decibel, now Audirvana.  Frankly, I think Audirvana sounds amazing and I like it's minimal features.  Similar to how you'd look over your LP or CD collection when you're ready to listen, I enjoy scrolling through my album folder and choosing something to load into Audirvana.  It also has one of the lowest CPU footprints I've ever seen (display off, of course).  I don't find iTunes necessary, even as a backend (a la Pure Music).
> 
> I find Pure Music colored (i.e. bright, a little harsh).  I'd sell my copy if I could.  Audirvana sounds more neutral and lets through more micro-detail and micro-dynamics.  I find it very natural sounding.
> 
> Just downloaded Fidelia to try, although I'm not real keen on paying for another player after my Pure Music experience.  But it's worth a 15-day trial.


 
  I would be curious to see what you thought of the sound of VOX.


----------



## mrspeakers

I noticed zero sound difference with Vox.  I only used it for FLAC before I could automate moving FLAC to ALAC 24/96 to get it all into iTunes cleanly.


----------



## mrspeakers

BTW, has anyone else noticed just how many recordings are digitally clipping?  
   
  With my current rig, I can really hear that a lot of rock/pop recordings are clipping.  It's quite distracting.  I hear it with every player, and finally Pure Music showed just how many discs were hitting "red" on the peak meter.  It's not their upsampling, either, this is showing the raw data...
   
  You'd think mastering processes would have evolved to say "hey, that's clipping" and dial down the gain on the ADC. 
   
  The downside of unbelievable resolution is hearing how many mistakes exist in what should be great recordings, at a point in the process where there's just no excuse...


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> BTW, has anyone else noticed just how many recordings are digitally clipping?
> 
> With my current rig, I can really hear that a lot of rock/pop recordings are clipping.  It's quite distracting.  I hear it with every player, and finally Pure Music showed just how many discs were hitting "red" on the peak meter.  It's not their upsampling, either, this is showing the raw data...
> 
> ...


 

 Hmm many modern album recordings use dynamic range compression to increase the real and perceived loudness. From my Amarra I too can see many modern album hitting the red zone but they stopped short of clipping.
   
  I don't really encounter songs that clip though.


----------



## mrspeakers

I can hear it quite distinctly on some albums.  It's a surprise to me, as I would have expected that this would be just a basic "no no" in mastering the CD.  I mean seriously, clipping?  
   
  On Aimee Mann's "Bachelor #2" it happens all over the place on some really nice tracks.  It really detracts from the album once you hear it.  Even the newly remastered Fleetwood Mac Rumours does it in a few spots.  
   
  Maybe the studio guys should upgrade their cans to some LCD-2's or mod their Fostex's a bit.


----------



## turimbar1

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> I can hear it quite distinctly on some albums.  It's a surprise to me, as I would have expected that this would be just a basic "no no" in mastering the CD.  I mean seriously, clipping?
> 
> On Aimee Mann's "Bachelor #2" it happens all over the place on some really nice tracks.  It really detracts from the album once you hear it.  Even the newly remastered Fleetwood Mac Rumours does it in a few spots.
> 
> Maybe the studio guys should upgrade their cans to some LCD-2's or mod their Fostex's a bit.


 

 ive started noticing it on certain albums too, quite disappointed. Also it would be awesome if the industry recognized the obvious superiority of orthos  (cue electrostat rant)


----------



## kwkarth

The thing is, that with properly calibrated metering, an engineer could / should avoid any clipping just by keeping an eye on the meters.  In analog days, a slight clip here or there was a real drag, but it was a constant battle to balance best signal to noise ratio with actively managing dynamic range.  We were constantly cramming 10lbs into a 5lb bag.
   
  In the digital age, it should NEVER, NEVER happen.  There is no excuse and it is a complete disaster.  Maybe the trash you're hearing isn't digital clipping, because that's REALLY ugly, but artifacts/trash from analog compressors and limiters instead.  If the equipment is properly calibrated and monitored, such trash should NEVER end up in the mix no matter what its origin..


----------



## turimbar1

yeah the albums I am talking about are late 80s early 90s albums, some vinnie moore and marty friedman, not recent stuff, so that explains it
   
  ps Mrspeakers and kwkarth, I know this is off topic (about audio players) but I am interested in learning about sound engineering, I was just wondering if you or any of the other members have any advice for me. Thanks in advance


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





turimbar1 said:


> yeah the albums I am talking about are late 80s early 90s albums, some vinnie moore and marty friedman, not recent stuff, so that explains it
> 
> ps Mrspeakers and kwkarth, I know this is off topic (about audio players) but I am interested in learning about sound engineering, I was just wondering if you or any of the other members have any advice for me. Thanks in advance


 
  I can't give you much current advice, but you might want to spend some time at some of the excellent web sites that abound these days.  Such as: http://www.prosoundweb.com/studyhall/lastudyhall/slm/slm.shtml
   
  Depending your current level of experience and interests, decide which direction in sound engineering you want to go.  Sound system engineering, acoustical engineering, recording engineering, etc.  Then go to school and hit the books.   Take advantage of all the internships you can.  Good luck!
   
  Another good link: http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/what_can_go_wrong_seven_habits_that_can_ruin_your_career_in_audio/


----------



## K_19

I've finally decided to just go back to foobar when I install bootcamp Windows 7 (not just for music reasons though; I need to install it anyway). Although many of these osx players sound good, they all seem to have little glitches and most of all, I've become too used to foobar interface that I've used for the past 7 years.
   
  I'll keep an eye on how these softwares all develop over time though


----------



## MrQ

Quote: 





turimbar1 said:


> yeah the albums I am talking about are late 80s early 90s albums, some vinnie moore and marty friedman, not recent stuff, so that explains it
> 
> ps Mrspeakers and kwkarth, I know this is off topic (about audio players) but I am interested in learning about sound engineering, I was just wondering if you or any of the other members have any advice for me. Thanks in advance


 

  
  A good magazine I've bough for years is *Sound On Sound. *It's a UK mag, but they deliver internationally and they have a version online
http://www.soundonsound.com/Contents.php
   
  Back on topic. I downloaded *Pure Music, Fedelia, Amarra and Audirvana*. I wanted to find something that would sync with my iTunes library
  Which is now getting rather large 
   
*Pure Music*.
  After wading through the manual, it was actually quite straight forward and seems hugely customisable once you get into it. 
  Downside. If you do some thing it doesn't like, it wont play the files and you have to restart both itunes and PM.
  Sound wise, well it doesn't sound any worse than iTunes. But nothing leaped out at me to say it was superior.  
  Integrates well with my existing library.
   
  It was unable to play a couple of aiff files, both 4608 kbps / 90.000 kHz  When I emailed PM they quickly got back to me offering an
  online remote session so they could see what the problem was. This I was really impressed with. It makes one feel confident to know 
  that if something goes wrong they will actually respond _and_ try to help.
   
*Fedelia.*
  Pretty interface. Big downside for me was that it felt it necessary to recreate it's own version of my library, every time I started the program.
  Which means go off and make a cup of tea while it reproduces 700GB of file data for it's own convenience. 
  Sound; *again shrugs shoulders*
  Interface; It seemed the most stable but was also unable to play my hires file. emailed them got a job number two days ago...
   
*Amarra *
  Demo'd both the mini and full version. Smooth integration with my library, until tracks started hanging and stuttering, like they had taken 
  a half second sample and left it on repeat. 
  I just burst out laughing switched it off and uninstalled it. Seriously, if I had payed a couple of hundred quid even for the mini version
  I would not expect that right out of the box.
   
*Audirvana*
  Appears to be more of a stand alone player and not what I wanted. There didn't seem to be any guide, unless someone knows different.
   
  So Pure Music is still in my menu bar. I need to download some tunes from HD Tracks and see if it's worth keeping. But as far as playing 
  standard bit/sample rates I'll stick with iTunes. It's not perfect, but it works.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> I can't give you much current advice, but you might want to spend some time at some of the excellent web sites that abound these days.  Such as: http://www.prosoundweb.com/studyhall/lastudyhall/slm/slm.shtml
> 
> Depending your current level of experience and interests, decide which direction in sound engineering you want to go.  Sound system engineering, acoustical engineering, recording engineering, etc.  Then go to school and hit the books.   Take advantage of all the internships you can.  Good luck!
> 
> Another good link: http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/what_can_go_wrong_seven_habits_that_can_ruin_your_career_in_audio/


 


  It's a fun field, but as kwkarth notes, there are hugely varied ways to approach it.  There's acoustics, which can go from manning sound boards to design concert halls, there's engineering, which can be digital or analog, and vary from speakers to amps to DSP.  Good luck in finding a field that suits you...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

This has been a sore spot of mine for some time. You'd think that with rock/pop music, levels would be pretty easy to manage since it's usually just, LOUD. Not too many dynamics to consider. Watching the metering with Pure Music is kinda revealing e.g. Norah Jones and the Malick group. Once the music begins, it's all squashed/compressed up near -3db with peaks over 0db resulting clipping. Analogue tape was much more forgiving (unless it was really overdriven and sustained), since a few instantaneous peaks into the +3db range didn't do much to alter the sound quality. However, with the advent of digital recording, the effect of clipping makes a jumbled, mangled mess of the music. It's like they squash/compress the Dicken's out of the music, ripping the life out of it. Guess it makes sense if you listen on a train, a bus or your car.  
   
      
  
  Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> BTW, has anyone else noticed just how many recordings are digitally clipping?
> 
> With my current rig, I can really hear that a lot of rock/pop recordings are clipping.  It's quite distracting.  I hear it with every player, and finally Pure Music showed just how many discs were hitting "red" on the peak meter.  It's not their upsampling, either, this is showing the raw data...
> 
> ...


----------



## middachten

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> This has been a sore spot of mine for some time. You'd thing that with rock/pop music, levels would be pretty easy to manage since it's usually just, LOUD. Not too many dynamics to consider. Watching the metering with Pure Music is kinda revealing e.g. Norah Jones and the Malick group. Once the music begins, it's all squashed/compressed up near -3db with peaks over 0db resulting clipping. Analogue tape was much more forgiving (unless it was really overdriven and sustained), since a few instantaneous peaks into the +3db range didn't do much to alter the sound quality. However, with the advent of digital recording, the effect of clipping makes a jumbled, mangled mess of the music. It's like they squash/compress the Dicken's out of the music, ripping the life out of it. Guess it makes sense if you listen on a train, a bus or your car.


 

 Welcome to the 'Loudness War'!
  Its going on for decades now. Highly respected mastering engineers such as Bob Katz are fighting against this music-destroying habit of many so called 'professionals' in the audio engineering scene. 
   
  Try listening to some recordings of the likes of Chesky Records and Reference Recordings and you learn how much different it can be done!
   
  BTW Mr. Katz has an excellent book on this subject and a very informative website http://www.digido.com/audiofaq.html.


----------



## Palantiri7

I just wanted to thank everyone for this thread. I've settled for Decibel which I think sounds more "organic" than iTunes on my system. MacPro optical-->Audio-gd NFB-3-->Purity Audio KICAS/Little Dot II-->HD650/K701


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





middachten said:


> Welcome to the 'Loudness War'!
> Its going on for decades now. Highly respected mastering engineers such as Bob Katz are fighting against this music-destroying habit of many so called 'professionals' in the audio engineering scene.
> 
> Try listening to some recordings of the likes of Chesky Records and Reference Recordings and you learn how much different it can be done!
> ...


 

 Great link!


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Interesting you should bring up Chesky! I've been a big fan of Chesky and Bob Katz, so I was pretty excited when I was able to finally download some of the very early Chesky pieces I own. After hearing Pure Music, and finding Bob Katz's endorsement of same pushed me to its purchase. Chesky has been my reference in the digital domain; Sheffield Labs has been my analogue reference. Recently, I've also been following Bill Schnee's efforts at Bravura Records. The samples on the Bravura Records site sound extremely promising. 
   
  Quote: 





middachten said:


> Welcome to the 'Loudness War'!
> Its going on for decades now. Highly respected mastering engineers such as Bob Katz are fighting against this music-destroying habit of many so called 'professionals' in the audio engineering scene.
> 
> Try listening to some recordings of the likes of Chesky Records and Reference Recordings and you learn how much different it can be done!
> ...


----------



## iVinyl

I have only recently taken to portable and computer audio, having been playing with audio reproduction since the days of Peter Belt. I have been flicking through the 23 pages of this thread searching for a very simple answer. If I take a program like Decibel and iTunes and each case, play a lossless file, captured from a CD and use an external DAC on a Mac - are we saying that the data on the spdif is different between the two?  I had a similar question with regard to Rockbox and a iPod 5.5g and when it came down to it, with flat EQ, the answer was quits. Is that the same here. It's nice to play but if the outcome is the same,......


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Interesting you should bring up Chesky! I've been a big fan of Chesky and Bob Katz, so I was pretty excited when I was able to finally download some of the very early Chesky pieces I own. After hearing Pure Music, and finding Bob Katz's endorsement of same pushed me to its purchase. Chesky has been my reference in the digital domain; Sheffield Labs has been my analogue reference. Recently, I've also been following Bill Schnee's efforts at Bravura Records. The samples on the Bravura Records site sound extremely promising.


 

 re Bravura...  Bravo!  I like what I hear.  I can't wait 'till they release more projects!


----------



## mrspeakers

A lossless copy of a CD will be "bit perfect."  However, players may alter the signal, or leave it in tact, depending on their settings.  iTunes is bit-perfect if all the sound level, EQ, cross fade, are off and volume in the player is at Mac (some DAC's override the iTunes volume to force bit perfect out).  Other apps, like Amarra, Fidelia and Pure Music have upsampling, which definitely alters the output, most people think in a positive way (I'm a big fan of upsampling via software). Most players either are bit perfect because they don't process (assuming volume is at full, EQ is off, etc. like iTunes), or have a bit-perfect output mode, e.g. Pure Music if the volume adjustment is at "0" and the upsampling is off.
   
  Lot's of different opinions exist on whether you can hear a difference between "bit perfect" output over USB or SPDIF.  
   
  My POV is absolutely not if you have a DAC that has it's own master clock off USB, jitter is irrelevant and if the data is actually bit-perfect, there should be no difference (or there's some gross problem in the system).  Others claim to hear a clear difference, but nobody (IMHO) has actually explained how that's possible.  
   
  Of course, some people hear cables "break in" too (he added, pouring fuel on the fire).  My ears are either tin, or there's a lot of wishful thinking and placebo going on...  I will concede my ears could be tin.


----------



## mrspeakers

Chesky rocks.
   
  BTW, I think they operate HDTracks.


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote:


mrspeakers said:


> Chesky rocks.
> 
> BTW, I think they operate HDTracks.


 

 They do indeed.


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> (some DAC's override the iTunes volume to force bit perfect out)


 

  Just to clarify, some DACs will override the system volume, but not iTunes volume.


----------



## vert

Quote: 





> My POV is absolutely not if you have a DAC that has it's own master clock off USB, jitter is irrelevant and if the data is actually bit-perfect, there should be no difference (or there's some gross problem in the system).  Others claim to hear a clear difference, but nobody (IMHO) has actually explained how that's possible.


 
  Is the master clock same as the PLL clock on DACs?
   
  The Chord QBD76 dac I have has a PLL clock and ram buffer, and it sounds different through every type of connection. This should not be happening! But I don't blame you for being skeptical, I spoke to Chord personally and they were surprised also.
   
  The Naim dac has an alternative technology to a PLL clock to deal with jitter. I'd really like to hear it to see if it can handle a high jitter connection better.


----------



## mrspeakers

The Chord looks interesting.  I don't know how it's setup, but from your brief description, I am with the chord engineers, that doesn't make sense.  But unless you're working with a partner to do true blind testing, it's extremely hard to keep your own biases and expectations out of the "hearing" process (no offense, it applies to everyone, including me).  It'd be interesting to see if you had the same experience doing true blind testing, in a statistically relevant way (assuming the Chord is working to spec).


----------



## grokit

I posted this in the Woo thread earlier in response to another post regarding Pure Music, but it is more appropriate for this thread so I am breaking nettequette somewhat to re-post it here:

   

  I have pretty much narrowed it down to Pure Music or nothing as far as a Mac music-playing alternative to iTunes.

   

  My reasons:

   


 seamless integration with iTunes
 the license works for multiple computers (without a dongle)
 it will run on Leopard as well as Snow Leopard
 it will run on G4 as well as G5/Intel machines
 Channel D is reportedly quite responsive as far as product support goes
   

  I haven't found any other music player that meets all of these requirements.

   

  I will be  trying the demo soon...


----------



## JIGF

Fidelia has been giving some errors and shutting down regularly when using shuffle.


----------



## vert

Quote: 





> But unless you're working with a partner to do true blind testing, it's extremely hard to keep your own biases and expectations out of the "hearing" process (no offense, it applies to everyone, including me).


 
  No need a for a blind test. Toslink via a macbook is a very high jitter connection and the DAC (even with a clock) will not be able to handle the connection without major sound degradation. There's a night and day difference between Toslink and a low jitter USB converter.
   
  Anyway, getting back to the thread, I will try Decibel and Fidelia when I get a Rega DAC.


----------



## tru blu

Spot-on about Ecoute's smooth look and social-media interfaces, Currawong. I dunno, though…I just started a 15-day trial (kinda interested in its Facebook capabilities), and I think I like the sound better in iTunes. Ecoute's playback seems reverb-y or something.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





vert said:


> No need a for a blind test. Toslink via a macbook is a very high jitter connection and the DAC (even with a clock) will not be able to handle the connection without major sound degradation. There's a night and day difference between Toslink and a low jitter USB converter.  Oh, and the "no need for a blind test"
> 
> Anyway, getting back to the thread, I will try Decibel and Fidelia when I get a Rega DAC.


 
   
  This is your opinion on Toslink, it's not a "fact," and you are in fact wrong in that Toslink jitter can be reduced just as well as USB, and many products exist to do this.  
   
  The point of blind A/B testing is that you clearly have opinions and beliefs, like Toslink is bad, or that you hear differences in inputs that others, including the manufacturer, are surprised by.  So this indicates that YOU are a variable that should be removed from the equation, if possible.   
   
  I think it's worth stating this, because, again, we all have bias that affects what we hear, and with software players, there is obviously a lot of that going on in this thread.  It's easy to say "I like the interface" or "I like this because it does X..." but it's much harder to talk about how different software sounds when we're manipulating the test, forming opinions, and self-validating the results...


----------



## Rumbleripper

HI Everyone:
   
  Been following this thread for a while. I was initially inclined to Amarra, after trying Pure Music, Decibel, Fidelia,, and for a short time Audirvana. After using it for a while, the bugs started to get to me. Shutting down for no reason, at the end of a track the sound would stutter on all tracks etc. After one last shut down, being fed up, I started rolling players. Went with Fidelia for a while and liked the sound, but after one of the updates, whenever I launch the program, nothing shows up, and all menu items are greyed!
  So I gave up on that. Tried Decibel again, but was not impressed. Then I went to Audirvana (now at version 0.7.2) and I was amazed! I had last tried it I believe at version 5 or 6 and was not impressed, but sound wise, at its current level it is easily IMO the best sounding player, even better than Amarra. This afternoon I re-tried all the players with some songs I know quite well, and the differences are quite noticeable. Again Audirvana was easily the best sounding to my ears.
   
  My current system so far is as follows:
   
  MacMini 2.4 Core 2 duo, 4 Gigs, 10.6.6 64bit server, 2 500G HD's, 750G external Firewire 800 Drive (holding iTunes Library), JK Modded HiFace, BNC out (with 18Db attenuators), to Matrix mini-i, Balanced out XLR to Woo Audio WA22 then balanced to my HD 650 headphones. My WA22 currently has EML 5U4G rectifier, Sylvania 7236 Power tubes, and ShuGuang CV181-Z Treasure Tubes.
  Given that Audirvana is donationware at the moment, makes this all the more impressive.
  I do not mind the interface currently. It would be nice if it integrated better with iTunes WRT playcounts and song ratings. But cut and paste playlists works very well and not difficult to do at all (similar to loading a CD or playing a LP).
  It still has a few bugs to work out, but compared to other players out there (esp the high priced, beta software ones), nothing I can't live with.
  Problems I have detected in my usage were:
  In gapless playback of albums there is a very slight "audible click" barely audible, but there nonetheless.
  The Playlist cannot be reordered, or played in shuffle mode.
  The Sample Rate Converter SRC libSampleRate cannot convert songs in real time without stalling (the Core 2 duo is taxed to the max and cannot keep up) however Apple CoreAudio can keep up no problems and sounds excellent.
  When playing occasionally get the "CPU Over" message and the music kicks out. I think this has to do with the sample rate settings, and I do believe that at 2 or 4 times oversampling it does not do this.
  Thats it so far, I am very impressed with it.
   
  I will be making a donation towards further refinement of this excellent player.
   
  I am quite sure that system synergy does play a very important role in how all these players integrate into a setup. All I can say, is that with my system and setup, Audirvana is the clear winner. I do have a fairly high end system, so perhaps if the system used  is not as resolving these differences may not show up, leading listeners to conclude that there is very little (or no) differences between these players. 
  Note, I have a Calyx 32/194 DAC and the Audeze LCD-2's on order and both hopefully will be here tomorrow, and will re-evaluate everything again once my new components are here.
   
  Rumble


----------



## ttan98

Quote: 





rumbleripper said:


> HI Everyone:
> 
> Been following this thread for a while. I was initially inclined to Amarra, after trying Pure Music, Decibel, Fidelia,, and for a short time Audirvana. After using it for a while, the bugs started to get to me. Shutting down for no reason, at the end of a track the sound would stutter on all tracks etc. After one last shut down, being fed up, I started rolling players. Went with Fidelia for a while and liked the sound, but after one of the updates, whenever I launch the program, nothing shows up, and all menu items are greyed!
> So I gave up on that. Tried Decibel again, but was not impressed. Then I went to Audirvana (now at version 0.7.2) and I was amazed! I had last tried it I believe at version 5 or 6 and was not impressed, but sound wise, at its current level it is easily IMO the best sounding player, even better than Amarra. This afternoon I re-tried all the players with some songs I know quite well, and the differences are quite noticeable. Again Audirvana was easily the best sounding to my ears.
> ...


 

 I  tend to agree with you I was using Audirvana Version 6.0, I switched to Version 7.2 there was a big difference in sound quality. I prefer Audirvana over the rest.


----------



## uelover

i almost decided to pay for PM and Fidelia until I saw your post that there was an update for Audirvana! Was using v6 before and after updating it to v7 I can say that I like it a lot!
   
  I get none of the problems mentioned by Rumbleripper and the UI for v7 is great.
   
  You saved my day and my wallet! =D


----------



## ajreynol

Audirvana! is pretty cool. I think I'd like it more if I could access my iTunes library and playlists like I can in Fidelia. 

Sounds great, though.


----------



## vert

I agree with you, Audirvana has taken huge strides since the addition of integer mode. It was quite mechanical and hard sounding before.


----------



## mrspeakers

Nice UI.  Definitely will try it.


----------



## grokit

I might have to try Audirvana as well for the occasional FLAC files that I listen to on my Mac.

  
  Quote: 





vert said:


> No need a for a blind test. Toslink via a macbook is a very high jitter connection and the DAC (even with a clock) will not be able to handle the connection without major sound degradation. There's a night and day difference between Toslink and a low jitter USB converter.


 
   
  Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> This is your opinion on Toslink, it's not a "fact," and you are in fact wrong in that Toslink jitter can be reduced just as well as USB, and many products exist to do this.


 
   

 I have tried optical through a coax converter with it's own jitter clock with a couple of different DACs and had very different results. On one it made a very audible improvement and on the one with an excellent jitter re-clocking system of it's own not so much. So I would agree that it really depends on the DAC's individual capabilities.


----------



## Currawong

Looks like they have vastly improved the UI for Audirvana, so I might have to give it another go.


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Looks like they have vastly improved the UI for Audirvana, so I might have to give it another go.


 
  My thoughts exactly. I'm currently using Decibel after trying everything else.


----------



## tru blu

Unfortunately, I can't get Audirvana…only runs on Mac OS 10.6. Oh, well…
   
  I should add that Ecoute's social-media initiatives aren't really available yet, which is making it kinda useless to me.


----------



## iamoneagain

I really liked Audirvana's sound too but still had issues with it.  Main thing is it doesn't do perfect gapless on my system.  I hear when tracks change.  It also forces midi to 24 bit.  So if you use it and then go back and try you other players, they may not sound as good as you remember.  Decibel sounds best in 16 bit on my system and I think it ends up sounding better than Audirvana in the end.  Audirvana sounds a little more open but I find myself enjoying my music and listening longer when I use Decibel.  It's also the only one I haven't have any bugs with.  Amarra is the worst, Fidelia doesn't even open anymore, Audivrana has occasional skips, and Pure Music acts weird if you play around with iTunes menu.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> I really liked Audirvana's sound too but still had issues with it.  Main thing is it doesn't do perfect gapless on my system.  I hear when tracks change.  It also forces midi to 24 bit.  So if you use it and then go back and try you other players, they may not sound as good as you remember.  Decibel sounds best in 16 bit on my system and I think it ends up sounding better than Audirvana in the end.  Audirvana sounds a little more open but I find myself enjoying my music and listening longer when I use Decibel.  It's also the only one I haven't have any bugs with.  Amarra is the worst, Fidelia doesn't even open anymore, Audivrana has occasional skips, and Pure Music acts weird if you play around with iTunes menu.


 

 Hmm the previous version of audirvana does force midi to be set to 24bit but the latest version doesn't. I have mine playing at 16bit.
  What is the spec of your mac? I am using macbook pro and I get gapless play too.
   
  Hope that you will be able to fix those bugs and enjoy audirvana because it triumphs decibel on my system!


----------



## bulmanxxi

Audirvana forces my MIDI to 32-bit, which totally messes up the audio for any other player and the system, and only a PRAM reset/restart fixes it.  There is still no search box for long playlists.  Otherwise, the developer is making regular updates so far...  Can't really say "trumps" the other player though.  They each sound good albeit perhaps just slightly different.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Hmm the previous version of audirvana does force midi to be set to 24bit but the latest version doesn't. I have mine playing at 16bit.
> What is the spec of your mac? I am using macbook pro and I get gapless play too.
> 
> Hope that you will be able to fix those bugs and enjoy audirvana because it triumphs decibel on my system!


 


  I think the midi setting depends on what DAC you use and how it's hooked up.  I use mine thru optical.  I get gapless with Audirvana but there is this micro-gap that you can barely hear.  It's the same way on Amarra.  With Decibel and Pure Music, gapless is perfect.  I like Decibel's method better than Pure Music for achieving gapless. Pure Music loads entire album into memory while I think Decibel only had up 2 tracks loaded at any time.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I'm in the process of upgrading my older generation iMac (G5 w/2GB), so take this with a grain of salt. Once I get my new MacBook Pro, I'll test it again.
   
  Does PM load the entire folder for a given album? Presently, while playing my FLAC media -- running PM in hog/hybrid/memory mode -- it starts the next track gapless while loading the rest of the track into memory. However, it does this one track at a time. Is this maybe the result of my limited memory model? What is your experience with more memory?  
  Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> I think the midi setting depends on what DAC you use and how it's hooked up.  I use mine thru optical.  I get gapless with Audirvana but there is this micro-gap that you can barely hear.  It's the same way on Amarra.  With Decibel and Pure Music, gapless is perfect.  I like Decibel's method better than Pure Music for achieving gapless. Pure Music loads entire album into memory while I think Decibel only had up 2 tracks loaded at any time.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I'm in the process of upgrading my older generation iMac (G5 w/2GB), so take this with a grain of salt. Once I get my new MacBook Pro, I'll test it again.
> 
> Does PM load the entire folder for a given album? Presently, while playing my FLAC media -- running PM in hog/hybrid/memory mode -- it starts the next track gapless while loading the rest of the track into memory. However, it does this one track at a time. Is this maybe the result of my limited memory model? What is your experience with more memory?


 
   
   
  Pure Music will load entire album only if gapless is checked within iTunes settings for each album.  Otherwise it loads one track at a time.


----------



## bulmanxxi

The 32-bit forcing of MIDI is actually happening WITH and WITHOUT DAC, so it doesn't seem to be related to the DAC.


----------



## IPodPJ

Decibel and Play have the best sound quality, but the worst user interfaces.  Decibel has a tad more detail precision. Play has better midrange and bass fullness and a wider soundstage.  No other Mac program even compares in the SQ department.


----------



## tru blu

Been messing around with Play a bit today, and the sound is considerably better than iTunes. There's a glitch, though: When I try to add AIFF files from iTunes to Play's library, it doesn't import the titles or any other info except the times and type of file ("AIFF"). The lossier formats (mp3s and AAC files from LPs I've digitized) seem to import just fine with all the info, which seems kinda silly to me. If someone can explain why that is or if there's a way around it I'm all ears, because the fidelity is pretty amazing. If Decibel sounds like this (but without that glitch) I'd actually consider purchasing it.


----------



## bulmanxxi

Never used Play but can't imagine they'd intentionally make Decibel worse...  Decibel is very nice... so are all the other ones but each has its differences and features


----------



## MrQ

Quote: 





tru blu said:


> Been messing around with Play a bit today, and the sound is considerable better than iTunes. There's a glitch, though: When I try to add AIFF files from iTunes to Play's library, it doesn't import the titles or any other info except the times and type of file ("AIFF"). The lossier formats (mp3s and AAC files from LPs I've digitized) seem to import just fine with all the info, which seems kinda silly to me. If someone can explain why that is or if there's a way around it I'm all ears, because the fidelity is pretty amazing. If Decibel sounds like this (but without that glitch) I'd actually consider purchasing it.


 
   
  That just happened to me when I downloaded it a couple of hour ago. First I dragged and dropped a playlist from iTunes and had no data except time and type. So pulled the files straight from the HD, no change.
   
  Decibel, I can't seem to find the .app from the download?


----------



## tru blu

Quote: 





mrq said:


> Decibel, I can't seem to find the .app from the download?


 

 Yeah, seems like that won't work for me, glitch or no. Like Audirvana, Decibel is only compatible with OS 10.6 and above. Guess I'm locked out…


----------



## MrQ

Quote: 





tru blu said:


> Yeah, seems like that won't work for me, glitch or no. Like Audirvana, Decibel is only compatible with OS 10.6 and above. Guess I'm locked out…


 

 I've got 10.6.6  Go figure?


----------



## vert

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *mrspeakers* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> This is your opinion on Toslink, it's not a "fact," and you are in fact wrong in that Toslink jitter can be reduced just as well as USB, and many products exist to do this.


 
  The jitter from toslink from a computer is 1000ps+. You're telling me there's a DAC out there that can handle that without sound degradation? If so I'll buy it. If there were DACs out there that could handle that kind of jitter, Empirical Audio would no longer be in business with their Pace Car reclocker. The Naim DAC might be able to do it, but I'll believe it when I hear it.


----------



## ajreynol

wait, so Toslink (real glass, not plastic) is worse than USB?


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





ajreynol said:


> wait, so Toslink (real glass, not plastic) is worse than USB?


 

 Doubt it.
   
  edit: Although I have not read any information about how jitter prone Toslink is.


----------



## Eating Pie

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> I really liked Audirvana's sound too but still had issues with it.  Main thing is it doesn't do perfect gapless on my system.  I hear when tracks change.  It also forces midi to 24 bit.  So if you use it and then go back and try you other players, they may not sound as good as you remember.  Decibel sounds best in 16 bit on my system and I think it ends up sounding better than Audirvana in the end.  Audirvana sounds a little more open but I find myself enjoying my music and listening longer when I use Decibel.  It's also the only one I haven't have any bugs with.  Amarra is the worst, Fidelia doesn't even open anymore, Audivrana has occasional skips, and Pure Music acts weird if you play around with iTunes menu.


 
   
  I have found that all the players I've tested will skip at some point, depending on RAM availability and disk I/O at the time.  Even Decibel skips and stutters at times, which it actually should never do since it has loaded the whole song in RAM, and transfer to CoreAudio should be instantaneous.  _Should be_ I says.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Quote: 





bulmanxxi said:


> Audirvana forces my MIDI to 32-bit, which totally messes up the audio for any other player and the system, and only a PRAM reset/restart fixes it.  There is still no search box for long playlists.  Otherwise, the developer is making regular updates so far...  Can't really say "trumps" the other player though.  They each sound good albeit perhaps just slightly different.


 

 CoreAudio uses 32 bit floating point as its native format.  As stated earlier in the thread, it's up to the audio device driver to handle to conversion to 24 bit integer (native LPCM) for output via toslink or USB.  This conversion can be bit-perfect, and iTunes tests verify that Apple's driver is indeed bit-perfect over Toslink (and probably USB).
   
  I checked the Audirvana source code, and it looks like you have to convert to 32 bit before passing the data to CoreAudio, even when dealing with 16 bit data.  So no matter what, you're transferring 32 bit float into Core Audio.  That's what makes the 24 bit / 32 bit settings so mysterious; where does that actually come in to play?
   
  The other mystery is Audirvana's "Integer Mode."  Once again, Audirvana must transfer to CoreAudio using 32 bit floating point, so what exactly does "Integer Mode" mean?
   
  -Pie


----------



## Eating Pie

Quote: 





vert said:


> The jitter from toslink from a computer is 1000ps+. You're telling me there's a DAC out there that can handle that without sound degradation? If so I'll buy it. If there were DACs out there that could handle that kind of jitter, Empirical Audio would no longer be in business with their Pace Car reclocker. The Naim DAC might be able to do it, but I'll believe it when I hear it.






 Where exactly do you get this number?  Jitter of that degree is compete destruction!  And I get fine output via toslink to my V-DAC.  You can even see a wave-form test earlier in the thread which demonstrates accurate output from the Mac's Toslink.  Heck, I have a HiFace USB to SPDIF reclocker, but I honestly can't tell a difference.
   
  Now the question of Empirical Audio's business is a total non-sequiter here.  They would stay in business regardless because (a) their products may actually work and/or (b) audiophiles can be nuts some times (spoken from one nut to another!).
   
  -Pie


----------



## vert

Quote: 





> Tested with the Esoteric D-07 . . . the TosLink output of my MacBook gave 1049ps p–p


 
   
  John Atkinson, Stereophile Halide Bridge review.
   
  I'm sure there are DACs out there that can reduce jitter to a certain amount, but when you're starting out with that much jitter, I have no doubt it will affect the sound via artifacts. Maybe the Naim DAC is different, and I'd like to hear it. Unfortunately, the higher end you go, the more you'll be able to hear it.
   
  In regards to Empirical, I have had the Off Ramp and it is very low jitter. So much lower that there's really no comparison to straight toslink from the Mac.
   
  In any case, I easily hear differences between Audirvana and Decibel. Everyone has a different opinion of course, and some people have told me iTunes sounds as good as the other players if you have SDD.


----------



## Currawong

1000ps = 1ns, fyi.
   
  I'm liking Audirvana in hog+integer mode. Not sure why. I don't imagine that it is necessarily "bit perfect" but whatever it is doing is great, all the same.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





vert said:


> The jitter from toslink from a computer is 1000ps+. You're telling me there's a DAC out there that can handle that without sound degradation? If so I'll buy it. If there were DACs out there that could handle that kind of jitter, Empirical Audio would no longer be in business with their Pace Car reclocker. The Naim DAC might be able to do it, but I'll believe it when I hear it.


 


  Dude are you reading a thing I am saying?  What part of "re-clocking" isn't clear?  If you reclock, the jitter is reduced to whatever level the re-clocking circuit provides.  I've not said anything about raw Toslin without reclocking, have I? I am only talking about devices that reclock the Toslink.  The effect is measurable, provable, etc.  You can believe what you want, I'm done on this one, as your belief is out of line with facts and/or your not actually reading what I'm saying.  You are, as always, entitled to your beliefs, but not to your own facts...


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Dude are you reading a thing I am saying?  What part of "re-clocking" isn't clear?  If you reclock, the jitter is reduced to whatever level the re-clocking circuit provides.  I've not said anything about raw Toslin without reclocking, have I? I am only talking about devices that reclock the Toslink.  The effect is measurable, provable, etc.  You can believe what you want, I'm done on this one, as your belief is out of line with facts and/or your not actually reading what I'm saying.  You are, as always, entitled to your beliefs, but not to your own facts...


 
  Easy does it my friend.  Perhaps your posts were misunderstood?


----------



## IPodPJ

Quote: 





currawong said:


> 1000ps = 1ns, fyi.
> 
> I'm liking Audirvana in hog+integer mode. Not sure why. I don't imagine that it is necessarily "bit perfect" but whatever it is doing is great, all the same.


 

 Give Decibel and Play a try.  You'll really like the sound quality, and a Mac Mini has the best stock optical output of any Mac.  Decibel uses 64-bit floating point operation, whereas Play is 32-bit.  They each have their upsides, but they both kill everything else out there in my opinion.  Amarra really doesn't even come close.  Unfortunately Decibel only gives you a 24 hour trial period, which is really weak.  I paid the $33 to buy it though since I am waiting for my modified Transporter to be repaired (which sounds better than any direct-from-computer digital output).  But if you don't mind the very poor user interfaces on these two programs and only care about sound quality then give them a try.  Play is free.


----------



## Currawong

I have already bought Decibel. It has been my default for a while.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

i prefer audirvana to decibel or Play, though i did like decibel quite a bit. i running optical out of my MBP into my AGD sparrow


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





bulmanxxi said:


> The 32-bit forcing of MIDI is actually happening WITH and WITHOUT DAC, so it doesn't seem to be related to the DAC.


 

 I went to check out the setting.. Mine's running at 16bit...
  My USB/SPDIF converter supports input up to 96khz 24bit though..


----------



## tru blu

Quote: 





mrq said:


> I've got 10.6.6  Go figure?


 

 My MacBook is about two years old…I have OS 10.5.8, just before they upped it to 10.6 Snow Leopard. I have no need to upgrade, and my guess is that S. Booth has stopped fiddling with Play now that Decibel has been launched as a commercial entity. Those glitches in Play aren't likely to be fixed.


----------



## turimbar1

Quote: 





ipodpj said:


> Give Decibel and Play a try.  You'll really like the sound quality, and a Mac Mini has the best stock optical output of any Mac.  Decibel uses 64-bit floating point operation, whereas Play is 32-bit.  They each have their upsides, but they both kill everything else out there in my opinion.  Amarra really doesn't even come close.  Unfortunately Decibel only gives you a 24 hour trial period, which is really weak.  I paid the $33 to buy it though since I am waiting for my modified Transporter to be repaired (which sounds better than any direct-from-computer digital output).  But if you don't mind the very poor user interfaces on these two programs and only care about sound quality then give them a try.  Play is free.


 

 lol, I would hope he already has, seeing as he began this thread. Audirvana in hog+integer mode IS very impressive, even without a DAC, lol.


----------



## Eating Pie

Quote: 





currawong said:


> 1000ps = 1ns, fyi.


 
  Oops.  Yeah, that's a difference all right.  
   
  Seems like there are some relevant bits about jitter that really put that number in context.  The article at Stereophile and relevant bits follow:
   
http://www.stereophile.com/content/halide-design-spdif-bridge-usb-spdif-converter-measurements
   
  Quote: 





> The USB Prober program revealed that the Halide Bridge operated in asynchronous isochronous mode, as specified. The "eye pattern" of the S/PDIF data waveform was wide open and free from timing uncertainty at its start and end (fig.1), and the Audio Precision System SYS2722 calculated the jitter in the S/PDIF datastream to be a very low 345 picoseconds peak. For reference, the other three USB–S/PDIF converters I have tested—theBel Canto USB Link 24/96, Lindemann USB-DDC 24/96, and Stello U2—respectively measured 2.91 nanoseconds (2910ps), 444ps, and 395ps, all with a 50Hz–100kHz measurement bandwidth.
> ...
> Tested with the Esoteric D-07, with which I thought the Halide Bridge worked well, the TosLink output of my MacBook gave 1049ps p–p; the MacBook via the Stello U2 actually increased this slightly, to 1090ps, while the Halide Bridge reduced the measured jitter to 780ps. This indicates that the Halide's Streamlength code works as advertised.


 
   
  That 345 peak is considered low, with the Bell Canto coming in at 2910ps!  Suddenly the MacBook looks at lot better.
   
  -Pie


----------



## jronan2

Someone recommended that I try audirana. I downloaded it and been using it the last 2 days, I think it a good program, especially being free. I am still trying to learn the interface with the limited time I've used it. But I cant seem to find any EQ options, am I blind, not looking in the right spot, or the program doesn't allow such an option? I apologize in advance if this was a dumb question.


----------



## ttan98

Quote: 





jronan2 said:


> Someone recommended that I try audirana. I downloaded it and been using it the last 2 days, I think it a good program, especially being free. I am still trying to learn the interface with the limited time I've used it. But I cant seem to find any EQ options, am I blind, not looking in the right spot, or the program doesn't allow such an option? I apologize in advance if this was a dumb question.


 

 No equalizer.


----------



## kwkarth

VOX


----------



## jronan2

I'm grateful that it's free and sounds good, but that sucks


----------



## ajreynol

I like Decibel. 

Sounds great.

Still, Fidelia's plug-in support is just so darn good. Idk, I'll just keep using both. I wish either offered a column browser like iTunes.


----------



## jronan2

You like decibel better than audirvana?


----------



## ajreynol

meh, they're pretty much the same when it comes to audio playback. as such, it just kinda comes down to which interface you prefer.

IMO, of course. it's a game of millimeters. 

I appreciate the fact that I can control what's playing in Audirvana with my Apple Remote. Can't do that with Decibel or Fidelia. But it's all minor. I'd stick with the free option unless you want serious control...at which time I'd recommend Fidelia or Amarra.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





ajreynol said:


> meh, they're pretty much the same when it comes to audio playback. as such, it just kinda comes down to which interface you prefer.
> 
> IMO, of course. it's a game of millimeters.
> 
> I appreciate the fact that I can control what's playing in Audirvana with my Apple Remote. Can't do that with Decibel or Fidelia. But it's all minor. I'd stick with the free option unless you want serious control...at which time I'd recommend Fidelia or Amarra.


 
   
  I posted this before but I'll post it again.  This is simple hack that lets you sort of use the iPhone Remote.  If you don't switch to other programs, the Apple IR remote then controls play/pause/ff.  Also works with Audivana.  I requested the Decibel have the option for the IR remote to work no matter what program is selected.  Sounds like they might add as option.
   
  I'm still undecided on which if Decibel or Audirvana sounds better but Decibel definitely runs better.  When I first switch back to Audirvana, I think it sounds much better but then it sounds a little thinner.  So I stick with Decibel since it just works better.
   
  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Audirvana-Decibel-Remoteapp


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Vox is nice and simple. I love how PM integrates with iTunes, plays native FLAC, hog mode, memory, and hybrid, gapless, et al. Fidelia was nice too, and I wish PM had the pre-ring/post-ring filter options. I thought there were differences in SQ between all three, with Fidelia having its own unique signature, lush. Vox was a nice step up from iTunes, but sounded grainy in comparison to PM. PM has the most similar sound quality to my big rig, and so it became my choice.   
   
  Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> VOX


----------



## ajreynol

iamoneagain said:


> I posted this before but I'll post it again.  This is simple hack that lets you sort of use the iPhone Remote.  If you don't switch to other programs, the Apple IR remote then controls play/pause/ff.  Also works with Audivana.  I requested the Decibel have the option for the IR remote to work no matter what program is selected.  Sounds like they might add as option.
> 
> I'm still undecided on which if Decibel or Audirvana sounds better but Decibel definitely runs better.  When I first switch back to Audirvana, I think it sounds much better but then it sounds a little thinner.  So I stick with Decibel since it just works better.
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Audirvana-Decibel-Remoteapp




good to know, though honestly...I think I've used my Apple remote about 3 times in 10 months. It's not going to matter to me either way.

But it is nice to know. Also, I wish I could hear an audio difference between the 2...but I can't. Maybe my rig isn't powerful enough...but I'd be lying if I told you guys I heard any sonic difference because I didn't. and I'd be the first one to jump up and point one out if I heard it.

I do agree that Decibel runs better/faster. that will be enough of a selling point for most people.


----------



## IPodPJ

I'm not sure how some of you think Fidelia sounds better than Decibel.  It doesn't even come close.  What kind of gear are you using?


----------



## Pabro

What a great thread! I'm still using cog to playback ape files. Haven't found my favorite player since switching to Mac yet.


----------



## ajreynol

ipodpj said:


> I'm not sure how some of you think Fidelia sounds better than Decibel.  It doesn't even come close.  What kind of gear are you using?




mine is in my sig. both use 64-bit floating point powaaz. Fidelia, however, goes much farther:




can't customize like that in Decibel or Audrivana.

not to mention support for up to 3 simultaneous plug-ins. if you have some decent ones (like the Sonalksis suite), you can make things sound that much better.

*So I turn and ask you:* what is it about Decibel that you find makes it sound better? My rig is in my sig.


----------



## turimbar1

Quote: 





pabro said:


> What a great thread! I'm still using cog to playback ape files. Haven't found my favorite player since switching to Mac yet.


 
  its quickly becoming a monster where most people just keeps on giving the same (many times opposing) suggestions in some sort of passive agressive semi-argument. Ive caught myself joining in on it too, so im not guiltless.


----------



## IPodPJ

ajreynol,
  I find that Fidelia sounds muddy and lacks detail compared to Decibel, in every area of the spectrum.  I have played with most if not all the settings and it just doesn't sound accurate to me.  My rig is also listed in my sig (as a link).


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





ajreynol said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I assume all these settings makes it no longer bit perfect?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





ajreynol said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  If you want to EQ or customize the sound, then I believe Fidelia or VOX will suit your need better.
   
  I had Fidelia but no matter how I tweak the dithering and resampling setting, the music sounded better with all the settings turned off. I even used hog mode. You can of course say that I don't use any plug-ins to effect the sound. But is effecting the original mix really needed? Not to mention the extra cost of the plug-ins. I don't see people using hardware equalizer on high end audiophile stereo setup either as their purpose is to be as faithful to the source as possible.
   
  With everything turned off on Fidelia, Fidelia merely represents another pretty looking player.
   
  For simple hassle free programs that reproduce the source faithfully, Decibel and Audirvana are awesome IMHO.


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





grokit said:


> Pure Music:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Quote: 





grokit said:


> I might have to try Audirvana as well for the occasional FLAC files that I listen to on my Mac.


 
   
  Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I love how PM integrates with iTunes, plays native FLAC, hog mode, memory, and hybrid, gapless, et al. Fidelia was nice too, and I wish PM had the pre-ring/post-ring filter options. I thought there were differences in SQ between all three, with Fidelia having its own unique signature, lush. Vox was a nice step up from iTunes, but sounded grainy in comparison to PM. PM has the most similar sound quality to my big rig, and so it became my choice.


 
   
   
  What I just posted in the LCD-2 thread:
   
  "While I was listening to my music on random play in iTunes just now I downloaded a demo of Pure Music, and not only didn't I have to even quit iTunes or restart or anything to install it, but I noticed an immediate improvement with the LCD-2's. So another vote for source first but I must say that I had the DAC, amp and headphone cable pretty much optimized already."
   
  I just can't stop listening lol. Also I don't have to worry about trying/learning  anything else for FLAC, PM will let me change iTunes into accepting FLAC files for PM to play back. Big improvement with just the default settings, nothing to learn, a real no-brainer (for me) that I will be paying for well before the free 15-day trial is over.
   
   
   
  Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> I assume all these settings makes it no longer bit perfect?


 

 I'm starting to look at "bit perfect" as a point of reference for un-enhanced resolution, kind of like the RAW codec in digital photography, especially if you are playing back a lossless file. By itself it doesn't mean much more to me as far as how the music will sound, perhaps it says more about how the music will not sound.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





grokit said:


> What I just posted in the LCD-2 thread:
> 
> "While I was listening to my music on random play in iTunes just now I downloaded a demo of Pure Music, and not only didn't I have to even quit iTunes or restart or anything to install it, but I noticed an immediate improvement with the LCD-2's. So another vote for source first but I must say that I had the DAC, amp and headphone cable pretty much optimized already."
> 
> ...


 
  I downloaded and listened to PM for the first time last night, and I have to say, though obviously different sounding than straight iTunes, I'm not prepared to say one is clearly "better" than the other.  I hear manipulation of the soundstage and ambiance, and subtle FR changes, but I haven't decided which is more true to life.
   
  My current mode of operation is to separate all my FLAC files into their own directory structure and play them with VOX, everything else is played and managed by iTunes.


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> I downloaded and listened to PM for the first time last night, and I have to say, though obviously different sounding than straight iTunes, I'm not prepared to say one is clearly "better" than the other.  I hear manipulation of the soundstage and ambiance, and subtle FR changes, but I haven't decided which is more true to life.
> 
> My current mode of operation is to separate all my FLAC files into their own directory structure and play them with VOX, everything else is played and managed by iTunes.


 
   
  Interested to see what you conclude. The improvements are there for me on three different Mac rigs, but they're not all the same or to the same degree.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





grokit said:


> Interested to see what you conclude. The improvements are there for me on three different Mac rigs, but they're not all the same or to the same degree.


 
  I've confined my experimentation currently to my MB Air which has SSD.  "Disk" file retrieval is blindingly fast compared to any conventional hard drive I've seen.  Waaay faster than my MacBook Pro or iMac.  Because of that, I've been using the Air for FLAC playback.  I'll let you know how things progress.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

My choice has already been made, but I'm interested in your thoughts *kwkarth*. 
   
  Also, can your elucidate further on what you're hearing re "... manipulation of the soundstage and ambiance, and subtle FR changes." 
   
  EDIT: Generally, I agree with your observations. My conclusions are related to image specificity within the soundstage, with improvements in ambiance retrieval (increased detail and transparency). Not sure about the subtle FR changes. Thanks!  
   
   
   
  Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> I downloaded and listened to PM for the first time last night, and I have to say, though obviously different sounding than straight iTunes, I'm not prepared to say one is clearly "better" than the other.  I hear manipulation of the soundstage and ambiance, and subtle FR changes, but I haven't decided which is more true to life.
> 
> My current mode of operation is to separate all my FLAC files into their own directory structure and play them with VOX, everything else is played and managed by iTunes.


----------



## mr.khali

I have recently been comparing Pure Music with Audirvana.  As stated here earlier they both sound better to my ears than itunes but they are just different flavours.  PM has an increased soundstage while Audirvana seems to enhance vocals and have a more defined sound.  I think I prefer Audirvana but can easily see how someone would prefer the other.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





mr.khali said:


> I have recently been comparing Pure Music with Audirvana.  As stated here earlier they both sound better to my ears than itunes but they are just different flavours.  PM has an increased soundstage while Audirvana seems to enhance vocals and have a more defined sound.  I think I prefer Audirvana but can easily see how someone would prefer the other.


 

 I find PM to make the music sounds more relaxing. It is as if you are listening to the music alone along a stream of water and the natural music of life just come gently towards you. Audirvana makes everything sounds as if you are listening to a live performance in some pub and small stage performance.
   
  I like both depending on my mood and the genre I listen to but Audirvana is free that is one of the best thing around =)


----------



## IPodPJ

Ok well I finally tried Audirvana.  It is the best.  It does beat Decibel.  Here's a scale I worked up for those interested in Mac programs:
   
6th place:  iTunes  -- bad sound quality, great interface  (cost: Free)
5th place:  iTunes + Amarra  --  decent sound quality, good interface  (cost:  $79 for basic)
4th place:  iTunes + Pure Music  -- decent sound quality, good interface  (cost:  $129)
3rd place:  Play  --  good sound quality, really poor interface  (cost: Free, stopped development in 2009)
*2nd place:*  Decibel   --  really good sound quality, poor interface  (cost:  $33, constant development, formerly AyreWave)
*1st place:*  Audirvana  --  superb sound quality, decent interface  (cost:  Free, constant development)
   
  Of course this is only using the Mac Mini optical out, while still considered the best of any of the Macs is not up there with most good transports.  My modded Transporter would eat any of these for breakfast.


----------



## ttan98

Quote: 





ipodpj said:


> Ok well I finally tried Audirvana.  It is the best.  It does beat Decibel.  Here's a scale I worked up for those interested in Mac programs:
> 
> 6th place:  iTunes  -- bad sound quality, great interface  (cost: Free)
> 5th place:  iTunes + Amarra  --  decent sound quality, good interface  (cost:  $79 for basic)
> ...


 

 Have you heard the music reproduction from a modified Mac Mini by Mach2Music? I heard it is very good. Maybe you should try a modified  Mac Mini before making this conclusion.


----------



## khollister

Quote: 





ttan98 said:


> Have you heard the music reproduction from a modified Mac Mini by Mach2Music? I heard it is very good. Maybe you should try a modified  Mac Mini before making this conclusion.


 

 I do have a modified Mac Mini (not from Mach2, done myself) and I agree Audirvana is my top choice at the moment. I would put Pure Music next, followed Amarra in standalone playlist mode (not running with iTunes), followed by Decibel. Pure Music always seems to come out on top as far as soundstage, but the treble is slightly off to my ears. Amarra is very tubelike as far as timbre, but the soundstage is not great. Audirvana has the best balance between timbre, soundstage and air.
   
  My Mini is a 2010 model with 40 GB internal SSD, 4 GB RAM and many services turned off/disabled in the OS for dedicated music use. It is hardwired via gigE to a switch also connected to my Mac Pro, which has the iTunes library. The music files are accessed through a network share on the Pro - there is no external drive on the Mini. The Mini is also headless and is controlled by VNC from my Pro or an iPad.
   
  Bluetooth, Wifi and the IR remote receiver are turned off, as is Spotlight, Dashboard, Spell Checking, disk journaling and a few other things I don't recall off the top of my head. I am also using a Pangea AC14SE power cord on the Mini, and it is run from a PS Audio Power Plant Premier. I also quit the finder. 
   
  And, no I didn't test all of that stuff for sound - I just did everything I could think of or read about out of general principle.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





khollister said:


> I do have a modified Mac Mini (not from Mach2, done myself) and I agree Audirvana is my top choice at the moment. I would put Pure Music next, followed Amarra in standalone playlist mode (not running with iTunes), followed by Decibel. Pure Music always seems to come out on top as far as soundstage, but the treble is slightly off to my ears. Amarra is very tubelike as far as timbre, but the soundstage is not great. Audirvana has the best balance between timbre, soundstage and air.


 

 I sort of agree with this and hear the same things.  I put Pure Music lower on the list because it's this treble balance that bothers me and ruins any benefit you get in soundstage. I believe the increased soundstage is only due to this extra brightness. Amarra has great tube-like tone but does have a narrow soundstage and imprecise instrument placement.  Audirvana and Decibel fight for the top spot in my system. Decibel has a little bit of a close in sound but has the best groove and very good layering. Takes a little bit of listening to appreciate it's sound.  Audirvana sounds great from first listen. Audirvana has nice open soundstage, good placement, and liquid tone. It's only missing in that extra groove Decibel provides but makes up for it with open sound.
   
  Audivana might be top choice if it worked bug free.  Also, I don't like the CD interface.  I read that he's planning an alternative simple interface, sort of like Decibel.  I prefer the simple interface since I'm just bringing over iTunes tracks and playing them.  
   
  I do like that all these players get regular updates and take customer suggestions to heart.  I wish Amarra would do a better job of this.   They usually take so long with updates and then we're still left with a buggy mess.  Think they should offer a public beta program to improve their process. Offer quicker and more timely updates in beta and then do a final release.


----------



## santacore

Quote: 





> *1st place:*  Audirvana  --  superb sound quality, decent interface  (cost:  Free, constant development)


 
  Told you you would like it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  It's probably my favorite sounding player, although the interface is not the best, and the latest version crashes or give me digital ticks whenever I play something. What a bummer!!! Hopefully he will update it soon so that I can enjoy it once again.
   
  For now I'll have to keep listening to Amarra (which I own) or Decibel.


----------



## tru blu

Quote: 





ipodpj said:


> Ok well I finally tried Audirvana.  It is the best.  It does beat Decibel.  Here's a scale I worked up for those interested in Mac programs:
> 
> 6th place:  iTunes  -- bad sound quality, great interface  (cost: Free)
> 5th place:  iTunes + Amarra  --  decent sound quality, good interface  (cost:  $79 for basic)
> ...


 
   
  This is very helpful, but it also means I'm stuck in the Middle Ages. Audirvana seems really cool, but I'll have to wait until I upgrade my operating system (which I don't see happening any time soon) to get it.


----------



## MrQ

Quote: 





tru blu said:


> This is very helpful, but it also means I'm stuck in the Middle Ages. Audirvana seems really cool, but I'll have to wait until I upgrade my operating system (which I don't see happening any time soon) to get it.


 

  
  By the time you are ready to upgrade the Lion will be loose.


----------



## melomaniac

so, this is with your Audio-gd Reference 7.1, right? because I suspect that it may depend a little on your DAC too. some (elsewhere) seem to find Audirvana a bit rolled-off and suggest it matches well with a sharper DAC, while a tubed DAC might be better matched with other software. I have no way to test that theory, if it is one, but it stands to reason. for what it's worth, I just downloaded Audirvana again after deleting it a few weeks ago in favor of PureMusic, and I'll test with my CIA VDA2 DACs on a couple of computers.
  
  Quote: 





ipodpj said:


> Ok well I finally tried Audirvana.  It is the best.  It does beat Decibel.  Here's a scale I worked up for those interested in Mac programs:
> 
> 6th place:  iTunes  -- bad sound quality, great interface  (cost: Free)
> 5th place:  iTunes + Amarra  --  decent sound quality, good interface  (cost:  $79 for basic)
> ...


----------



## IPodPJ

Quote: 





melomaniac said:


> so, this is with your Audio-gd Reference 7.1, right? because I suspect that it may depend a little on your DAC too. some (elsewhere) seem to find Audirvana a bit rolled-off and suggest it matches well with a sharper DAC, while a tubed DAC might be better matched with other software. I have no way to test that theory, if it is one, but it stands to reason. for what it's worth, I just downloaded Audirvana again after deleting it a few weeks ago in favor of PureMusic, and I'll test with my CIA VDA2 DACs on a couple of computers.


 

 It's with the Reference 7.  I won't have the 7.1 for at least a month as the current build time over at Audio-gd is 1-2 months apparently.


----------



## tru blu

Quote: 





mrq said:


> By the time you are ready to upgrade the Lion will be loose.


 

 Oh, hell…


----------



## xmurio

I'm not a fan to iTunes. Thanks for the suggestion and I'll try them.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Can I access my iTunes library from Audirvana?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Can I access my iTunes library from Audirvana?


 


  You can't. Why don't you just download Audirvana and try it out? It takes just as much effort as asking around here =)


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





uelover said:


> You can't. Why don't you just download Audirvana and try it out? It takes just as much effort as asking around here =)


 
  Download Audirvana and try it out first.  What a great idea.  Oh wait I already did that and couldn't figure out how to access my iTunes list so I thought I'd post a question about it and get a little help.    If I can't access my itunes library then how do I add a playlist to it. iTunes is the app I use to coordinate my tunes.


----------



## drandall

audirvana does not see itunes playlists...this you know.
   
  hit the "playlist" button on the main interface. when the playlist window comes up, hit the + button and you'll get an open dialog box. navigate to the music you want to put into the playlist and hit "open". this will add what you've selected (songs/folders/etc)
   
  you can also drag and drop into the playlist window.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Thanks.  I've been doing the drag and drop of iTunes "Music" library from inside iTunes.  Audirvana accepts it and creates a playlist but after it finished the app quits as soon as I click play.  Perhaps my music list is too large for Audirvana.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Thanks.  I've been doing the drag and drop of iTunes "Music" library from inside iTunes.  Audirvana accepts it and creates a playlist but after it finished the app quits as soon as I click play.  Perhaps my music list is too large for Audirvana.


 


  Audirvana is not good at handling large playlist. Mine consists of a few hundred songs and it takes more than a minute to load them.
   
  Best is to split them into small bite sizes. It is more of a player than a library manager.


----------



## grokit

When did PureMusic go up to $129, I thought it was $99


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





grokit said:


> When did PureMusic go up to $129, I thought it was $99


 


  It was $80 a year ago. This is one of the reason why I hesitated in buying PM =)


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Audirvana is not good at handling large playlist. Mine consists of a few hundred songs and it takes more than a minute to load them.
> 
> Best is to split them into small bite sizes. It is more of a player than a library manager.


 
  from reading the site though, i think that adding some kind of library management is up the list of things to do with the program which only makes me happier. though i kind of like not having it. allows me to listen one cd at a time, since it isnt so easy to jump around like in iTunes.


----------



## uelover

anyone else here faces the bug on audirvana that you cannot sort the playlist according to artist, album, title and etc?


----------



## khollister

A couple tips that everyone may not know relative to the question of "does Audirvana use the iTunes library?"
   
  1) You can open iTunes, find what you want and drag the tracks/albums into the Audirvana playlist window directly
   
  2) When you go to add tracks from the Finder through the File Open dialog in OS X (using the plus sign button in the playlist window for instance), scroll down to the bottom of the pane. You will see a MEDIA section in the sidebar with a Music category. If you click on that, it will display your iTunes playlists at the top and a list of tracks with artist name (no album or composer) from your iTunes library. The Spotlight search field in the upper right of the pane lets you search the library on all metadata, not just the displayed track/title.
   
  Not as handy as browsing directly in iTunes, but it's pretty effective if you know what you are looking for.
   
  Also eliminates the need to create playlists in Audirvana - you can use what you have already set up in iTunes (inc Smart Playlists)


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





khollister said:


> 1) You can open iTunes, find what you want and drag the tracks/albums into the Audirvana playlist window directly


 

 Very useful, thanks!


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





khollister said:


> A couple tips that everyone may not know relative to the question of "does Audirvana use the iTunes library?"
> 
> 1) You can open iTunes, find what you want and drag the tracks/albums into the Audirvana playlist window directly
> 
> ...


 
   
  Thanks for the "Media Section" tip.


----------



## ajreynol

uelover said:


> anyone else here faces the bug on audirvana that you cannot sort the playlist according to artist, album, title and etc?




was just about to ask about this. I can't sort at all. help?


----------



## ajreynol

also,

is there an advantage to Upsampling? disadvantages? I'm giving "SRC libSampleRate" @ "Best" quality a run in Audirvana and I see it's causing the app to use a little more CPU...but what effect is it having on the source material?

and is "SRC libSampleRate" more desirable than "Apple CoreAudio" or are they just different but equal?

thanks.


----------



## khollister

ajreynol said:


> also,
> 
> is there an advantage to Upsampling? disadvantages? I'm giving "SRC libSampleRate" @ "Best" quality a run in Audirvana and I see it's causing the app to use a little more CPU...but what effect is it having on the source material?
> 
> ...




Secret Rabbit Code (SRC libSamplerate) is definitely higher quality than the Apple code


----------



## ajreynol

khollister said:


> ajreynol said:
> 
> 
> > also,
> ...




ty. and does forcing the upsampling do something beneficial?


----------



## ccklone

Hey Now,
   
  I can't seem to get through an album of music without Audirvana choking and cutting out on some songs. Kind of irritating. It sounds decent enough, but can't really make an assessment. It appears it only does it on the first few songs of a playlist. Just downloaded the latest version yesterday. Here are some settings I am using . . . . .
   

 Low Level Playback Options - Exclusive Access Mode, Integer Mode, Use Max I/O Buffer boxes checked.
 Maximum memory allocated for tracks pre-load - 3072MB 
 Preferred Audio Device - M2Tech Hiface
 Sample Rate Conversion - Converter - SRC libSampleRate
 Forced Upsampling - None
   
  Using an iMac 10.6.6 / 2.8GHz / 4GB Memory
   
  Any suggestions to keep Audirvana from choking on itself would be appreciated. I have changed different combinations of settings to no avail. 
   
  --
  Finest kind,
  Chris


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





ccklone said:


> Hey Now,
> 
> I can't seem to get through an album of music without Audirvana choking and cutting out on some songs. Kind of irritating. It sounds decent enough, but can't really make an assessment. It appears it only does it on the first few songs of a playlist. Just downloaded the latest version yesterday. Here are some settings I am using . . . . .
> 
> ...


 
   
  You may want to reduce the memory allocated for pre-tracks and running it without Hiface.

 Not sure about the source of the issue though.


----------



## mrspeakers

Forced upsampling generally improves quality by reducing aliasing artifacts.  2x or 4x is computationally less demanding, but gives most of the potential benefit vs. say 2.2x.  Depending on the algorithm using multiples may be better quality, but some algorithms claim they use high-order curve fitting and using multiples has no benefit, they claim...  Did I just repeat that?


----------



## Priidik

Decibel evolved from Play, right? So why don't it have access to OS X eq? Or i'm missing something?
  Not a big fan of Hear here.


----------



## ccklone

Hey Now,
   
  Thanks for the suggestions. I updated to a newer version and reduced the memory allocation. Seems to be playing without interruption.
   
  --
  Finest kind,
  Chris


----------



## Vikingatheart

This may have been answered somewhere, but I didn't find it. Why is it that one program would sound better than another program if they are playing the same file. Fidelia simply sounds better to me than iTunes. Can anyone please shed some light on this?


----------



## Yoga Flame

iTunes has several sound "enhancing" options¹ that most of us agree will actually make the music sound worse on higher end equipment. These options need to be turned off, EQ disabled, and iTunes volume set to 100% in order to get bit-perfect digital output from the Mac to your DAC. So that's one possibility (which may or may not apply in your case specifically).
   
  Some of these other players also have their own sound enhancing options. But unlike the ones in iTunes, these were designed with audiophiles in mind. So while they may not be bit-perfect, they can colour the sound in a good way that sounds pleasing. In other words, bit-perfect is good, but don't let that stop you from getting more enjoyment by changing the bits a little.
   
  Also, most of these players have hog mode and/or memory playback. That reduces/prevents the drop in performance due to the hard drive being too busy, and other programs trying to access the audio drivers while your music is playing.
   
   
  ¹ "Crossfade Songs", "Sound Enhancer", and "Sound Check".


----------



## Vikingatheart

Thank for the reply. 
   
  That is exactly what I do in iTunes. 100% volume, no crossfade, no EQing, no Sound Enhancer and no Sound check. After all of that is said and done, I still find Fidelia to be a bit more pleasing. One thing I noticed is that Fildelia brings out a bit more bass, and also seems to sound more forward which just makes my Grados sound even better. Anyway, the difference is minimal and I was really just wondering if there were technical reasons for why one player was "better" than another. 
   
  Also, what does it mean when a player uses a certain algorithm?


----------



## iamoneagain

Does anyone else have a problem with Fidelia loading?  Maybe has something to with demo expired or something.  I download the latest copy and then it looks like it's going to load my iTunes library but player never opens.  I end up closing after while because if it is actually going to load, it already took too long and would rather no use it.  I just wanted to give this player a fair shot since I've sifted through the other ones.  I have no use for upsampling or any of the other enhancements, so don't think I'm missing.  
   
  I've currently settled with Decibel.  Somehow has more emotion to the music than Audirvana in my setup.  Still waiting on Amarra to update so I can test one more time. Amarra works ok without cache enabled but doesn't sound as good.  Too many problems with cache mode for now.


----------



## Vikingatheart

I don't have a problem with Fidelia not loading my library, but it does skip a lot when I'm doing other things on my computer though. I'm sure that this is just due to my awful amount of RAM and my machine is about 5 years old now.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





vikingatheart said:


> I don't have a problem with Fidelia not loading my library, but it does skip a lot when I'm doing other things on my computer though. I'm sure that this is just due to my awful amount of RAM and my machine is about 5 years old now.


 


  I guess it's not worth it.  I tried it again and player never comes up.  
   
  I saw that my gapless problem on Audirvana may not be effecting many people.  The player's creator gets perfect playback on his system.  Just when I've made up my mind, I'm back to Audirvana.  I found a good song the showed me the placement and soundstage is more natural with Audirvana.  With Decibel in 16 bit, the soundstage was almost in the middle of my head on my system while Audirvana in 24 bit moves it forward just a notch, so the music sounds like it's all in front of me, the way it should sound. I think I'm done testing for now and will get back to just listening to music.  It was starting to drive me crazy.


----------



## sfdoddsy

vikingatheart said:


> This may have been answered somewhere, but I didn't find it. Why is it that one program would sound better than another program if they are playing the same file. Fidelia simply sounds better to me than iTunes. Can anyone please shed some light on this?




I also thought Fidelio sounded slightly better. Until I realised it was also playing each track slightly louder.

Unless the volume level is identical, the slightly louder track will always sound slightly better.

When I matched as close as I could, I could hear no difference. But there is a definite difference in the relative volume between tracks. ITunes (with Soundcheck off) has annoying differences between the levels of tracks. Fidelio, at its defalt settings, seems to compress the difference in that quiter tracks are loudere, and vice versa.


----------



## ajreynol

sfdoddsy said:


> vikingatheart said:
> 
> 
> > This may have been answered somewhere, but I didn't find it. Why is it that one program would sound better than another program if they are playing the same file. Fidelia simply sounds better to me than iTunes. Can anyone please shed some light on this?
> ...




I can tell a pretty clear difference. But that's with my setup using my cans. ymmv.


----------



## iamoneagain

Wow, Audirvana has great customer service, along with it remaining a free player.  The developer contacted me directly about the gapless problem I was having and was able to recreate the problem on his end.  He quickly found a fix and will release it in the next update.  He's pretty quick with update releases, so don't think wait will be that long. 
   
  It's nice to have a direct impact on a player's improvement.  I've complained about problems with Amarra so long and still haven't seen a fix.  I've had stuttering from the beginning and it's still a problem.


----------



## ajreynol

does anyone know if column sorting is broken or is it just me?

I can't change the sort method...and I'd sure like to. Say, by Artist.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





ajreynol said:


> does anyone know if column sorting is broken or is it just me?
> 
> I can't change the sort method...and I'd sure like to. Say, by Artist.


 

 as far as i can tell, there just isnt a method of sorting, they just get to stay in whatever order you add them in...


----------



## iamoneagain

Has Audirvana ever had sorting?  I just drop in an album or two and then delete them.  But you can request new features at the link below.  I know the developer doesn't have a lot of time to implement new features but don't think sorting would be too difficult.
   
  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/New-OSX-Opensource-audiophile-player-Audirvana


----------



## ajreynol

will do.


----------



## gryn

Thanks for this thread - I heard so many new and interesting for me. I actually reviewed almost everything mentioned here, but still stick with VOX. Just because my library is pretty mixed with different formats: FLAC, APE, WavPack. The main thing is that almost every piece of it - is a single file with CUE sheet. And this library is synced between several computers on different platforms (that is why I don't want to convert everything to ALAC). I like VOX, but it is too simple in terms of music management. 
  I would love to use Decibel or Fidelia - but it was a surprise for me to find that CUE is not supported.


----------



## iamoneagain

Audirvana has been updated with the Gapless fix.  Works perfect.  Gapless album tracks blend seamlessly.  And it only loads 2 tracks at once, so won't take up all your memory loading entire album like Amarra or Pure Music.


----------



## ajreynol

I think Audirvana hard-locked my Mac today. was odd. A song ended and it went to start the next track. All I heard was a loud stutter and everything was frozen. Had to hold power down to shut it down.

No errors listed in the Console. Very confusing.


----------



## melomaniac

well, it loaded its own upgrade pretty quickly, but there's been some odd stuff happening, stuttering and refusals to load. I'm rebooting to see what's going on elsewhere. might have nothing to do with Audirvana of course
  
  Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Audirvana has been updated with the Gapless fix.  Works perfect.  Gapless album tracks blend seamlessly.  And it only loads 2 tracks at once, so won't take up all your memory loading entire album like Amarra or Pure Music.


----------



## grokit

I've got a Mac Mini with the original generation Intel core solo processor and a current model Mac Pro both running Snow Leopard, as well as an older 12" Powerbook G4 running Leopard maxed out with 1.25GB RAM and they all run sizable lossless libraries flawlessly with PureMusic via iTunes, I just bought the license.

   

  I don't think there's another player out there that will work with all three of these computers as well as both of these operating systems, much less integrate with iTunes. The only issue it's ever had is waking up in a slightly temperamental state from system sleep, but it advises to disable the sleep feature anyways.

   

  I'm very happy with the improvements that I hear from PureMusic in default mode, plus there are many other features to explore when I get around to it lol.


----------



## shrimants

Does anyone know of one that offers direct digital passthrough?

For example, in windows there's cyberlink DVD player, and it has an option to pass all digital data without even so much as touching the volume to the sound card, and after that the sound card passes direct digital to a DAC or some such. Basically the only thing controling the volume is the portion RIGHT before the sound is converted to analog and sent to the speakers. Thats what I'm looking for


----------



## crowley

currently loving decibel. fidelia doesnt sound as warm to me as audirvana or decibel.


----------



## bippie999

I'm trying both Amarra and Pure Music. The nice thing about Pure Music is you can make the output Mono if you want for testing speakers, and It has a nice interface with a lot of options. Last year I bought Power Station which works within iTunes. It's inexpensive and sounds great, but I still may buy Pure Music or Amarra for slightly better sound on hi-res files. When I buy  hi-res files from HD tracks in FLAC, I play them through Songbird. Man they can sound good! But I still do most of my listening on iTunes since I have so many files loaded.


----------



## mrspeakers

I was just settling down to Audirvana auditoning when I noticed my fans kick in on the laptop.  100% utilization on both cores.  Audirvana totally maxes my machine out.  My 5 minute impression was it was worth listening to, but that's kind of a show stopper till they fix that bug.  
   
  With high order dithering and even multiple upsampling, Pure Music uses less than 5% CPU, so I have to assume Audirvana has a bug, not that they need all those cycles just to upsample.


----------



## grokit

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mrspeakers

 "I was just settling down to Audirvana auditoning when I noticed my fans kick in on the laptop.  100% utilization on both cores.  Audirvana totally maxes my machine out.  My 5 minute impression was it was worth listening to, but that's kind of a show stopper till they fix that bug.  

 With high order dithering and even multiple upsampling, Pure Music uses less than 5% CPU, so I have to assume Audirvana has a bug, not that they need all those cycles just to upsample."
   

  That sounds like how Pure Music behaves on the old G4 PowerBook I have it running on. I use that as the bedside player with a remote, where I hit pause when I am nodding off and the machine goes to sleep but the fan runs incessantly at full speed until I close the lid in the morning. I've never heard the fan run like that before actually. It's a bit frustrating but I understand that Channel D is pretty responsive so I will contact them at some point, hopefully before my Mac explodes.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> I was just settling down to Audirvana auditoning when I noticed my fans kick in on the laptop.  100% utilization on both cores.  Audirvana totally maxes my machine out.  My 5 minute impression was it was worth listening to, but that's kind of a show stopper till they fix that bug.
> 
> With high order dithering and even multiple upsampling, Pure Music uses less than 5% CPU, so I have to assume Audirvana has a bug, not that they need all those cycles just to upsample.


 

 I had CPU monitoring turned on too and Audirvana consumes 100% CPU when running maximum upsampling using SRC. It uses about 50% when using Apple Core Audio though.
  I had the upsampling turned off whenever I use Audirvana. The SQ is good enough. =)


----------



## Gerxld

hi guys, sorry for the noob question. i got an eagles cd (hell freezes over) that is in 24bit/100khz. is there any software that can import the files without converting them to 16/44? and also is there actually any audible difference between 16/44 and 24/96 or 24/100? 
  p.s sorry if this has already been mentioned before, but i tried googling to no avail. thanks in advance!


----------



## iamoneagain

Only showing 0.4% with Audirvana with no forced upsampling.  I leave converter on SRC but not sure if it makes a difference if forced upsampling is off.  After spending a lot more time with Audirvana, it really does sound better than the other players.  Has the most realistic soundstage and smooth, liquidy richness too it.  Decibel seems a little flat in comparison.  I haven't tested Amarra again since I still haven't seen a new release yet.  I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone complain about the weird looping bug it has. Only last 10 seconds of certain tracks would start to loop until next track started.  Made player uselss. I'm all for better sound but not at expense of glitches that actually effect the performance.


----------



## mrspeakers

Max is great for format/sample conversion.  Never heard of 24/100.  There is definitely a difference between 16/44 and 24/96.


----------



## Gerxld

here: http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=FIMHD078 back ontopic, is there any players that can import them in the original 24/100 or 24/96? :/
  Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Max is great for format/sample conversion.  Never heard of 24/100.  There is definitely a difference between 16/44 and 24/96.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





gerxld said:


> here: http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=FIMHD078 back ontopic, is there any players that can import them in the original 24/100 or 24/96? :/


 
  the data on the disc is still at 16/44.1, unless it happens to be a HDCD, which from reading there it isnt. it might be mastered at 24/100, but it has to to be dithered to 16/44.1 for pressing to cd.


----------



## gryn

Is it possible to play CUE sheets with Pure Music?


----------



## Gerxld

im not too sure, what they've written on the cd is k2 HD CD. 24bit100khz mastering.. but thank you for your input anyway!


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





gerxld said:


> im not too sure, what they've written on the cd is k2 HD CD. 24bit100khz mastering.. but thank you for your input anyway!


 


  Yeah, you should be able to use any program to rip that cd.  The original mastering is 24/100 but the cd was pressed at 16/44.1 since it says it will play in any cd player.
   
  Here's another link to K2 HD:
   
  http://www.stereomojo.com/K2%20HD/K2HDReview.htm


----------



## Gerxld

thank you so much for the link! clarified everything for me. pixel count doesnt equate to better image quality though.. sensor size is of greater importance. 
  
  Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Yeah, you should be able to use any program to rip that cd.  The original mastering is 24/100 but the cd was pressed at 16/44.1 since it says it will play in any cd player.
> 
> Here's another link to K2 HD:
> 
> http://www.stereomojo.com/K2%20HD/K2HDReview.htm


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





gerxld said:


> thank you so much for the link! clarified everything for me. pixel count doesnt equate to better image quality though.. sensor size is of greater importance.


 
   
  And people will also say more bits not equate better sound quality.  People say a lot of redbook cds sound better than the 24/96 versions just due to the way they were mastered.
   
  This thread kind of derailed, so we should probably to get it back to the players themselves.


----------



## kevad

Quote: 





gryn said:


> I would love to use Decibel or Fidelia - but it was a surprise for me to find that CUE is not supported.


 


  Looks like Decibel 1.0.3, which was just released yesterday, now supports CUE sheets according to the release notes.
   
http://sbooth.org/Decibel/release_notes/1.0.3.html


----------



## gryn

Quote: 





kevad said:


> Looks like Decibel 1.0.3, which was just released yesterday, now supports CUE sheets according to the release notes.
> 
> http://sbooth.org/Decibel/release_notes/1.0.3.html


 

 Wow, thank you!


----------



## Currawong

That K2 HD thing sounds like a load of nonsense. CDs are 16/44.1 and can't be greater, otherwise they are not regular Redbook CDs, but HDCD, DVD-A or SACD, all of which require special players.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





currawong said:


> That K2 HD thing sounds like a load of nonsense. CDs are 16/44.1 and can't be greater, otherwise they are not regular Redbook CDs, but HDCD, DVD-A or SACD, all of which require special players.


 

 Yup, no doubt.  Could be that the original recording may have been done at a higher rate, but obviously had to be down-sampled to Redbook format for production.


----------



## kwkarth

I would guess from reading the info at the link, that they're employing another variation on the themes of filtering, dithering, and subtle gain riding.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

It's surprising how well mastered the K2 HD discs are. Regardless of what you think of the marketing hype, all the K2 HD disc's I've heard (and own)  are considerably better than the originals. The care and feeding of the digital workflow through the mastering process is a sonic treat. It doesn't sound like those of you that are knocking the K2 stuff have tried it.
   
  EDIT: If anything, the K2 series proves that careful controls throughout the digital workflow can make a significant difference in the end production, even in the lowly 16/44.1 format. Sadly, it seems like you have to pay a premium to attain that level of quality.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> It's surprising how well mastered the K2 HD discs are. Regardless of what you think of the marketing hype, all the K2 HD disc's I've heard (and own)  are considerably better than the originals. The care and feeding of the digital workflow through the mastering process is a sonic treat. It doesn't sound like those of you that are knocking the K2 stuff have tried it.
> 
> EDIT: If anything, the K2 series proves that careful controls throughout the digital workflow can make a significant difference in the end production, even in the lowly 16/44.1 format. Sadly, it seems like you have to pay a premium to attain that level of quality.


 
  Just to be clear, I wasn't knocking the K2 series, heck, those are my initials.  I was just trying to cut through some of the marketspeak.  I wish all record companies cared enough to properly master their works as K2 process seems to.  I don't think Currawong was bashing them either.


----------



## Currawong

The way they made is sound with the marketing speak is if the CD itself has something greater. I googled it and found that it's a mastering technique. Fine if that's the case, but they can't say that the CD has greater bandwidth than what it does, that's just a flat-out lie.  If they sound better, great! Recording and mastering quality is most definitely important.


----------



## Gerxld

Quote: 





currawong said:


> The way they made is sound with the marketing speak is if the CD itself has something greater. I googled it and found that it's a mastering technique. Fine if that's the case, but they can't say that the CD has greater bandwidth than what it does, that's just a flat-out lie.  If they sound better, great! Recording and mastering quality is most definitely important.


 
  hey currawong, sorry if i wasn't clear enough, but i did write in my earlier post that "24bit100khz Mastering" was printed on the cd. not that the cd has greater bandwidth than a  standard redbook cd. still thank you and kwkarth for helping me understand that a cd can only be in the 16/44 format!  the k2 HD cd i have of the eagle's-hell freezes over sounds really good and smooth just in case anyone was wondering!


----------



## Currawong

No worries.


----------



## iamoneagain

Audirvana recently released a new update.  This is where it gets interesting.  He used a new compiler which actually effected the sound.  I'm still not sure if I like it better but I'm starting to think it's the better version with more bass and better weight than the previous version.  Just to make it easy to compare, he also release his latest update with the old compiler which keeps the previous sound.  This way you can have both versions on your mac to compare the sound differences.
   
  GCC is the original sound version. Just look for 0.8.0 zip files.
   
  http://code.google.com/p/audirvana/updates/list


----------



## schalliol

I thought I'd share that I have really been enjoying using MediaRover. MediaRover isn't a player itself, but it works with a file server like my (NETGEAR ReadyNAS Ultra 4 Plus) and multiple computers. It push-syncs new iTunes library updates to other computers through the NAS (and allows some to not be pushed). I use it to keep my Macs up to date at home or on the road and use the NAS to feed my Marantz AV7005 pre/pro when I want to use he Paradigm Reference speakers instead of headphones.

I also really recommend using a Griffin Technology PowerMate. This device can allow you to switch tracks back and forth easily or pause/play in a dedicated device way. If you use a fading output, you could use it to control the level. It's cheap an very cool.


I am only part-way through this thread, and I am happy with the iTunes interface overall. If some somehow do a better job outputting a digital stream or work with more high-rate audio options, I guess I'll try those. Thanks for the thread!!


----------



## Vader815

I've tried all the free players + Decibel. Fidelia sounds ridiculously bright and 'off' to me. Decibel sounds a bit better than itunes but that's it.
   
   
  Are the others worth checking out?


----------



## Vikingatheart

Quote: 





vader815 said:


> I've tried all the free players + Decibel. *Fidelia sounds ridiculously bright and 'off' to me*. Decibel sounds a bit better than itunes but that's it.
> 
> 
> Are the others worth checking out?


 

 Odd. While I don't doubt you, I found Fidelia to be a bit darker and smoother sounding.


----------



## santacore

I've been using Fidelia for the last few weeks and I don't think it sounds bright. Overall I'm pretty happy with it's performance. 
   
  Both Decibel and Audirvana sound great in their own way, I just didn't like they're iTunes integration. At least with Fidelia it's decent, and has a remote program I run on my iPad.


----------



## grokit

I just realized that Pure Music save your selected place in iTunes in regards to song/playlist selection when you quit and restart. iTunes alone can't do that.


----------



## MrQ

Has anyone downloaded the latest version of Audirvana 0.8b (0.8.1)?
  It takes about a minute for a tune to fully load and if you play at the same time the CPU runs to over 180%.

   
   
  I thought my Macbook Pro would start hovering off the table the fan was going so hard.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





mrq said:


> Has anyone downloaded the latest version of Audirvana 0.8b (0.8.1)?
> It takes about a minute for a tune to fully load and if you play at the same time the CPU runs to over 180%.
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I am using that now. What is your macbook pro's spec?


----------



## MrQ

Quote: 





uelover said:


> I am using that now. What is your macbook pro's spec?


 

 Version 10.6.7  2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4 GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





mrq said:


> Version 10.6.7  2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4 GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM


 

  
  Phenomenon reproduced on my end:

   
  It happens with both Apple CoreAudio & SRC libSampleRate conversion type running at Maximum upsampling. Non-upsampling consumes less than 1% CPU power.
   
  Nonetheless, still can perform other non-high CPU consumption tasks without experiencing lag =)


----------



## MrQ

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Phenomenon reproduced on my end:
> 
> 
> It happens with both Apple CoreAudio & SRC libSampleRate conversion type running at Maximum upsampling. Non-upsampling consumes less than 1% CPU power.
> ...


 

 Ah...I switched the Forced Upsampling to none, now it's behaving itself. Thanks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   

   
  What difference will that have off and when will I need it back on?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





mrq said:


> What difference will that have off and when will I need it back on?


 
  Upsampling acts to smoothen the sound, making them sound less digital/edgy.
   
  Try and compare to see if you will prefer upsampled sound. If not, you can always leave it off =)


----------



## MrQ

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Upsampling acts to smoothen the sound, making them sound less digital/edgy.
> 
> Try and compare to see if you will prefer upsampled sound. If not, you can always leave it off =)


 
   
  Well, unless I want an overheated computer, it looks like time for an upgrade


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Upsampling acts to smoothen the sound, making them sound less digital/edgy.
> 
> Try and compare to see if you will prefer upsampled sound. If not, you can always leave it off =)


 
  If I turn it on, the music sort of loses it's weight.  It has a nice airy sound but doesn't seem realistic.  Audirvana already has a nice smooth tubey sound without forced upsampling.  I'm sure with everyone having a different setup, this may not be the case.
   
  Audirvana is still posting a GCC version for testing.  After spending time with both versions, I prefer GCC.  To me, it has more sparkle, air, and separation over the other version.  If your system is bass light, you might prefer that one.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Only showing 0.4% with Audirvana with no forced upsampling.  I leave converter on SRC but not sure if it makes a difference if forced upsampling is off.  After spending a lot more time with Audirvana, it really does sound better than the other players.  Has the most realistic soundstage and smooth, liquidy richness too it.  Decibel seems a little flat in comparison.  I haven't tested Amarra again since I still haven't seen a new release yet.  I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone complain about the weird looping bug it has. Only last 10 seconds of certain tracks would start to loop until next track started.  Made player uselss. I'm all for better sound but not at expense of glitches that actually effect the performance.


 

 I never had the looping problem before until this weekend then it started.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> I never had the looping problem before until this weekend then it started.


 

 Finally someone has it.  I couldn't figure out which albums had it or why.  But seemed all tracks from same album would have it but other albums are fine.  I have no idea why Amarra is taking so long with their update.  They originally said mid-February but then said they were still working on it.  Now 2 months later and still nothing.  My worry is even with all this extra time, it will still be buggy. Other main issue is with cache play, take too long to load and some times it skips a few seconds.  All other players seems to work fine with cache loading.
   
  The great thing with Audirana, is you can post you issues and get a response pretty quickly.  He also seems to have a new update each week as he works out bugs or adds features.  It also open source, so someone can modify if they want too.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





mrq said:


> Well, unless I want an overheated computer, it looks like time for an upgrade


 

 My macbook pro shot up to 90degrees celsius 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  I had been using upsampling for some time but had forgotten about the impact of an overheated CPU.
   
  Just download the GCC version to try. Sounded too upfront and energetic.
  It is a deviation from the original Audirvana sound that is a little warm and tubey.
   
  Edit: The difference could be attributed to the enlarged soundstage and detail retrivals.


----------



## turimbar1

yeahh, it raped my computer, and that is on 2x to 4x upsampling, not the maximum. 
   
  macbook pro 2.1 GHz core 2 duo, 2gigs RAM, Radeon x1600 graphix card, 120 gig harddrive  (an ancient)
   
  I wonder if they could route it through the graphix card with some tricky programming, it is much better at handling large amounts of data.


----------



## mrspeakers

I liked audirvana but the only reason was the sq using oversampling. However, it seems to peg the CPU on my system, while Pure Music over samples with dithering using 5pct of CPU. Try pure music's demo and see if it works better for you...


----------



## MrQ

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> I liked audirvana but the only reason was the sq using oversampling. However, it seems to peg the CPU on my system, while Pure Music over samples with dithering using 5pct of CPU. Try pure music's demo and see if it works better for you...


 

 I was using pure music until the trial period finished. I liked it. It's just that now I have to pay for it.


----------



## kwkarth

Hey, instead of you guys beating the snot out of your cpu's, why not let your DAC do that for you?  They're made for that.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Hey, instead of you guys beating the snot out of your cpu's, why not let your DAC do that for you?  They're made for that.


 
  haha the upsampling by audirvana just sounded better than hardware upsampling, sadly.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





uelover said:


> haha the upsampling by audirvana just sounded better than hardware upsampling, sadly.


 
  I dunno man, sometimes I wonder about the power of suggestion.


----------



## mrspeakers

Hardware and software up sampling are done via different mechanisms. At the current time, the software u samplers way outclass most hardware up samplers, which have too limited a bit depth to pull off the ssults software can. Plus with software one can control parameters such as even-order only up sampling, cutoff frequencies, etc. Which with hardware are outside user control.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





uelover said:


> My macbook pro shot up to 90degrees celsius
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  What's funny is the GCC version is the original sound. You can load up an older copy (0.7.4) and it will sound the same. He always compiled his player with GCC and just recently switched to LLVM.  He noticed it sounded different with the new compiler and put a GCC version up just for people to test the difference.  He said Apple is moving toward LLVM and claims it's better for audio.  People have speculated the audio differences are due to the way data is moved through the CPU. 
   
  I can see the benefits of both.  GCC has bigger soundstage and more sparkle while LLVM has more weight, warmer, and bassier. Since I used L3000, I'm already good on bass so GCC sounds better.  I'd say it's tied with Amarra as far as sound, just slight differences in soundstage.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Hardware and software up sampling are done via different mechanisms. At the current time, the software u samplers way outclass most hardware up samplers, which have too limited a bit depth to pull off the ssults software can. Plus with software one can control parameters such as even-order only up sampling, cutoff frequencies, etc. Which with hardware are outside user control.


 

 That's why you need a good DAC anyway.  The facts seem to say that any up-sampling algorithm that runs real time is less than what is desired and only upsampler algorithms that run as a batch process are worth their salt and even at that, there are only a handful of them.  So...  real time upsampling whether done in firmware/hardware or done via software on your PC or Mac is a bust, sonically.


----------



## Currawong

You can always set the scheduling of the audio software to have absolute priority.


----------



## peskypesky

man, this thread is just too long!! i myself am very happy with Play. i love the fact that i get access to a 31-band graphic equalizer. i can really tailor the sound to my ears and headphones. and maybe i'm stupid, but it seems like Decibel is a stripped-down version of Play, and yet Play is free while Decibel costs money. Am I missing something? I mean, in Decibel, i don't seem to have access to any filters or eq or anything.
   
  for now, i'm loving Play.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





currawong said:


> You can always set the scheduling of the audio software to have absolute priority.


 
  Maybe the article was wrong.  Maybe there is real time upsampling software that works as well as the batch process best of breed..


----------



## uelover

hey i wonder what is the CPU usage when running Audirvana with Maximum upsampling with Intel i5/i7 Mac.
   
  Anyone using that?


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> That's why you need a good DAC anyway.  The facts seem to say that any up-sampling algorithm that runs real time is less than what is desired and only upsampler algorithms that run as a batch process are worth their salt and even at that, there are only a handful of them.  So...  real time upsampling whether done in firmware/hardware or done via software on your PC or Mac is a bust, sonically.


 

 What are you talking about?  Of course you need a good DAC.  
   
  What "facts?"  I think this is your opinion, which is fine, but to my knowledge it's certainly not an engineering fact that batch is "better" than real time.  Where'd you find that?  If you have a citation with a real math or engineering-oriented analysis, I'm genuinely interested, but if this is your opinion, let's also be clear on that.
   
  EDIT: Wrote reply on a tablet and realized it was more terse than I meant it to be...


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> What are you talking about?  Of course you need a good DAC.
> 
> What "facts?"  I think this is your opinion, which is fine, but to my knowledge it's certainly not an engineering fact that batch is "better" than real time.  Where'd you find that?  If you have a citation with a real math or engineering-oriented analysis, I'm genuinely interested, but if this is your opinion, let's also be clear on that.
> 
> EDIT: Wrote reply on a tablet and realized it was more terse than I meant it to be...


 
  That wasn't my opinion, it was white paper stuff written by industry authorities.  Take it or leave it.  Google it, you'll find it.
 This guy is probably wrong too:


----------



## kwkarth




----------



## jronan2

Are there any free decent music players for a Mac with OSX 10.5? If not maybe I will just buy snow leopard for $29, and get audirvana. I use audirvana with my iMac and I really like it.
   
  And if i ever decided to get Pure Music can I use it on a bunch of Macs or is it just one application per computer?


----------



## kwkarth

Mass confusion due to marketing BS
 I only get the daily digest notification, and there are _lots_ of posts to reply to.

 1) At least two posters argued about what "upsampling" _really_ means. One said that if it were asynchronous, then it would be "upsampling". Another said that it was "oversampling" if on the record side and "upsampling" if on the playback side.

 This just shows the confusion that the marketing scum have created. It's all BS. The "asynchronous" definition of "upsampling was created by Musical Fidelity when they started using the dreadful CS8420 asynchronous sample rate converter (the wretchedness of which was confirmed by another poster).

 All audio engineers have used "oversampling" for both playback and recording since digital audio was introduced. For what it's worth, video engineers use a different terminology. But it is important to use the accepted terminology to avoid confusion.

 The problem is there is no engineering definition for "upsampling" for audio. As I noted before, all it means is whatever the marketing guy at any particular company decided it meant on any particular day. In other words, it is meaningless. If a company uses it, I would look at their claims and their products very, very closely before purchasing.

 2) One poster claimed that non-oversampling sounded far better than using any kind of digital filter, and that NOS DACs were very popular. There are three problems with this:

 a) NOS DACs are not very popular. There are a handful of companies that make them compared to probably a hundred that use digital filters. There is a reason for this.

 b) A few posts later, the same person said that "upsampling" would improve the sound. This is nonsense. An "upsampler" is a digital filter. So a digital filter both improves and ruins the sound??? Please explain this one to me.

 c) We spent four months listening to digital filters of all types, including non-oversampling (NOS). NOS has its charms, particularly in the mid-band. But it also has its flaws, particularly in the frequency extremes.

 In addition to comparisons with the digital filter built into the DAC chip, we also implemented custom digital filters in an external FPGA. This chip could be reprogrammed to create just about any digital filter we wanted, with any characteristics we wanted. We spent a long time zeroing in on what produced the best sound. When we were done we had something that sounded much better (across the board) than the NOS approach.

 3) Another person claimed that if one used an external filter to "upsample" that one or more of the cascaded internal filters would drop out, essentially being replaced by the external filter.

 While this may be true for some older DAC chips (probably discontinued by now), modern chips can do 8x oversampling even with 192 kHz input. So unless one is "upsampling" past 192 kHz (possible, but I've never seen it) then all of the internal filters will still be in place.

 4) One person was afraid that the full strength of the image frequencies would be blasting his tweeters if he used a NOS DAC solution.

 This is not the case. All audio DACs use a "hold" function that maintains the output level until the next sample is converted. In this case the frequency response is modified by the [sin(x)]/x (also called "sinc") function. This rolls off the high frequency images. Go to:

 http://www.dspguide.com/ch3/3.htm

 Scroll down to the second group of graphs (Fig. 3-6). The second graph down on the right show what happens. The series of identical "humps" is the abstract mathematical input to the DAC chip. That is multiplied (actually convoluted) by the decreasing line that looks like the trajectory of a bouncing ball, decreasing in height with each bounce. As you can see, even with no filters and no oversampling, there is little danger of damaging tweeters.

 I have to go now, I have a lot of things to do today. Have fun.

  __________________ [size=0.9em]  [/size]

 [size=0.9em] Charles Hansen[/size]

 [size=0.9em] Founder and Designer
 Ayre Acoustics[/size]


----------



## mrspeakers

I can't quite tell what your point actually is, but to be clear, there is a definition of upsampling, which is readily available on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsampling.  I do have an issue with you throwing around the term "marketing BS" (which clearly covers stuff like the quotes from Empirical who are pushing self-serving agendas) instead of actual science.  Just because some posters are clueless and some companies spout BS hardly means the concept is not valid, or proves somehow magically hardware is better than software, because it simply is not, IN MOST CASES (I'm expect there are cases where it's been right in hardware, with adequate bit depth, etc, but I don't know of any).
   
  There are DEFINITE advantages to upsampling because quite simply it solves a lot of problems created by having to filter out aliasing artifacts.  There are numerous tests and lab runs by neutral parties that validate it works, and also that aliasing shows up in the audible spectrum can be demonstrated easily by college-level algebra, and through testing and listening.
   
  People can believe what they want, it's a free country, but there are some areas where math and measurements don't lie, and a full on rant about marketing BS hardly sheds any light on the subject.


----------



## grokit

What about re-clocking? When you use say, an extra usb to spdif converter, what happens to the re-clocked digital signal when it reaches the DAC? If the DAC's internal clock is not as good, or better than the converter's clock, would the signal timing be degraded or improved accordingly once it reaches the DAC?


----------



## mrspeakers

Reclocking and upsampling are independent functions (though conceivably some clocks are better at low frequencies than high and upsampling might cause clocking issues, especially if the clock is not stable, long distances, poor cables, etc, which generally degrade high frequencies first).  So upsampling might cause clock issues in some systems.
   
  In USB only connections Asynchronous connections require the DAC to generate a clock, which seems to be generally better than synchronous USB, which has really high jitter.  When you reclock via a USB to SPDIF, if the converter has a high quality clock, that's best.  Some DACs reclock SPDIF, most do not, so the quality of the converter matters.  There's probably no harm, and not much benefit, to having multiple levels of "re-clocking," but the last clock in the chain will determine the stability of the output of the DAC. 
   
  That's a generic answer, FWIW and YMMV always apply.


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Reclocking and upsampling are independent functions (though conceivably some clocks are better at low frequencies than high and upsampling might cause clocking issues, especially if the clock is not stable, long distances, poor cables, etc, which generally degrade high frequencies first).  So upsampling might cause clock issues in some systems.
> 
> In USB only connections Asynchronous connections require the DAC to generate a clock, which seems to be generally better than synchronous USB, which has really high jitter.  When you reclock via a USB to SPDIF, if the converter has a high quality clock, that's best.  Some DACs reclock SPDIF, most do not, so the quality of the converter matters.  There's probably no harm, and not much benefit, to having multiple levels of "re-clocking," but *the last clock in the chain will determine the stability of the output of the DAC*.
> 
> That's a generic answer, FWIW and YMMV always apply.


 

 That's what worries me, is that the DAC'c clock could degrade the converter's timing, but that hasn't been the case for me in practice so far; I think my DAC is adaptive USB but asynch via spdif.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> I can't quite tell what your point actually is, but to be clear, there is a definition of upsampling, which is readily available on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsampling.  I do have an issue with you throwing around the term "marketing BS" (which clearly covers stuff like the quotes from Empirical who are pushing self-serving agendas) instead of actual science.  Just because some posters are clueless and some companies spout BS hardly means the concept is not valid, or proves somehow magically hardware is better than software, because it simply is not, IN MOST CASES (I'm expect there are cases where it's been right in hardware, with adequate bit depth, etc, but I don't know of any).
> 
> There are DEFINITE advantages to upsampling because quite simply it solves a lot of problems created by having to filter out aliasing artifacts.  There are numerous tests and lab runs by neutral parties that validate it works, and also that aliasing shows up in the audible spectrum can be demonstrated easily by college-level algebra, and through testing and listening.
> 
> People can believe what they want, it's a free country, but there are some areas where math and measurements don't lie, and a full on rant about marketing BS hardly sheds any light on the subject.


 

 That was a quote from someone else.  Didn't you notice?  BTW, don't take yourself too seriously.  Relax man and enjoy the music.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> That was a quote from someone else.  Didn't you notice?


 


 There are merits and demerits to upsampling and the results and differ between hardwares and softwares.
   
  One can just try upsampling to see if they like it or not. It is just a flip of buttons. No need to argue so hard for it =)


----------



## jronan2

Quote: 





jronan2 said:


> Are there any free decent music players for a Mac with OSX 10.5? If not maybe I will just buy snow leopard for $29, and get audirvana. I use audirvana with my iMac and I really like it.
> 
> And if i ever decided to get Pure Music can I use it on a bunch of Macs or is it just one application per computer?


 


  I posted this yesterday but it seemed to be sandwiched in between an upsampling debate. Can anyone help me out. I have also used Fidelia the other day and enjoyed it, I cannot tell whether audirvana or fidelia sounds better, there very close IMO. But I'm pretty sure you need 10.6 to use fidelia also.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





jronan2 said:


> I posted this yesterday but it seemed to be sandwiched in between an upsampling debate. Can anyone help me out. I have also used Fidelia the other day and enjoyed it, I cannot tell whether audirvana or fidelia sounds better, there very close IMO. But I'm pretty sure you need 10.6 to use fidelia also.


 
   
  I believe Play will work:
   
  http://sbooth.org/Play/


----------



## jronan2

Ok but is it good? I have never used it before. Maybe I'll try it and if I don't like the sound I'll just upgrade my OSX and get fidelia or Audirvana.


----------



## grokit

I think the license for Pure Music covers up to three computers, but I don't see how they could enforce that limitation.


----------



## jronan2

It's $120 now right?


----------



## grokit

$129 unfortunately. When I went to buy it I thought it would be $99.


----------



## carm

Is there an easy way to copy ratings from one player ( for example Birdsong) to another ?


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





grokit said:


> $129 unfortunately. When I went to buy it I thought it would be $99.


 
  Manufacturing costs must have gone up.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Electrons are getting expensive these days.


----------



## jronan2

Yeah i thought it was 80 or 100...i guess that must have been a while back...Can anyone give me an honest opinion of whether fidelia or PM is better? ( please keep in mind the cost) I have already tried audirvana and fidelia and liked them both, I think fidela has slightly better SQ and more functional.


----------



## grokit

Pure Music is the only one that met my system, software and hardware requirements, and as I could hear an improvement that was the one I went with. None of the others would work on all three of my Macs and/or integrate with iTunes so I never bothered to try them.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

X2. Works wonderfully with my new BTO 2011 MacBook Pro. I tried all the others, but ended up with PureMusic. I love the integration with iTunes. 
   
  I've been using it in Upsample mode lately right up to the 192KHz max with my Wyred 4 Sound DAC-2. All I can say is, give upsampling a try. I think you'll like it. It's my default setting at this point. 
   
  Quote: 





grokit said:


> Pure Music is the only one that met my system, software and hardware requirements, and as I could hear an improvement that was the one I went with. None of the others would work on all three of my Macs and/or integrate with iTunes so I never bothered to try them.


----------



## bulmanxxi

Both PM and Fidelia offer demo versions, so why not try and decide for yourself?  This is all subjective anyway.  PM requires iTunes to be running.  Fidelia does not BUT integrates with the iTunes library very elegantly and also allows for a separate Fidelia library so it is quite versatile.  Fidelia (basic) is also under $20 so it is over a $100 cheaper than PM but its SQ is quite on par, so it is a great value.  If you want the advanced options, then it jumps to $80 but it is still $50 cheaper than PM.  PM offers numerous tweaks but Fidelia also offers quite a bit of flexibility just not as much as PM, if that matters.  Fidelia is also VERY elegant while PM looks CHEESY and very amateurish.


----------



## clams

I find fidelia to be very smooth and nice for just listening to music. However, Audirvana is more detailed with a bigger soundstage that I find enjoyable when critically listening to music. However, this sound can get fatiguing on my setup with my K702.


----------



## jronan2

Ok. I don't even want to try PM, even if i like it I don't want to spend $130 for it, maybe down the road.  I think I'm just gonna update my software on my laptop and run both audirvana and fidelia. Thanks for the input guys.


----------



## ccklone

Hey Now,
   
  I use Fidelia and Audirvana. For shuffling and relaxed listening I use Fidelia and for critical listening to whole albums, I use Audirvana. I just drag and drop an album of music in Audirvana and off I go. It works great this way for me and it sounds great. I also like very much that I can have a separate FLAC library in Fidelia. Damien of Audirvana is quick to respond to e-mail queries and has been very helpful with his application, as well as the Fidelia folks, can't do that with iTunes 8^).
   
  I tried Pure Music and Decibel, but decided on these 2 apps to use. Works for me.
   
  --
  Finest kind,
  Chris


----------



## Martin J

it seems for me the biggest soundstage i experienced was with Audirvana > Decibel > Fidelia
   
  for relaxing (reading while listening) i use Fidelia
   
  Audirvana and Decibel, depends on the music, for classical i use audirvana more, for rock Decibel
   
  what are your takes?


----------



## jronan2

I haven't tried decibel yet, I will though. I have only used fidelia for 3 days and like its interface. I cannot tell whether I like audirvana or fidelia better in terms of SQ. I only played a bunch of trance so far with fidelia with my d7000. Once I try different genres and different headphones I may be able to distinguish which one i prefer. I know that even if I do find a sound difference between programs it will be the ever so slightest difference, which really doesn't matter to me. The interface/ overall functionality probably means more to me because both programs sound noticeably better to me than iTunes, which is good for me.


----------



## MiguelATF

Just downloaded DECIBEL and it's intriguing....but have one question which I am afraid may be monumentally stupid but I'll ask it anyway: it seems the default font size when I open it on my MacBook Pro is relatively tiny - and I can't find a way to alter/customize the font size which the App uses....

Can any more experienced Decibel users help me out here please??!!!

 Muchas Gracias!!!

Miguel


----------



## iamoneagain

Amarra finally released a new update.  The problem is they updated their activation process and no longer use the iLok key (which actually should be a good thing).  Problem is the damn thing isn't recognizing my email or serial number.  It also seem that even this activation panel is buggy.  Activate button says sorry can't deactivate.  Even tried to just Evaluate and says can't deactivate. Doesn't give me hope that things are any better with the player itself.  Let me if anyone can get pass the activation process.  I'm so close to giving up on Amarra completely.  
   
  http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/index.html
   
   
  Also, Audirvana is testing 3 versions of their new release.  Doing blind testing to see which people prefer. 
   
  http://www.audirvana.com/Site_2/Compiler_test.html


----------



## bulmanxxi

Email Amarra support and they'll resolve. They helped me very quickly. It is unfortunate they still do not offer up sampling on the fly as most competitors.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Amarra finally released a new update.  The problem is they updated their activation process and no longer use the iLok key (which actually should be a good thing).  Problem is the damn thing isn't recognizing my email or serial number.  It also seem that even this activation panel is buggy.  Activate button says sorry can't deactivate.  Even tried to just Evaluate and says can't deactivate. Doesn't give me hope that things are any better with the player itself.  Let me if anyone can get pass the activation process.  I'm so close to giving up on Amarra completely.
> 
> http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/index.html
> 
> ...


 

 I'm still on Amara Mini 2.1, but to be honest I was happy with 2.01 before that.  You could always revert back to an older version till they fix this, right?
   
  Also, I'm not sure what you mean by it no longer using the iLok key.  Do you mean the "software-only iLok" to keep it on the one permitted computer, or the iLok dongle that let's you move the license from one computer to another via hardware?


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> I'm still on Amara Mini 2.1, but to be honest I was happy with 2.01 before that.  You could always revert back to an older version till they fix this, right?
> 
> Also, I'm not sure what you mean by it no longer using the iLok key.  Do you mean the "software-only iLok" to keep it on the one permitted computer, or the iLok dongle that let's you move the license from one computer to another via hardware?


 
   
  I mean, there is now an activation box and you enter the serial number that was on your iLok and email address.  You can activate up to two machines.  The box also lets you deactivate so you're not tied to just those two machines.  So you don't use the iLok at all.  So big improvement if it actually works.
   
  I am still not able to get in.  Surprisingly they have emailed and said they reset my password but still haven't gotten in.  I'm shocked that someone is there on a Sunday and working late.  Too bad I'm still locked out.
   
  As far as reverting back, 2.1 was very buggy for me and only worked ok with cache mode off.  I find Audirvana to sound better than Amarra with cache mode off, so I'll continue to use that.  I was mostly interested to see if Amarra fixed there cache mode playback.  The looping bug was too annoying to keep using.


----------



## IPodPJ

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *iamoneagain* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Also, Audirvana is testing 3 versions of their new release.  Doing blind testing to see which people prefer.
> 
> http://www.audirvana.com/Site_2/Compiler_test.html


 

 Audirvana is really the best sounding audio player for Mac and it's free.  Decibel (2nd) and Play (3rd) are the runners up; all the rest don't even compete.  Why can't those who actually charge money have as good a sounding player? Surely with more money they'd have more resources for development.  I guess Damien Plisson is just the smarter egg.  Once Audirvana reaches version 1.0 I'll certainly donate some money.
   
  I think Build C sounds the best.  Deeper and wider soundstage, more accurate imaging
  Build B & A are very close.  It's hard to tell, but if I had to:
  Build B comes in second
  Build A in last.


----------



## uelover

I think version A is the most transparent sounding of all which I like. Sounds like solid state vs tube amp kind of sound.
   
  The current 0.82 does sound a little different from version A, B and C. Does that therefore constitute a version D? Lol.


----------



## mrspeakers

Do all the audirvana builds suck the CPU to 100% if you upsample?  If that's fixed I'll try again...


----------



## IPodPJ

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Do all the audirvana builds suck the CPU to 100% if you upsample?  If that's fixed I'll try again...


 

 There's no need to upsample.  It sounds better with upsampling off, provided you have a good DAC.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Just FYI. There is no apparent difference in CPU utilization Upsampling on Pure Music. It's always less than 2% on the 2011 MacBook Pro feeding the Wyred 4 Sound DAC-2. 
  
  Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Do all the audirvana builds suck the CPU to 100% if you upsample?  If that's fixed I'll try again...


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





ipodpj said:


> There's no need to upsample.  It sounds better with upsampling off, provided you have a good DAC.


 

 Respectfully disagree on that one. Upsampling has a material effect on SQ, not because it "creates" more data, but by reducing or eliminating aliasing.  I find Pure Music's upsampling to be very much more musical sounding.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

2X! I was using native sampling, and the DAC-2 sounds marvelous. Music just flows. However, having tried Pure Musici's upsampling, it's simply a musical wonder! 
  
  Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Respectfully disagree on that one. Upsampling has a material effect on SQ, not because it "creates" more data, but by reducing or eliminating aliasing.  I find Pure Music's upsampling to be very much more musical sounding.


----------



## uelover

The preference for upsampled sound differs from people to people so let's not make a firm remark on whether upsampling will be good or not.
   
  =)


----------



## bulmanxxi

Amarra Jr. 2.2 seems to have worked out the glitches and sounds great even just playing native rate (but can now play up to 24/96) without upsampling.  Just the tenth of a second timer is annoying and the licensing for using more than one computer at a time, which requires constant deactivation and reactivation between machines.  None of the other players have this issue, so why should Amarra?!


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





bulmanxxi said:


> Amarra Jr. 2.2 seems to have worked out the glitches and sounds great even just playing native rate (but can now play up to 24/96) without upsampling.  Just the tenth of a second timer is annoying.


 


  Damn, I'm still locked out of Amarra Mini.  Haven't heard back from them all day.  I really don't think it's something I'm doing wrong on my end.  I'll post feedback if I ever get in.


----------



## turimbar1

ok, On audirvana, if you do this  then not only will it sound amazing but it will only rape your computer for 5 seconds when it is loading the song. And that is on a 4 year old macbook pro. Lowering the quality will cause it to be completely effortless and still sound really good, this is what I imagine Pure Music is doing, because I cant believe the Audirvana programmers are that inefficient or that the PM guys are that amazing.


----------



## mrspeakers

Just a guess but I suspect that Audirvana has an adaptive algorithm around dithering and/or curve-fitting that increases resolution until CPU is maxing out and backs off if other processes need cycles, which is why you can still actually use a system even when the CPU is at 100%.  I just don't think that's such a great idea, as it definitely will drain the battery on a portable, and also probably materially increase CPU heat, fan speed, and all the problems that go with heat...
   
  It's a good catch to note that if you dial down the "quality" the CPU load drops, though it would be great to hear from the developer as to what the tradeoffs really are...
   
  I know that as I dial up the dithering on Pure Music CPU load increases.


----------



## IPodPJ

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Respectfully disagree on that one. Upsampling has a material effect on SQ, not because it "creates" more data, but by reducing or eliminating aliasing.  I find Pure Music's upsampling to be very much more musical sounding.


 

 Yes, well what gear are you using?  If it's a cheap Delta Sigma DAC and/or it has a low quality oscillator then upsampling can appear to help.  If you have a high quality R2R DAC with oversampling and a very accurate and stable oscillator then upsampling will only make it sound artificial.  It all depends on the gear.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Just a guess but I suspect that Audirvana has an adaptive algorithm around dithering and/or curve-fitting that increases resolution until CPU is maxing out and backs off if other processes need cycles, which is why you can still actually use a system even when the CPU is at 100%.  I just don't think that's such a great idea, as it definitely will drain the battery on a portable, and also probably materially increase CPU heat, fan speed, and all the problems that go with heat...
> 
> It's a good catch to note that if you dial down the "quality" the CPU load drops, though it would be great to hear from the developer as to what the tradeoffs really are...
> 
> I know that as I dial up the dithering on Pure Music CPU load increases.


 
   
   
  Here's a post from the developer about the upsampling:
   
  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/New-OSX-Opensource-audiophile-player-Audirvana#comment-78716
   
  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/New-OSX-Opensource-audiophile-player-Audirvana#comment-78645


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





ipodpj said:


> Yes, well what gear are you using?  If it's a cheap Delta Sigma DAC and/or it has a low quality oscillator then upsampling can appear to help.  If you have a high quality R2R DAC with oversampling and a very accurate and stable oscillator then upsampling will only make it sound artificial.  It all depends on the gear.


 
  My gear is clearly labeled in my footer, and my primary DACs both use 10pps accurate clocks, which is about as good as it gets.  It sounds to me you are implying upsampling affect jitter when you mention oscillators, or I'm not understanding your point.  
   
  Upsampling is not about jitter at all, it was originally designed to move the upper end of the DAC frequency range to a higher frequency to reduce aliasing artifacts and obviate the need for brick wall filters which cause phase problems and ringing in the time domain because redbook audio's sampling rate is too close to the audible spectrum.  
   
  A good algorithm also provides much better digital volume control, though I personally don't use this. Software can be implemented at greater bit-depth than most hardware (not all) upsamplers, which gives it an inherent advantage in resolution.  
   
  Your assertion that upsampling makes music "artificial" on good gear is your opinion, which you're entitled to, but it is not a fact and it isn't agreed to by most people listening to these products.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Damn, I'm still locked out of Amarra Mini.  Haven't heard back from them all day.  I really don't think it's something I'm doing wrong on my end.  I'll post feedback if I ever get in.


 

 Yes, please keep us posted.


----------



## Currawong

iamoneagain said:


> Here's a post from the developer about the upsampling:
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/New-OSX-Opensource-audiophile-player-Audirvana#comment-78716
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/New-OSX-Opensource-audiophile-player-Audirvana#comment-78645




Try these links: 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/New-OSX-Opensource-audiophile-player-Audirvana?page=3#comment-78645
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/New-OSX-Opensource-audiophile-player-Audirvana?page=3#comment-78716

ComputerAudiophile's post links are broken.


----------



## grokit

I just downloaded an audio enhancement program called AstoundSound that I think is amazing. It evidently falls under the "Professional MP3 Mixer Software" category, and puts you in a room inside your headphones complete with directional surround cues. This is more than Dolby headphone technology all grown up, it's a real evolutionary step forward. There are versions for both Mac and PC, and it not only works with iTunes but it also works with iTunes > PureMusic so it probably works with other Mac music players as well. I like the fact that it is easy to toggle on and off so you can easily A/B the effect. You can also easily change the intensity of the effect, and choose between music, movie and game surround modes. Besides giving you more immersion into the music with headphones, it really widens the "sweet spot" with a two-speaker system. Personally I am sold, I just started a thread about it and would love to hear what you guys think:
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/550387/has-anybody-else-tried-astound-sound-for-an-hd-4d-binaural-conversion-to-music-on-the-mac


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Here's his quotes:
   
   
  Quote: 





> Upsampling is done during the loading phase, storing the result in a large buffer. And this is this buffer in final(float or integer) HAL format that is read by the playback realtime routine.
> And this playback routine is minimal to reduce as much as possible synchronous CPU load.
> But SRC algorithms (Apple CoreAudio, and more for libSampleRate), though being of high quality, are not very CPU-efficient and thus require lot of CPU power.
> To avoid playback start delay, the loading process is launched in the background. Normally it completes in a few seconds.
> ...


 
  and this one:
   
  Quote: 





> when using upsample, only very recent Corei7 systems can cope with the best setting, especially for libSampleRate, that's why you get shuttering when playing as the loading/upsampling process is lagging behind playback.
> Normally you don't have to bother with AudioMidi settings as Audirvana overrides them.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





grokit said:


> I just downloaded an audio enhancement program called AstoundSound that I think is amazing. It evidently falls under the "Professional MP3 Mixer Software" category, and puts you in a room inside your headphones complete with directional surround cues. This is more than Dolby headphone technology all grown up, it's a real evolutionary step forward. There are versions for both Mac and PC, and it not only works with iTunes but it also works with iTunes > PureMusic so it probably works with other Mac music players as well. I like the fact that it is easy to toggle on and off so you can easily A/B the effect. You can also easily change the intensity of the effect, and choose between music, movie and game surround modes. Besides giving you more immersion into the music with headphones, it really widens the "sweet spot" with a two-speaker system. Personally I am sold, I just started a thread about it and would love to hear what you guys think:
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/550387/has-anybody-else-tried-astound-sound-for-an-hd-4d-binaural-conversion-to-music-on-the-mac


 

 Reminds me of that thread Lunatique started about similar software. I think the name of the other software for this is called Canz3D or something along those lines.


----------



## iamoneagain

Finally got into Amarra Mini.  Customer support called and used remote access to help.  I believe there was an actual issue with first release of 2.2 and latest one fixed the problem.  So I do give them high marks for customer service.
   
  The good news is I think it probably them best sounding player but the bad news, it still has bugs.  The main one being the loopy problem I've complained about where last 10 second of certain tracks loop until next track when cache is enabled.  The player no longer has the stuttering problem and seems more stable.  When I tried to test their true gapless feature, I encountered the looping bug, so still need to test. Their solution is still loading into playlist but now having gapless checked in iTunes.  Not as convenient as Pure Music where you don't have to use a playlist.  And even Decibel or Audirvana play gapless with even having to deal with checking the iTunes box.  So not sure if Amarra will be my main player until remaining bugs are worked out.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Reminds me of that thread Lunatique started about similar software. I think the name of the other software for this is called Canz3D or something along those lines.


 

 I don't like the colorations Canz3D gives me.  I used it with Audio Hijack Pro, and the Apple AUMatrixReverb plugin sounds better to me, while still achieving some crossfeed.


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Reminds me of that thread Lunatique started about similar software. I think the name of the other software for this is called Canz3D or something along those lines.


 
   
  Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> I don't like the colorations Canz3D gives me.  I used it with Audio Hijack Pro, and the Apple AUMatrixReverb plugin sounds better to me, while still achieving some crossfeed.


 


This is supposedly "4D" so it must be different lol, it has a whole 'nother dimension to it! As far as coloration goes it says that it "Maintains the integrity and realistic tonal characteristics of the original recorded audio when processed"; also that it "Achieves a 4D experience from as few as 2 output channels, stereo speakers or headphones, yet is compatible with multi-channel presentation formats such as Dolby Digital and DTS". All I know is that it sounds great and I've never really been one for surround processing for music and I usually prefer the stereo mix to the surround mix when I have a choice, even with my speaker system where I can choose between full surround or bi-amped towers. But this is something special, and going back to music without AstoundSound when I a/b really does sound like mono in comparison. 
   
It's a free trial, and I would love to hear what someone else thinks of it. AFAIK I am the only one at Head-fi to try this so far as nothing turns up in the search engine.


----------



## IPodPJ

What do you mean it achieves a 4D experience?  Does it transport you through space and time?  If not, it's not 4D.


----------



## Roller

Shhhh, that's a secret. It's the tech responsible for the space age headphones that are coming before 2012, with so much power that they're the true deathbringers, giving meaning to all ancient prophecies culminating with the passing of 2012.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





ipodpj said:


> What do you mean it achieves a 4D experience?  Does it transport you through space and time?  If not, it's not 4D.


 

 well as long as it doesnt stop you from traveling through time normally it could still technically be considered 4d...


----------



## uelover

This is getting too ridiculous lol.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





grokit said:


> This is supposedly "4D" so it must be different lol, it has a whole 'nother dimension to it! As far as coloration goes it says that it "Maintains the integrity and realistic tonal characteristics of the original recorded audio when processed"; also that it "Achieves a 4D experience from as few as 2 output channels, stereo speakers or headphones, yet is compatible with multi-channel presentation formats such as Dolby Digital and DTS". All I know is that it sounds great and I've never really been one for surround processing for music and I usually prefer the stereo mix to the surround mix when I have a choice, even with my speaker system where I can choose between full surround or bi-amped towers. But this is something special, and going back to music without AstoundSound when I a/b really does sound like mono in comparison.
> 
> It's a free trial, and I would love to hear what someone else thinks of it. AFAIK I am the only one at Head-fi to try this so far as nothing turns up in the search engine.


 
  As long as it doesn't cause one to go backwards in time.  Actually, the ad copy about 4D experience is a really clever way of applying marketing speak to the phenomena of wasting time.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





grokit said:


> This is supposedly "4D" so it must be different lol, it has a whole 'nother dimension to it! As far as coloration goes it says that it "Maintains the integrity and realistic tonal characteristics of the original recorded audio when processed"; also that it "Achieves a 4D experience from as few as 2 output channels, stereo speakers or headphones, yet is compatible with multi-channel presentation formats such as Dolby Digital and DTS". All I know is that it sounds great and I've never really been one for surround processing for music and I usually prefer the stereo mix to the surround mix when I have a choice, even with my speaker system where I can choose between full surround or bi-amped towers. But this is something special, and going back to music without AstoundSound when I a/b really does sound like mono in comparison.
> 
> It's a free trial, and I would love to hear what someone else thinks of it. AFAIK I am the only one at Head-fi to try this so far as nothing turns up in the search engine.


 

  
  Hiya Grokit.  
   
  I gave it a shot, and thought it had a huge coloration on the sound.  I couldn't listen any more than a few minutes on any track.  While it created more "space," the midrange became quite objectionably resonant and bloated, and it really jacked up low-level reverb and other location/ambience cues to the point of distraction, even at "low" settings, and doing A/B left me clearly preferring the native sound.
   
  It may be our setups, or perhaps just different preferences and taste.  I've always preferred neutrality and transparency to space, but plenty of other people are way more interested in space than tonal balance....  YMMV


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Hiya Grokit.
> 
> I gave it a shot, and thought it had a huge coloration on the sound.  I couldn't listen any more than a few minutes on any track.  While it created more "space," the midrange became quite objectionably resonant and bloated, and it really jacked up low-level reverb and other location/ambience cues to the point of distraction, even at "low" settings, and doing A/B left me clearly preferring the native sound.
> 
> It may be our setups, or perhaps just different preferences and taste.  I've always preferred neutrality and transparency to space, but plenty of other people are way more interested in space than tonal balance....  YMMV


 
   

 Oh well, thanks for trying it out. I really liked the effect at first out of my LCD-2 but more so on some songs than others. I think the effect breaks down if the music isn't recorded well, it just seems to amplify the distortion. But on well-recorded music I do like it. Vocals can be hit or miss but where I am really liking it is for solo instrumental performances. I was listening to George Winston's piano renditions of Doors music (Night Divides the Day, excellent), and it feels like I am at a live chamber concert. To me it makes the music more immersive, but I understand that it isn't for everybody. I am looking forward to trying it with movies, that should be interesting as it supposedly is compatible with the cinema surround cues.
   
  I will be buying it for the 2 of 3 of my Macs that will run it, for one head rig and one speaker rig. It's cheap and fun, and is easy to turn on/off. And when I get a chance I will check out that Chesky binaural recording with it, that should be interesting...
   
  So is this similar to Canz3D after all? The only two-channel surround processing I've tried before this was Dolby Headphone and Creative's X-fi, and AstoundSound is leagues better than those.


----------



## uelover

No sure if anyone experienced the same thing as me. Initially when I switched from iTunes to Decibel and Audirvana, I thought that the jump in SQ was quite back.
   
  Then, now when I listen through iTunes, I realized that the jump is not actually that big and that I could actually make do with iTune alone.


----------



## starbux48

Where can I find the script that lets you drag songs from iTunes over into Audirvana?


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





uelover said:


> No sure if anyone experienced the same thing as me. Initially when I switched from iTunes to Decibel and Audirvana, I thought that the jump in SQ was quite back.
> 
> Then, now when I listen through iTunes, I realized that the jump is not actually that big and that I could actually make do with iTune alone.


 
  The power of auto suggestion is very strong in this one, Ohbiwan...  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Glad you are working your way through this quagmire!


----------



## MrQ

.


----------



## iamoneagain

Finally happy with Amarra.  I found a workaround for the few albums the were giving me looping problems.  I had to convert to WAV and then back to ALAC.  For some reason converting to AIFF and back didn't fix the problem.  I just got around to trying out gapless and it is indeed flawless with no seam between tracks.  Also haven't had any real stuttering problems when playing directly from iTunes. I'm hoping they find a way to get gapless without the use of a playlist so the player can be totally in the background.  For now it's back to being my chosen player.   I like being able to use iTunes directly again and the iphone Remote fully works.


----------



## KingStyles

Just got the newest version of amarra loaded up and it sounds great. Seems a little clearer than the previous version.... or maybe the vacation I just got off of repaired my hearing.


----------



## starbux48

Played around today with Audirvana with settings of SRC on and upsampling set to maximum sample rate.  Also installed a utility that shows me % utilization of both cpu cores on my Macbook Pro.  With both of those turned on both cores went up to 100% and stayed there.  One question I have is this...if am just using the computer at any time to simply play audio via Audirvana, is there any downside to letting the processors run at 100%?  I would think that they would generate more heat, but are there any other reasons not to do this?
   
  I ran out of time on my paid evals for Pure Music, Amarra, and am running in trial mode for Fidelia.  Haven't tried Decibel yet (to be honest found the page to download it and there were several choices and being new to Macs didn't know which to get).  I liked Pure Music.  Amarra Mini was nice but both it and full version out of my budget now, and did not like the Junior interface.  Liked Fidelia plus they have an iOS app for my Touch.  Like Audirvana as much as any and it's free.
   
  I believe I can hear an improvement with the SRC and max upsampling turned on, but will my Mac suffer anything as a result of those high cpu %?
   
  Oh have downloaded Vox and running but best I can see is it still being developed?  I know the others are.  Also, sent some emails to Channel D support.  Fast replies, very helpful.  Same for email for product feature add request to Fidelia support.  Very quick response.  I like that.  Those replies alone make me think if I need to tweak any piece of my software or hardware setup, the developers & tech supt for those companies will be there to help me.
   
  On side note, highly recommend tech response from HRT MusicStreamer support.


----------



## starbux48

FYI unless it's old news.  Nice program in beta now to export playlists from iTunes in .m3u format that programs like Audirvana can read and use.  Not sure of their release date yet or cost (think it'll be something).  Will post more later when it's out if anyone is interested.


----------



## uelover

Hmm you can access your iTune playlist directly from Finder and add them accordingly to Audirvana. Maybe just a step more but it will be forever there for you (for free).
   
  Having your computer running at 100% CPU utilization will generate an enormous amount of heat which will then shorten the lifespan of your mac.
   
  The highest temperature I have hit with Audirvana was 95 degree celsius. I could almost boil water on it.


----------



## afton

This is awesome Currawong! Thanks   
  Do you know any audiophile music player for Windows?


----------



## KingStyles

Quote: 





> Do you know any audiophile music player for Windows?


 
   
  Jriver media center is the best I found for windows when I had a pc music server last year. It is able to control anything in your audio setup and also has a memory play option. Very easy gui to get used to and to optimize.


----------



## WarriorAnt

What is the current price for the full version of Amarra?  Is it $99.   
   
  Audirvana cannot handle loading a large iTunes library.  I have a library of 6240 song and as soon as it finishes loading Audirvana quits.  Anyone else have a problem with a large library transfer?


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> What is the current price for the full version of Amarra?  Is it $99.
> 
> Audirvana cannot handle loading a large iTunes library.  I have a library of 6240 song and as soon as it finishes loading Audirvana quits.  Anyone else have a problem with a large library transfer?


 

 That's the junior version of Amarra that nobody wants, the mini version is $295 and the full version is $695. With iTunes > PureMusic, I have 10,320 songs and still going strong


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> What is the current price for the full version of Amarra?  Is it $99.
> 
> Audirvana cannot handle loading a large iTunes library.  I have a library of 6240 song and as soon as it finishes loading Audirvana quits.  Anyone else have a problem with a large library transfer?


 


  audirvana isnt designed for library management, its just supposed to have reasonably sized playlists...


----------



## mrarroyo

Quote: 





grokit said:


> That's the junior version of Amarra that nobody wants, the mini version is $295 and the full version is $695. With iTunes > PureMusic, I have 10,320 songs and still going strong


 


  I have not been following  up on the Amarra but I was getting interested in purchasing the Junior version at $99. Would you please expand on why "nobody wants" the $99 version? Thanks.


----------



## grokit

I haven't tried Amarra personally because of the single-license issue. But the complaints that I have read about junior version were mainly regarding the interface.


----------



## mrspeakers

I believe the Jr. has no provision for upsampling (too lazy to verify tonight, so correct-away if I am wrong).  \
   
  I would personally not invest in any product that didn't support the cool things you can do with a little CPU...


----------



## grokit

Yeah all three versions have different upsampling levels (including none) but on the junior version it's the stand-alone mini player that seems to inspire complaints.


----------



## mrarroyo

So as of now you all have not listened to the Jr Version, correct? No disrespect is meant, just thought most of you commenting had listened to it. Thanks.


----------



## grokit

I never commented on the way it sounds if you are referring to me.


----------



## MrQ

Audirvana updated 0.8.3


----------



## kwkarth

VOX 0.2.8 beta 2.  Try it.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> VOX 0.2.8 beta 2.  Try it.


 

 Had a listen. I do prefer iTune's sound and interface. What is special about VOX other than it being compatible to a wide variety of file format?


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Had a listen. I do prefer iTune's sound and interface. What is special about VOX other than it being compatible to a wide variety of file format?


 
  It's totally configurable, sample rate and bit depth, various filters, all core audio plug ins supported, plays all music from your own playlists and from drag and drop playlists from inside iTunes, on and on........  Converts files en mass from one format to another.  Upsamples on the fly or multiple files up front.  etc...


----------



## maka1986

Hi .
  I've been following this thread for a while and want to ask for a recommendation.
  My library is almost all FLAC and APE. I'm switching to Mac soon and I want a player that can handle FLAC and APE with big library size (2TB) and very important to me - CUE sheet support for my lossless files. Is there a solution which can grant me all my wishes?
  Thanks in advance.
  MK


----------



## WarriorAnt

I use this to convert my FLAC to apple lossless and to rip CD's
   
  http://tmkk.pv.land.to/xld/index_e.html
   
  Or you could use this to play FLAC inside iTunes.
   
  http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/28768/fluke/


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

If your computer is current, you might consider leaving as is, and then moving to AIFF for net new media. I use XLD - http://tmkk.pv.land.to/xld/index_e.html
   
   
  EDIT: I use PureMusic 1.74br4. Per the developer, AIFF is the preferred file format for OS X due to native support, but it also plays most other's as well.  
  
  Quote: 





maka1986 said:


> Hi .
> I've been following this thread for a while and want to ask for a recommendation.
> My library is almost all FLAC and APE. I'm switching to Mac soon and I want a player that can handle FLAC and APE with big library size (2TB) and very important to me - CUE sheet support for my lossless files. Is there a solution which can grant me all my wishes?
> Thanks in advance.
> MK


----------



## mrspeakers

Max converts FLAC to ALAC and can run batches, so it's pretty easy, and it's free.  Pure Music "imports" FLAC by making link files in iTunes that point to the FLAC file.  Pure Music can open the FLAC, but if you try to play in iTunes they don't work.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I think that is correct. All PM is doing for FLAC media is using iTunes for library management; PM is the actual engine that plays FLAC. 
   
  Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Max converts FLAC to ALAC and can run batches, so it's pretty easy, and it's free.  Pure Music "imports" FLAC by making link files in iTunes that point to the FLAC file.  Pure Music can open the FLAC, but if you try to play in iTunes they don't work.


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I think that is correct. All PM is doing for FLAC media is using iTunes for library management; PM is the actual engine that plays FLAC.


 

 I believe that this applies to all of the audio codecs when PureMusic is running, not just FLAC.


----------



## IPodPJ

Quote: 





mrq said:


> Audirvana updated 0.8.3


 

 It's been updated to 0.9.0.


----------



## turimbar1

Audirvana is not playing nice with my audiogd nfb12, vox works fine with it as does itunes, but audirvana has a constant click click click like a metronome the entire time I am playing. Can anyone help me, ive messed around with upsampling (turning it on and off) and the quality (both up and down) and which converter I used and it is not going away at all. Even happens with mp3 files.


----------



## IPodPJ

Quote: 





turimbar1 said:


> Audirvana is not playing nice with my audiogd nfb12, vox works fine with it as does itunes, but audirvana has a constant click click click like a metronome the entire time I am playing. Can anyone help me, ive messed around with upsampling (turning it on and off) and the quality (both up and down) and which converter I used and it is not going away at all. Even happens with mp3 files.


 

 How are you connected to the NFB12?  Are you using a USB to S/PDIF converter?  I have no issues at all going from my Mac Mini optical output into the Audio-gd Reference 7.1.


----------



## turimbar1

it is via usb, I do not have a transport. And it is only with audirvana, high-quality recordings over vox is fine.


----------



## Currawong

Try changing the buffer setting in the preferences.


----------



## mrarroyo

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Try changing the buffer setting in the preferences.


 


  How do you do this? I mean on an iMac, thanks.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Here's an interesting video with some of the players we've been discussing: http://audiofest.net/2011/video_player.php?video_id=20


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Here's an interesting video with some of the players we've been discussing: http://audiofest.net/2011/video_player.php?video_id=20


 

 These guys know what they are talking about, very interesting video. There's lots of other good ones listed as well, thanks for posting!


----------



## turimbar1

In here? I have changed the "max I/O buffer size" several times and it makes no difference. Neither does the "bridge devices connected to a DAC" setting either, I am really stumped at this point. I have never heard of anyone who has the same problem.


----------



## turimbar1

OK, so it IS the integer mode, without it the clicking goes away, which is really unfortunate because I love integer mode  it is what everyone agrees is better. There must be a sync issue between my comp and the DAC clock causing dropouts.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The next release of Pure Music is on the horizon: http://www.channld.com/PureMusic052011PR4.pdf


----------



## Curly21029

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> The next release of Pure Music is on the horizon: http://www.channld.com/PureMusic052011PR4.pdf


 

 Looking forward to what the new release brings.
   
  In other news, Fidelia is now out of the picture for me.  It held up well to and, in my opinion, bested some great music players like Audirvana (best free player, IMO) and Decibel but in the end just couldn't hold up to Pure Music.  I like the interface and the fact that I don't need to use iTunes at all with it, but in comparison to PM it sounds a bit on the unnatural side... like you can hear the digital processing if that makes any sense.  I found the bottom end to be driven with both less authority and articulation.  Both looser and less present.  The mids and highs also both felt a bit thinner.  It did seem to create a slightly larger sense of space but also put everything at more of a distance making for a less engaging experience.  Still, Fidelia is a wonderful program that shows a lot of potential.  Will definitely be on the lookout for sonic updates.  For the record, I turned all the extra junk off in Fidelia and, of course, enabled hog mode.
   
  So, I'm settled on Pure Music (hog, memory play) for good, right?  Not so fast... my old nemesis Amarra is back in the picture.  Out of curiosity, I've been listening to the latest (full) version over the past few days and it's more stable than what I've experienced with previous versions... SHOCKINGLY so.  It's still clunky and the interface is still overall convoluted and bloated in my opinion.  I'm also unable to play lossless directly out of iTunes and need to instead utilize the haphazardly implemented playlist function. (which should negate the need for iTunes altogether, dammit!)  I can't find upsampling settings anywhere in the manual, preferences, or extras and can't find if it even has a hog mode.  But damn... I do need to hand it to Sonic Studio.  It sounds absolutely incredible!  It's noticeably more dimensional than PM, warmer, a touch smoother than the already natural sounding presentation of PM, and has a sweeter high end that's presented with a bit more body.  Bass is a touch more pronounced than in PM but doesn't lose any texture, detail, or control.  Very, very impressive.  It should be interesting to see if Channel D does anything to their SQ in the new update.
   
  If the Audiofile Engineering guys could get together with Sonic Studio to teach them how to create an elegant, attractive, and, above all, user-friendly interface it would result in my favorite music player.  As it stands, Amarra has one huge plus (SQ... ok, and the fact that I don't have to shut down iTunes separately like with PM is a nice convenience) and a lot of minuses for me.  It sounds like a million bucks (intentional jab at the ludicrous price tag) but is clunky, unintuitive, and downright slow when compared to something that reacts as fast to user commands as Fidelia.  I'll spend some more time A-Bing Pure Music and Ammara's SQ in the coming days, but I'll be sure to also spend some time exclusively learning the ins and outs of Amarra's functionality to see if it grows on me or can adjust to it rather than merely tolerate it. 
   
  While I'm currently preferring Amarra's SQ, I also definitely consider Pure Music and Fidelia to be at the absolute top of the heap.  If my equipment chain were different, chances are I'd prefer one of the latter or would at the very least need to do some critical A-Bing.  As it stands, I'm still using an Apogee Duet as a DAC (nicely detailed) along with a PPAv2 (detailed and revealing) and the Ultrasone Edition 8. (detailed and brutally revealing)  If I were to, say, change to a warm tube amp (say, the WA6... because I love it and that's what I would go for if I left SS) I would probably prefer Pure Music's presentation.  If I were to use a Denon D7000 with my current setup, I would likely choose Fidelia to counteract their bass-emphasis a bit and widen their presentation a bit.  I'd definitely encourage everyone to at the very least download trial versions of them all and take at least one dedicated day to compare their performance with a variety of your favorite albums.  Some impressions are that music players don't really matter and iTunes is sufficient.  I wholeheartedly disagree and, whether it be a lack of quality components or just sheer stubbornness, am absolutely certain that these people are wrong.  The impact on the headphone listening experience is astoundingly dramatic.
   
  *A quick statement on iTunes: small, congested, and digital sounding... but easy to use.  It does its job without much flair.  I suppose with the right components, brain burn-in, and/or lack of wanting to seek the alternatives ignorance could be bliss.


----------



## Curly21029

A few things to add:
   
  Did some searching around... no upsampling options or hog mode with Amarra. (please correct me if I'm wrong in my findings...)  I suppose it's not a terrible thing considering that I already feel that it sounds sonically superior to Pure Music without these features.  Running PM, I thought that upsampling 44.1 to 96 helped with some lossless album rips and helped clean up lossy files.  I never felt as though native was superior to upsampled with any content, so I just kept upsampling on.  I have yet to try anything but lossless files with Amarra so it should be interesting to hear how it deals with lossy content.
   
  I'm still unsure why I can't get lossless files to play in iTunes and be output through Amarra, but I read that it can't do gapless this way anyway.  It does, however, provide gapless playback in its dedicated playlist.  I've also read that playing directly from the playlist provides superior SQ.  Using this exclusively also allows one to utilize Amarra sans iTunes.  The problem is the dedicated playlist window certainly lacks in functionality as there are no columns for artist/album and no way to sort by them either.  The order in which the files are dropped in is the order they stay.  Frustrating considering these features are no-brainers at this point and pretty much every other player, premium or free, have them.
   
  I started playing with more of Amarra's options, and one that surprised me was memory allocation under the playback settings.  It's defaulted to 512MB, but upon raising it to 1GB I noticed an increase in image depth over the course of a few seconds.  Upon opening the activity monitor, it said that Amarra was using 832MB at that point.  Increasing the memory allocation to 2GB didn't create any more improvements nor did it effect the activity monitor, but I'm leaving it there just so it doesn't hit another ceiling again.  Upon re-checking it after a bit, it actually said 1.2GB was being used so I believe it to be a good decision.
   
  I still have some more tinkering to do, but I'm thinking that I'll probably end up using both Amarra and Pure Music equally when it's all said and done.  Amarra will most likely be my go-to for critical listening; dropping whole lossless albums in and out of the playlist and listening to them, uninterrupted, all the way through.  Pure Music will probably get used when I feel like just having some cheap fun and skip around from track to track and bitrate to bitrate.  I also need the ability to to skip around an individual track at will to audition new music to most efficiently see if it's worth my time.  Amarra's playlist feature doesn't allow for this, so I would most likely utilize Pure Music for this as well.  If PM's next update brings sonic improvements that equal Amarra, I'll be back to using PM exclusively.  Due to its functionality, SQ, and price tag, I would unreservedly recommend it over Amarra (full version... no idea about the others) for those seeking a single solution.
   
  Quick ranking of the music players that I feel are actually worth the time purely in terms of SQ:
   
  Top Tier:
  Amarra > Pure Music
   
  Second Tier:
  Fidelia
   
  Third Tier:
  Decibel = Audirvana
   
  For the record, I would be happy with any one of them.
   
  EDIT: Sorry for the double-post... don't know what I was thinking.


----------



## MtnSloth

I tried Fidelia and Pure Music; and, between the two went with Pure Music. However, the decision had more to do with convenience and integration with iTunes - which matters as iPods/iPhone/iPad are in play as music players under some circumstances. I could not arrive at a definitive winner between the two in terms of SQ.
   
  Amarra was not even in the running due to user hostile licensing; it is a personal matter of principle.


----------



## Curly21029

The more I use Amarra, the more random encounters I'm having with unexplainable skips and stutters that force me to reload it.  Grr... now I'm remembering why I never liked Amarra's performance in the first place.  All I want to do is sit back and enjoy smooth playback of an album... is that too much to ask?
   
  ARGH!  Why does it have to sound so damn good?! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   
  To go with the above rankings, tiers solely for usability and stability:
   
   
  Top Tier:

  Fidelia (never encountered an issue, has it's own dedicated playlist window with all necessary options and full access to iTunes library, extremely responsive when skipping around in a track, waveform displayed on player to use as reference for easy skimming of track, hog and memory play modes, nicely formatted preferences with easy access to just about everything)

   

  Second Tier:

  Audirvana, Decibel, Pure Music

   

  Crap Tier:

  Amarra 

   

  EDIT:

   

  And I take back what I wrote about Fidelia sounding "digital."  When upsampling, I feel that it does. (Pure Music does a much better job with this, IMO) When playing natively, I feel that it sounds nicely analogue.  However, I do feel that it's overall brighter sounding than both Pure Music and especially Amarra with a less present and controlled bottom end.  I also feel that it's mid-range is a bit less full sounding than the other two with treble that becomes somewhat unnaturally extended. (don't want to say harsh, but certainly not as pleasant as the other two in this regard)


----------



## mrarroyo

^ This is not good, I have been looking into buying the Amarra mini but now ... ???


----------



## iamoneagain

You should give Amarra mini a demo.  Think they now give you 15 days instead of the forced pauses it used to have.  Then you can really see how it performs in your system.  I used to hate it but having much better luck with current version.  I also find the sound quality to be better than anything else I've tried.  I was really enjoying Audivana for sound quality but then tried Amarra again with latest update and just beats it.  Soundstage seems more fleshed out and real. Audivana feels like paper cutouts in a 3d space in comparison.  Not sure if that makes any sense.  Also Amarra has the most tubelike sound to it.  Still wish it was as stable as the other players but it's really improved since the last version.


----------



## Curly21029

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> You should give Amarra mini a demo.  Think they now give you 15 days instead of the forced pauses it used to have.  Then you can really see how it performs in your system.  I used to hate it but having much better luck with current version.  I also find the sound quality to be better than anything else I've tried.  I was really enjoying Audivana for sound quality but then tried Amarra again with latest update and just beats it.  Soundstage seems more fleshed out and real. Audivana feels like paper cutouts in a 3d space in comparison.  Not sure if that makes any sense.  Also Amarra has the most tubelike sound to it.  Still wish it was as stable as the other players but it's really improved since the last version.


 

 Agreed.  Grab the demo and try it for yourself.
   
  Your comparison between Amarra and Audirvana makes perfect sense.  Amarra displays a better sense of dimension both in terms of individual instrument representation as well as soundstage.  Audirvana is a great program, especially for free, but the latest Amarra's sound is supremely good.


----------



## KingStyles

I have never had any issues with amarra. Works flawlessly for me.


----------



## Curly21029

Quote: 





kingstyles said:


> I have never had any issues with amarra. Works flawlessly for me.


 

 Oh how I envy you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Care to share anything regarding the issues I've experienced?  Would love to be able to enjoy this amazing SQ with a few less headaches.


----------



## KingStyles

Its hard to say why one system works and others dont. I only use my mac for playing music and nothing else. I loaded and disabled all the programs that I needed before I transferred all my music to it. Even though I have 8GB  of ram, I keep the ram allocation option at 2GB. It seems to work flawlessly there. I also listen usually just with cache mode on. I only use the playlist if I am playing a album that needs to be gapless or for some critical listening. Otherwise I havent run into to many problems. 
   
  I was having problems with dropouts when playing 24/192 music and thought it might be amarra. It turned out it was my digital spdif cable. When I switched to a nice one with a solid silver core, rather than copper, I never had the problem again.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





kingstyles said:


> Its hard to say why one system works and others dont. I only use my mac for playing music and nothing else. I loaded and disabled all the programs that I needed before I transferred all my music to it. Even though I have 8GB  of ram, I keep the ram allocation option at 2GB. It seems to work flawlessly there. I also listen usually just with cache mode on. I only use the playlist if I am playing a album that needs to be gapless or for some critical listening. Otherwise I havent run into to many problems.
> 
> I was having problems with dropouts when playing 24/192 music and thought it might be amarra. It turned out it was my digital spdif cable. When I switched to a nice one with a solid silver core, rather than copper, I never had the problem again.


 


  Which silver cable?


----------



## WarriorAnt

Anyone see this yet?  Jplay
   
  http://jplay.eu/


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Which silver cable?


 
   
  A magic one. Duh.


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Anyone see this yet?  Jplay
> 
> http://jplay.eu/


 


  Doesn't seem to have OS X support?


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

You know, I wouldn't feel so hesitant about paying $120 for Pure Audio if it didn't have such a hideous UI. I know that doesn't sound like a big deal to most people but as someone who builds websites for a living often a bad UI is indicative of problems elsewhere, whether in the actual software itself or some part of the business. It's not as if a clean, attractive UI is that difficult, either.
   
  Heck for how much the software costs they can easily afford to drop a little on a proper UI designer...


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





hero kid said:


> Doesn't seem to have OS X support?


 

 Arrrrg!  I'm such a Mac head I thought it was for the Mac when I read iTunes.    :::::::::Slapping my forehead::::::::::


----------



## KingStyles

Quote: 





> Which silver cable?


 
  Revelation Audio Labs Prophecies Silver 1 reference digital cable. It uses 5n silver for the core wire.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Arrrrg!  I'm such a Mac head I thought it was for the Mac when I read iTunes.    :::::::::Slapping my forehead::::::::::


 

 Yup, if it doesn't run on my Mac, it goes back. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  BTW, I still like VOX.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





dougoftheabaci said:


> You know, I wouldn't feel so hesitant about paying $120 for Pure Audio if it didn't have such a hideous UI. I know that doesn't sound like a big deal to most people but as someone who builds websites for a living often a bad UI is indicative of problems elsewhere, whether in the actual software itself or some part of the business. It's not as if a clean, attractive UI is that difficult, either.
> 
> Heck for how much the software costs they can easily afford to drop a little on a proper UI designer...


 


  I use Amarra not just because it sounds great, I could easily live with some of the other players.  I use it mostly because of the way it integrates with iTunes.  In my music collection I may add hundreds of songs at a time and then sit down to listen to them. The ones I do not like I toss out and keep what I do like.   The best for me to keep track of what I have listened to already is the use of the "Plays" column in iTunes.  Amarra updates the list for me which is extremely helpful.    I don't know if the other players do this.  If they can let me know.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Vox is good; Pure Music is "gooder" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Vox is my "quickie" player. 
  
  Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Yup, if it doesn't run on my Mac, it goes back.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Pure Music is fully integrated with iTunes. 
  
  Quote: 





warriorant said:


> I use Amarra not just because it sounds great, I could easily live with some of the other players.  I use it mostly because of the way it integrates with iTunes.  In my music collection I may add hundreds of songs at a time and then sit down to listen to them. The ones I do not like I toss out and keep what I do like.   The best for me to keep track of what I have listened to already is the use of the "Plays" column in iTunes.  Amarra updates the list for me which is extremely helpful.    I don't know if the other players do this.  If they can let me know.


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Pure Music is fully integrated with iTunes.


 


  Yes it does. It could not, however, be uglier if it tried. Seriously.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





dougoftheabaci said:


> Yes it does. It could not, however, be uglier if it tried. Seriously.


 
  So Pure Music does add play data into iTunes?   It is the only player I do not have.  figures.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

As they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I wouldn't let its aesthetics keep you from some otherwise great music. I find it more than competent. Underneath is some fairly efficient code for the feature set it includes. But if you want small and cute, try Vox. Very nice player, and it is looks good too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  Quote: 





dougoftheabaci said:


> Yes it does. It could not, however, be uglier if it tried. Seriously.


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Beauty is actually a quantifiable entity but that's neither here nor there. Good design isn't about beauty.
   
  Anyways, there's another project on the forums where a user is attempting to create something similar to Pure Music. I have high hopes for it though I might end up with Pure Music in the end. I just can't see myself having that icon in my dock... >.<


----------



## omasciarotte

*MtnSloth **wrote**:*


> Amarra was not even in the running due to user hostile licensing; it is a personal matter of principle.


 

 Hey MtnSloth,
   
  The current Amarra releases have done away w/iLock licensing.


----------



## iamoneagain

Pure Music's newest release is out.  I'm currently testing it against Amarra.  On first impressions, I might actually like it better soundwise.  It has a wider soundstage but not as deep.  Need to do some more testing.  Also want to check out the upsampling which I'm usually not a fan off.  I like that every time Pure Music has a new update, you get another 15 day trial.  As far as looks, I actually push iTunes back into the corner and Pure Music right off the screen.  I never have to look it.  So far it more stable than Amarra and tracks load up quicker.  But in the end, it going to be who had the best sound that I keep using.
   
  http://www.channld.com/download.html
   
  Edit: After just a little testing I definitely prefer Amarra.  Found a few tracks where Amarra kind of wraps you in the song and Pure Music sounds dull in comparison.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Pure Music's newest release is out.  I'm currently testing it against Amarra.  On first impressions, I might actually like it better soundwise.  It has a wider soundstage but not as deep.  Need to do some more testing.  Also want to check out the upsampling which I'm usually not a fan off.  I like that every time Pure Music has a new update, you get another 15 day trial.  As far as looks, I actually push iTunes back into the corner and Pure Music right off the screen.  I never have to look it.  So far it more stable than Amarra and tracks load up quicker.  But in the end, it going to be who had the best sound that I keep using.
> 
> http://www.channld.com/download.html
> 
> Edit: After just a little testing I definitely prefer Amarra.  Found a few tracks where Amarra kind of wraps you in the song and Pure Music sounds dull in comparison.


 

 Hey iamoneagain, can you help me see if Amarra performs better for not-so-good recordings?
   
  A lot of Pop songs selling out there has got quite a bad recording/mastering and Amarra actually made them sound worse (tonal balance all screwed up). On HD tracks, Amarra definitely sounded fantastic.
   
  At least that was the impression I had on my system.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Hey iamoneagain, can you help me see if Amarra performs better for not-so-good recordings?
> 
> A lot of Pop songs selling out there has got quite a bad recording/mastering and Amarra actually made them sound worse (tonal balance all screwed up). On HD tracks, Amarra definitely sounded fantastic.
> 
> At least that was the impression I had on my system.


 


  Maybe if you can give me a couple songs, I can try them if I have them.  
   
  But I got out of the higher you upgrade, the worse regular music sounds a while ago.  Didn't make sense to stop liking most of my collection.  I now have AT L3000, which is very highend, but a lot of people either love them or hate them.  I find it keeps everything fun and musical.  I can listen to 80's stuff, old punk stuff, whatever and it sounds good on my system.  Is it the most honest and neutral? I don't care.  I want a system that makes all my music a pleasure to listen to.  I find Amarra adds to this by giving a musical sound vs a clinical, technical sound.
   
  Oh, the point of the last paragraph was to say my system might not be the best judge of if something will sound bad or not.  Listening to some old Black Flag right now and it sounds great.  Captures the energy perfect.


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





dougoftheabaci said:


> ...I might end up with Pure Music in the end. I just can't see myself having that icon in my dock... >.<


 

 Hey it's not _that_ bad...


----------



## sferic

I'm very happy with Audirvana, using the "SRCsamplerateLib" in prefs (whatever that means, I just find the music clearer with it.) And it's updated regularly. Works fine with my Apogee Duet.


----------



## Curly21029

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Pure Music's newest release is out.  I'm currently testing it against Amarra.  On first impressions, I might actually like it better soundwise.  It has a wider soundstage but not as deep.  Need to do some more testing.


 

 Interesting.  I haven't gotten to listen to it as much as I'd like yet, but my initial impression of Pure Music 1.8 is that the soundstage has been widened from the previous version as well as comparatively to Amarra.  Still, I'm definitely still preferring the presentation of Amarra as it sounds more natural to me overall.  Concerning being "deeper," I think I know what you mean.  Amarra sounds both more dynamic as well as more dimensional and full-bodied.  There's a definite weight to the tonality that helps things like vocals sound more realistic.  It also places individual instruments with more precision within the overall image.  The sum of all this is that Amarra sounds like it maintains better control in its presentation.
   
  As stated in an earlier post, I absolutely believe that different music players will most likely synergize better with different equipment chains.  It's also worth noting that my Apogee Duet cannot utilize integer mode with Pure Music, so it's unknown what sonic improvements it could potentially provide.  I'll also note that the latest version seems to be every bit as stable and user-friendly as the last, so those are some big points that it has over Amarra.  Furthermore, its support of online streaming clients like Pandora could prove to be incredibly useful for some. (haven't tried it yet, but I plan to give it a shot when I can)  I also have a Meier Concerto on the way, so it should be interesting to see if I reach a different opinion when I re-audition music players with it.


----------



## grokit

I agree about how synergy with the equipment chain can make all the difference in how any of these enhancers sound, especially with the DAC.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





curly21029 said:


> Still, I'm definitely still preferring the presentation of Amarra as it sounds more natural to me overall.  Concerning being "deeper," I think I know what you mean.  Amarra sounds both more dynamic as well as more dimensional and full-bodied.  There's a definite weight to the tonality that helps things like vocals sound more realistic.  It also places individual instruments with more precision within the overall image.  The sum of all this is that Amarra sounds like it maintains better control in its presentation.


 
  These are my thoughts about Amarra exactly.


----------



## Curly21029

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> These are my thoughts about Amarra exactly.


 

 Glad it's not just me then.   Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy with either, but the difference between the two is instantly recognizable and rather drastic, IMO.  I can't say that I'm disappointed by the Pure Music update as its a fantastic sounding player, but Sonic Studio really stepped their game up with the latest version of Amarra and pulled far ahead of everyone else in terms of SQ.  The audio performance being what it is, hopefully now they'll work on the functional and stability issues.


----------



## iamoneagain

Someone else just reported Amarra has another update and to see if it would fix my weird looping problem.  So far so good.  Also seems more stable.  Need to play around with it some more.
   
  http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarrasupport.html#DOWNLOAD
   
  The download process has change where you need to fill out request first but then let's you download a link on next page.  It says demo but it's also full product if you already have code.  I kept old copy and it just replaced it with preferences still in place.  Just asked me to enter new password is all but remember my code.  Think Amarra is finally getting their act together.


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Quote: 





grokit said:


> Hey it's not _that_ bad...


 


  You have to understand... I'm a designer. So when I say something is ugly it's because I'm comparing it to something that does it right. LIke this:
   

   
  There is no reason you couldn't make a desktop look every bit as sexy as that. No reason at all. So I stand by my statement. To be honest, most of the software in this space could use a heavy UI overhaul.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





curly21029 said:


> Glad it's not just me then.   Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy with either, but the difference between the two is instantly recognizable and rather drastic, IMO.  I can't say that I'm disappointed by the Pure Music update as its a fantastic sounding player, but Sonic Studio really stepped their game up with the latest version of Amarra and pulled far ahead of everyone else in terms of SQ.  The audio performance being what it is, hopefully now they'll work on the functional and stability issues.


 
  I have not tired Pure Music yet.   The other alternatives are also very good.   Amarra is way overpriced but it does have that dynamic edge, that palpable solidness that give instruments weight and realism and helps place the instruments in a more solid space.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Here's a tip that might help some folks using SW based music players. 
   
  We often forget that OS X is a multiuser operating system. You can host multiple user accounts on the same system. Ideally, these SW based audiophile players like to have dedicated hardware in order to minimize the effects of interrupt based processes, like networking. However, if you're like me, you use your computer as a multipurpose system, word processing, e-mail, Internet, spreadsheets, you know, work! And if you've purchased a MacBook Pro or a Mac Pro tower just for music, it means having a lot of unused computing resources laying around.
   
  If you'd like to make sure that all your system resources are being used primarily for music on a muiltipurpse computer, there's a very simple solution -- create a dedicated, music only user account! This effectively looks like a brand new computer sans any of the typical processes that might be running in your multpurpose account, like Jungle Disk, Dropbox, Weather Dock, H20 HazeOver, or Zooom2, to mention a few. All these little apps mean that the OS has a lot of overhead and interrupt driven processes that might otherwise interfere with Amara or Pure Music, Audirvana, Fidella, etc. 
   
  You can still access your same iTunes library e.g. for Amara and Pure Music. When you first run iTunes from the new, deicated, music only user account, just hold down the option/alt key. iTunes will ask for the iTunes library location (internal or external HD), and viola! All your music is available (as well as your apps, vidieos, etc). I still user my multipurpose account for syncing, and backing up my iPhone, app upgrades, but the same functionality is available in either account.
   
  What the dedicated. music only user account provides is a like new, clean, full memory model available for music!
   
  And who knows? Maybe with everything else disabled, it might even sound better!
   
  Hope this helps some of you!    
   
  EDIT: BTW, when switching to the dedicated, music only account, I always perform a restart to ensure that all background processes have been released. It just ensures that you start with a clean slate.


----------



## rosgr63

Nice tip, thanks!


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Therein lies a big difference--you're a designer. Rob at Pure Music is a scientist and a SW engineer. The focus is quite different.
   
  I have a little of both backgrounds, so I certainly appreciate and respect your constructive cristicism. 
   
   
  Quote: 





dougoftheabaci said:


> You have to understand... I'm a designer. So when I say something is ugly it's because I'm comparing it to something that does it right. LIke this:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason you couldn't make a desktop look every bit as sexy as that. No reason at all. So I stand by my statement. To be honest, most of the software in this space could use a heavy UI overhaul.


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Therein lies a big difference--you're a designer. Rob at Pure Music is a scientist and a SW engineer. The focus is quite different.
> 
> I have a little of both backgrounds, so I certainly appreciate and respect your constructive cristicism.


 

  
  It's great that he's an engineer and really knows his stuff. I'd want nothing less from the guy building the software side of things. However, developers are not designers and things are best when both designers and developers work together. I just look at Pure Music and go, "The UI is convoluted, unclear and ugly. All it would take is one designer to audit the software and redesign it for the whole experience to be drastically improved."
   
  I just don't know why it's never been done.


----------



## grokit

Still... what's to design? It's just a scrolling masthead with a control sidebar:


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Quote: 





grokit said:


> Still... what's to design? It's just a scrolling masthead with a control sidebar:


 
   

 Well... Since you asked...
   
  For a start, the entire masthead is unnecessary. Completely. Then, for some reason, no one thought to make the app scale to full height or width. Of course, by docking it to iTunes like that you actually offset the iTunes window. This is fine if you aren't using it to fill the screen but for anyone with a smaller screen this actually makes it a problem. 15" macs would find this a bit bothersome and 13" macs would find it to be a real problem. On smaller Macs, screen real estate is at a premium.
   
  Were it up to me? I'd:
   
   - Turn it into an agent instead of an app so it doesn't show in the dock (only in the menu bar)
   - Remove the scrolling marque because it serves no purpose beyond what iTunes already tells you.
   - Move the controls out of an attached add-on and into an extra window (I'd probably use the HUD style to in order to keep it in style with the rest of iTunes)
   - Remove the Play button as it's redundant and isn't as functional as the iTunes controls
   - Give the preferences a proper window chrome instead of the one it's using now
   
  If you did that it would be much less obtrusive, have the exact same level of functionality and fit better with OS X and it's UI patterns.


----------



## MtnSloth

Quote: 





omasciarotte said:


> Hey MtnSloth,
> 
> The current Amarra releases have done away w/iLock licensing.


 

 Quoting from the FAQ:
  Quote: 





> Q: What is an iLok and a License Request File?  A: Amarra uses an iLok and Amarra MINI has two authorization procedures. One uses an iLok which is a USB dongle. The other uses a machine locked license file.
> *iLok License Authorization:*
> 
> 14 Day Full Trial license available
> ...


 
   
  Completely unacceptable. I could say more, but what would be the point? It would only get me banned for foul language . . .


----------



## grokit

Wow, the new FLA scheme is even unfriendlier than iLock, I didn't think that was possible!


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Wow, I thought the software industry had done away with license USB keys... You used to have to do that for some 3D and high-end video software way back in the day. Then everyone realized it was easily cracked and actually caused more problems than it solved.


----------



## WarriorAnt

I have a few questions perhaps someone could help me with.  
   
   
  In Audirvana what is the difference between the Apple Coreaudio and the SRC lisSampleRate?  What is the deal with Forced upsampling and the selections None, 2X or 4X over sampling only, Maximum sample rate upsampling  Why would I want to use this.
   
  what are the best settings for Fidelia?  Izotope Resampler?  Dither Settings and Izotope Resampler settings?
   
  Amarra.  What is TPDF? What is MBIT+?  Best set at 16,20,24 Bits?  Shape?  None, Light, Medium, High, Utlra and way shape?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> I have a few questions perhaps someone could help me with.
> 
> 
> In Audirvana what is the difference between the Apple Coreaudio and the SRC lisSampleRate?  What is the deal with Forced upsampling and the selections None, 2X or 4X over sampling only, Maximum sample rate upsampling  Why would I want to use this.
> ...


 

 Audirvana: Apple Coreaudio sounds more iTune-ish (more transparent) and SRC lisSampleRate sounds fuller and warmer.
  2X, 4X upsampling keeps the integrity of the original audio file sampling rate. Upsampling mode increases the SQ in audirvana by quite a big margin. However, they also raped my Core2Duo Macbook Pro, making it run constantly at 100% CPU consumption that's why sadly I can't turn that on. It may be much better on faster Mac.
   
  Fidelia and Amarra lets you choose the type of dithering to apply. They all sound different and I couldn't determine which setting sounds the best.
   
  You can find the manual here: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/ozone/OzoneDitheringGuide.pdf
   
   
  I am trying the new Pure Music now. With Hog Mode + Upsampling, the sound is really awesome. Hog Mode + Native Integer Playback is awesome too. I hide all the Pure Music UI as there is really no need for me to see/use them and hiding them makes my desktop cleaner.
   
  Pure Music may not sound as transparent as Amarra but I don't know, it just sucks me into the music. Will give the trial somemore listen =)


----------



## Curly21029

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Audirvana: Apple Coreaudio sounds more iTune-ish (more transparent) and SRC lisSampleRate sounds fuller and warmer.
> 2X, 4X upsampling keeps the integrity of the original audio file sampling rate. Upsampling mode increases the SQ in audirvana by quite a big margin. However, *they also raped my Core2Duo Macbook Pro*, making it run constantly at 100% CPU consumption that's why sadly I can't turn that on. It may be much better on faster Mac.


 
   
  Ok, that made me laugh.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

it shouldnt stay at 100% for too long, what it does is goes through the whole cd upsampling it and putting it in memory, after its done then it would only need as processor as it needs to pass the data off to the output.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





souprknowva said:


> it shouldnt stay at 100% for too long, what it does is goes through the whole cd upsampling it and putting it in memory, after its done then it would only need as processor as it needs to pass the data off to the output.


 


  Hey yeah. But all my tracks were 4-5mins and the processing is just a little ahead of the playback so almost all of the time my CPU is at 100%. Things may be different on i7 of course.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *WarriorAnt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> In Audirvana what is the difference between the Apple Coreaudio and the SRC lisSampleRate?  What is the deal with Forced upsampling and the selections None, 2X or 4X over sampling only, Maximum sample rate upsampling  Why would I want to use this.


 
   
  The Coreaudio sample rate converter is optimized for speed and low-CPU use. SRC is optimized for quality at the expense of speed.
   
  In all cases, sample rate converters should do a better job over sampling by powers of 2, it is much easier to do. However, most DACs will then over sample whatever input signal they get. If the over sampler in the DAC is not very good, then it may be best to try to over sample as much as possible on the computer. Basically this boils down to "fiddle with the options and decide what you like best."


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





mtnsloth said:


> Quoting from the FAQ:
> 
> Completely unacceptable. I could say more, but what would be the point? It would only get me banned for foul language . . .


 


  Those Amarra facts are outdated (or at least for version 2.2).  The newest version uses an ID code and a password.  Previous owners use their iLok serial number for the ID but no longer use the iLok ever again..  You can only be authorized one machine at a time but can easily deauthorize and then use on another machine.  You are no longer locked to one machine.  Your complaints are no longer valid.
   
  Here's the latest info: http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra-auth.html#AuthWin1


----------



## Curly21029

Ok, so I feel a bit foolish.  I was trying to play Apple Lossless in iTunes through Amarra.  Apparently, it doesn't support the format and that's why I wasn't getting any sound when trying to play from it.  I was adding the tracks to the iTunes library via the built-in utility in Pure Music not even thinking about the conversion.  Once I put the proper FLAC files into iTunes Amarra had no issues playing them back.  It's sufficiently fast and I would still give the sound quality a nod over Pure Music when playing via the iTunes window.  However, playing the files through Amarra's dedicated playlist window definitely gives a better sense of dimensionality and presents everything with that robust fullness that I've become so fond of.
   
  Now that I have one less headache with it, I'll rededicate to using Amarra exclusively over the next few days.  If glitches are kept to a minimum, I'll probably end up using it exclusively.  Of course, the new amp should be coming tomorrow or Monday, so we'll see how that affects what I'm hearing.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





curly21029 said:


> Ok, so I feel a bit foolish.  I was trying to play Apple Lossless in iTunes through Amarra.  Apparently, it doesn't support the format and that's why I wasn't getting any sound when trying to play from it.  I was adding the tracks to the iTunes library via the built-in utility in Pure Music not even thinking about the conversion.  Once I put the proper FLAC files into iTunes Amarra had no issues playing them back.  It's sufficiently fast and I would still give the sound quality a nod over Pure Music when playing via the iTunes window.  However, playing the files through Amarra's dedicated playlist window definitely gives a better sense of dimensionality and presents everything with that robust fullness that I've become so fond of.
> 
> Now that I have one less headache with it, I'll rededicate to using Amarra exclusively over the next few days.  If glitches are kept to a minimum, I'll probably end up using it exclusively.  Of course, the new amp should be coming tomorrow or Monday, so we'll see how that affects what I'm hearing.


 
  I use mostly Apple Lossless now in iTunes and I'm listening to Apple Lossless in Amarra right now.


----------



## Curly21029

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> I use mostly Apple Lossless now in iTunes and I'm listening to Apple Lossless in Amarra right now.


 

 Hmmm... maybe Pure Music does something funky in the conversion...?  Not really sure what was wrong, but it works fine with FLAC files imported with Fluke, so I guess there's not much reason to read into it.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Was the top left selection on the Amarra interface indicating iTune or was it indicating Amarra in blue?


----------



## mrarroyo

If I download the trial versions to my iMac how do I remove it if I choose to not buy the full version. Thanks.


----------



## rosgr63

Miguel some may have an uninstall option, or you can use one of the uninstall programs that also remove the preference files.
  The easy way is to drag the application to the trash, but some preference files may be left behind.


----------



## Curly21029

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Was the top left selection on the Amarra interface indicating iTune or was it indicating Amarra in blue?


 

 Amarra


----------



## MtnSloth

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *iamoneagain* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Those Amarra facts are outdated (or at least for version 2.2).  The newest version uses an ID code and a password.  Previous owners use their iLok serial number for the ID but no longer use the iLok ever again..  You can only be authorized one machine at a time but can easily deauthorize and then use on another machine.  You are no longer locked to one machine.  Your complaints are no longer valid.
> 
> Here's the latest info: http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra-auth.html#AuthWin1


 

 It is awesome that a company can not even maintain their FAQ. Furthermore, the provided link does not address the other bullet points from the FAQ that may or may not still be true; how is one to know? Since I think the entire approach is misguided at best, my complaints are NOT answered. I trust your tone is due to a desire for brevity over clarity . . . otherwise I would take offense. 
   
  Authorizing and de-authorizing software, when one owns more than one computer, is not the answer; my computer is not the one licensing the software - I am. Here is a far more acceptable approach:
  Quote: 





> *8. *The license to Pure Music permits installing the software on more than one computer, provided:
> (a) All computers are used for personal, not business or company use;
> (b) The person who purchased the software license owns all of the computers;
> (c) Only one copy of the software is running at any time.
> Note: The NetSend feature does not require Pure Music to be installed or running on the receiving computer. See the Pure Music User's Guide for more information.


 
   
  Licenses like the one Pure Music uses are hardly perfect. The license terms suck for the businesses as they are having to buy per machine licenses instead of the preferable per user license; and it fails to recognize one of the most common of use cases - an employee that performs work on a company desktop and a personal notebook. In any event, the per user license is more in keeping with how many of us actually use our computers and software; and it is pretty much the norm for OS X software licenses.
   
  Amarra has every right to manage software licensing as they see fit. However, I reserve the right to determine if the licensing scheme is reasonable for me; and Amarra is no where close to reasonable in my world. If Amarra-style licenses are a good thing in your universe, I guess that is cool for you; and I'll try not to judge you harshly . . .


----------



## grokit

I agree in general with MtnSloth in principle but Amarra's new "deactivation" button is certainly a step in the right direction even though it's not really any more convenient that a movable iLock key, and maybe less so.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





curly21029 said:


> Amarra


 
  I can get Amarra to play Apple Lossless from the iTunes list but I cannot get it to play FLAC files from the iTunes list


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





mtnsloth said:


> It is awesome that a company can not even maintain their FAQ. Furthermore, the provided link does not address the other bullet points from the FAQ that may or may not still be true; how is one to know? Since I think the entire approach is misguided at best, my complaints are NOT answered. I trust your tone is due to a desire for brevity over clarity . . . otherwise I would take offense.
> 
> Authorizing and de-authorizing software, when one owns more than one computer, is not the answer; my computer is not the one licensing the software - I am. Here is a far more acceptable approach:
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  I just meant your arguments over the iLok for the current version is no longer valid is all.  You're free to complain about anything else.  You're also free to stay away from their software if you don't them as a company in principle or the software itself.
   
  You can go through my posts and see I've complained about Amarra a lot in the past.  I think their interface sucks, they are not as stable as other players, you can't do gapless without using the playlist, etc.  It is by far a perfect player but has remained the best sounding player.  That's where my frustration comes in.  I'd quickly drop them for Pure Music is they sounded as good.  In fact I stopped using it for Decibel and Audirvana until the latest update.
   
  As far as removing Amarra, if you look in their Extras folder, they have an uninstall script you can use.  But for the most part, you can drag an app in the trash.  I also have a program called AppCleaner that finds all the associated files and removes them.


----------



## MrQ

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> I also have a program called AppCleaner that finds all the associated files and removes them.


 

AppZapper works well too.


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Second AppZapper, though no program seems to get absolutely everything.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





dougoftheabaci said:


> Second AppZapper, though no program seems to get absolutely everything.


 


  I use appZapper and CleanApp, mostly CleanApp


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

OS X is actually pretty good at cleaning up after itself. If I need to, I use terminal with a few UNIX commands. When I'm lazy I use the Rixstep ACP suite.


----------



## MrQ

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I use terminal with a few UNIX commands. <snip>


----------



## schalliol

Really?  It supported it in 1.2: http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/audio/amarracomputermusicplayer.html
  
  Quote: 





curly21029 said:


> Ok, so I feel a bit foolish.  I was trying to play Apple Lossless in iTunes through Amarra.  Apparently, it doesn't support the format and that's why I wasn't getting any sound when trying to play from it.  I was adding the tracks to the iTunes library via the built-in utility in Pure Music not even thinking about the conversion.  Once I put the proper FLAC files into iTunes Amarra had no issues playing them back.  It's sufficiently fast and I would still give the sound quality a nod over Pure Music when playing via the iTunes window.  However, playing the files through Amarra's dedicated playlist window definitely gives a better sense of dimensionality and presents everything with that robust fullness that I've become so fond of.
> 
> Now that I have one less headache with it, I'll rededicate to using Amarra exclusively over the next few days.  If glitches are kept to a minimum, I'll probably end up using it exclusively.  Of course, the new amp should be coming tomorrow or Monday, so we'll see how that affects what I'm hearing.


----------



## iamoneagain

So just to complain again about Amarra, my looping bug had shown up again.  So not sure what the latest update fixed but my problem still exists and it can be annoying.  At least re-encoding with XLD fixes this.  It was this bug that caused me to abandon Amarra before but that's when I didn't know how to fix it.  Basically makes it sound like a CD is skipping at the end of each track.


----------



## Curly21029

Quote: 





schalliol said:


> Really?  It supported it in 1.2: http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/audio/amarracomputermusicplayer.html


 
   
  See my post here:

 Quote:


curly21029 said:


> Hmmm... maybe Pure Music does something funky in the conversion...?  Not really sure what was wrong, but it works fine with FLAC files imported with Fluke, so I guess there's not much reason to read into it.



   
  The only logical explanation I can come up with.  Just as Fluke adds FLAC to iTunes under the guise of Quicktime movies, perhaps the Pure Music FLAC conversion process doesn't actually add the files as they appear under the type header.  Amarra doesn't play them and even just stock iTunes outputs silence.  Pure music is the only program that makes them audible.  I don't have any files that I know to be Apple Lossless to try my theory with since I have little interest with the format.


----------



## schalliol

Interesting.  Anyway ALC files work great (majority of my library) for me.


----------



## uelover

Hey for those trying out PM 1.8a, give it a listen without installing the Channel D Playthrough Audio Driver.
   
  Installation of that driver seems to kill off the dynamics of your line output regardless of whichever player you are using. I have no idea why.
   
  I am having a great time with Hog Mode and 96khz upsampling. I am seriously considering buying PM. So far, it beats Amarra, Audirvana and Decibel on my end.


----------



## mrarroyo

Quote: 





rosgr63 said:


> Miguel some may have an uninstall option, or you can use one of the uninstall programs that also remove the preference files.
> The easy way is to drag the application to the trash, but some preference files may be left behind.


 


  Thanks.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Hey for those trying out PM 1.8a, give it a listen without installing the Channel D Playthrough Audio Driver.
> 
> Installation of that driver seems to kill off the dynamics of your line output regardless of whichever player you are using. I have no idea why.
> 
> I am having a great time with Hog Mode and 96khz upsampling. I am seriously considering buying PM. So far, it beats Amarra, Audirvana and Decibel on my end.


 
  The upsampling is really sweet.


----------



## sferic

I think a lot of it depends maybe on your DAC. I have an Apogee Duet. Amarra, pricing is just ridiculous. There were times in my life when money was no object, and I'd have been tempted, but now, no. They're counting on the Mac markets famed loose pockets. I'm sure it's good software, but for what it does, $700? And people piss on Adobe, who sell software you can make a living off.
   
  I downloaded the trial of PM. It sounds good, but the prefs weren't very intuitive, so I couldn't tweak a lot, and I couldn't make the annoying screen windows go away, they're especially intrusive after you switch to the iTunes mini-window.
   
  What I love about Audirvana is, of course, the sound. (Play was previously my favorite, and I believe Audirvana builds on that). It's not free, it's donation-ware, but doesn't nag you. I've sent donations to both Play and Audirvana, so do that and see if it makes you appreciate them more. That said, I do think the pricing for PM is fair.
   
  At least with my setup, Audirvana is the best, it's understandable, and I hear noticeable differences with the pref tweaks. I still use iTunes for my Librarian, just find what I want, click & drag it into the Audirvana playlist, hit "display off" on Audirvana, and I have my screen real estate for whatever else I want along with great sound.


----------



## D_4_Dog

For me personally i think PM (integer mode) = audirvana (integer mode), with decibel a very close 2nd (or should that be 3rd).
  While i think PM in hog-mode + upsampling sounds fine, i personally prefer integer mode a little bit more; it feels as if yet another layer of "veil" had been lifted. just my 2 cents....


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





d_4_dog said:


> For me personally i think PM (integer mode) = audirvana (integer mode), with decibel a very close 2nd (or should that be 3rd).
> While i think PM in hog-mode + upsampling sounds fine, i personally prefer integer mode a little bit more; it feels as if yet another layer of "veil" had been lifted. just my 2 cents....


 

 I've kept upsampling but have disabled all other dsp options because of distortion issues with the new PM release; I detailed my experience regarding that here.


----------



## uelover

I love the warm/sweet sound of PM but it is a little of a hassle to keep going into MIDI to set the sound output to other devices in order for Hog Mode to be enabled.
   
  I went back to Amarra and realized that with Memory amount set to 2GB, the SQ while playing through the playlist is awesome! I didn't like Amarra that much when linked to iTunes. It sounded a little grainy which I figured is due to the lack of Hog Mode but then the SQ from the Playlist is just great.
   
  Nonetheless, the Playlist is really bad in terms of usability. It does not display any type of characters other than alphabets and it is extremely laggy. On account that it is still less tedious than changing CDs from CD player, I will give that a pass.
   
  It is nice to be able to hear the clean, quiet, warm sound of PM but Amarra really let you hear what the tracks is intended to be heard.


----------



## omasciarotte

Quote: 





sferic said:


> There were times in my life when money was no object, and I'd have been tempted, but now, no. They're counting on the Mac markets famed loose pockets. I'm sure it's good software, but for what it does, $700?


 

  Hey sferic,
   
  That’s why Sonic has MINI and Junior. Same sound, 96k & 192 SR support respectively, much less dolleros…


----------



## sferic

Quote: 





omasciarotte said:


> Hey sferic,
> 
> That’s why Sonic has MINI and Junior. Same sound, 96k & 192 SR support respectively, much less dolleros…


 

 Gracias, I didn't know that. I retract my mean comment   Glad they are reaching out to mid & budget markets as well, good strategy, good business.


----------



## starbux48

For anyone interested the July issue of Stereophile has an article where the author tries out Amarra, Decibel, and Pure Music.  The article under header of Listening is titled "The best $33 I ever spent".  Guess who he was referring to?  Decibel of course.  Only reviewed that plus Amarra and Pure Music though.  Nothing about Fidelia (which I use a lot), VOX, or Audrivana.  Seems like I read more about Audrivana here than anything, and a lot on Decibel.  All have their supporters and their detractors.  Personally I can't afford Amarra the 'adult' version and didn't like the other versions it had (interfaces).  I like Audrivana a lot and Decibel, but I do a lot of my listening at night and use my iPod Touch 4g as a remote while my headphones are connected to my Mac.
   
  I like the sound from Fidelia and their remote app (though pricey for what they charge) works very well.  And they have excellent and fast technical support.  Of course, only with Pure Music, Amarra, and Fidelia because they are paid apps do you get tech support which many may not need.  I've tried using some mods for the Apple Remote iOS app to run both Decibel and Audrivana with less than stellar results unfortunately because I think if you can get it to work, it probably works well.  Very likely user (me) error, but for ex. when I set the Remote app to play iTunes selections through Decibel, the app cycles rapidly through several album cuts and starts playing the last one.  I prefer the Apple Remote's interface a bit more than Fidelia's, but can get theirs to work without issue.
   
  If I could get the Apple Remote app to start working right with Decibel, I might end up with that software as my preferred sound.  Oh, and for the moment am listening mostly with Ultrasone HFI-2400's.


----------



## iamoneagain

I decided to give Decibel another try after reading this and although it sounds very good, I still pick Amarra Mini (don't own full version) as the winner for sound quality.  Amarra seems to have more air around the instruments than any of the other programs I've used.  I can hear each instrument separated from each other while still staying musical.  With Decibel, I feel more like I'm listening to a recording with not as much depth to the music.  It's still a great program at a great price.  Even think it's available on the Mac App store as well, which should make updates very easy.  I bought my copy directly from Decibel, before the App store even existed.


----------



## agentsim

Hey all you mac Audiophiles!
   
  Over in another thread I've been developing a decent alternative to Pure Music and Amarra type players. If you're interested please head over here and let me know what you think!


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Quote: 





agentsim said:


> Hey all you mac Audiophiles!
> 
> Over in another thread I've been developing a decent alternative to Pure Music and Amarra type players. If you're interested please head over here and let me know what you think!


 


  I have to back up what he's been saying. It's coming along fantastically! Sound quality is brilliant. Even on a basic system you're going to notice an improvement.


----------



## agentsim

Thanks Doug!


----------



## WarriorAnt

*Damien Plisson*, developer of Audirvana OSX music player software,  has published a white paper (in conjunction with AMR Audio of UK) explaining the importance of player software and Mac's playback *Integer Mode*.  As of writing, only *Audirvana* and *PureMusic v.1.8* offer such capabilities with compatible DACs.
   
   
  http://www.digitalaudioblog.com/2011/06/interger-mode-explained.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DigitalToAnalogConverterBlog+%28Digital+to+Analog+Converter+Blog%29


----------



## agentsim

Cool, I been eagerly awaiting his paper, should make for a good read!


----------



## iamoneagain

Well I'm back to using Audirvana for now.  I find the it sounds very close to Amarra and probably in a blind test, I wouldn't be able to guess which is which.  I'm still having problems with songs lopping in Amarra even with XLD converted tracks.  Need to see if I can find another converter besides XLD and Max because I found this on Amarra's site for know issues:
   
  "Apple Lossless created in Max and xld may not play correctly"
   
  I can easily live with Audirvana but still like Amarra's integration with iTunes, so I'm hoping I can find a fix or they come out with an update that fixes this problem.
   
  Edit: Just realized I already found a fix which was to convert WAV in iTunes and then convert back to ALAC.  This is a little more time consuming the just XLD but I pretty sure it works. Damn, even this is not working.  I guess goodbye Amarra.


----------



## KingStyles

Iamoneagain - Have you tried aiff files yet? It might be time to go to a 2GB hd.


----------



## bulmanxxi

BetterSound also offers Integer Mode and integrates with iTunes very well eliminating the need for external to iTunes playlist and library management difficulties.  It is a rather elegant approach similar to Amarra Jr. and PureMusic but with an even simpler interface or lack of an interface compared to either one.  It is a very good, if not the best approach, so far out of all players.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





kingstyles said:


> Iamoneagain - Have you tried aiff files yet? It might be time to go to a 2GB hd.


 

 The problem is I already have a 1.5TB hd and it's half full.   I also don't believe there's any real difference in sound quality using uncompressed files.  So yes, even though AIFF files don't have a bug in Amarra, I think it should be on their end to fix it and not mine to convert my files.  Also, no other player has any problems with MAX or XLD converted songs.
   
_by the way, when's the next meet  _


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





bulmanxxi said:


> BetterSound also offers Integer Mode and integrates with iTunes very well eliminating the need for external to iTunes playlist and library management difficulties.  It is a rather elegant approach similar to Amarra Jr. and PureMusic but with an even simpler interface or lack of an interface compared to either one.  It is a very good, if not the best approach, so far out of all players.


 

 Think I'm going to give this a try.  I'm done with Amarra for now and would like to try an integrated program. Pure Music still does nothing for me musically so let's so how this does.  Hopefully not too many bugs.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Think I'm going to give this a try.  I'm done with Amarra for now and would like to try an integrated program. Pure Music still does nothing for me musically so let's so how this does.  Hopefully not too many bugs.


 

 Audirvana is a nice sounding player.  I really enjoy it.   I prefer Amarra but if Audirvana could update my playlist the way amarra does I would use it for more often.


----------



## leveller1642

I been using PureMusic 1.8 for the last week or so. I think i prefer its SQ to iTunes. The only downside is the very slight interference when i am using a browser. I have both a USB to coaxial converter and a USB drive with my ALAC files on it so will be changing it over to FW800 soon, in line with pure music's recommendation. My set up is Macbook with  ALAC > fancy USB cable > Onkyo ND-S1 ipod dock > coaxial > Lavry DA11 > balanced cables > Adam Sub7 > balanced cables > Adam A5 monitors. Haven't tried it with my HP set up yet.


----------



## KingStyles

I know some people were having problems using alac in pure music, but the aiff files were playing fine. I figure maybe amarra might be having a similar issue with alac.


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> *Damien Plisson*, developer of Audirvana OSX music player software,  has published a white paper (in conjunction with AMR Audio of UK) explaining the importance of player software and Mac's playback *Integer Mode*.  As of writing, only *Audirvana* and *PureMusic v.1.8* offer such capabilities with compatible DACs.
> 
> 
> http://www.digitalaudioblog.com/2011/06/interger-mode-explained.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DigitalToAnalogConverterBlog+%28Digital+to+Analog+Converter+Blog%29


 

  
  And BetterSound in beta form. He's working on it.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

While Amarra MINI 2.01 worked well for me, I was getting some skipping with Amarra MINI 2.1
   
  I just upgraded to 2.23 and it's working well again.


----------



## Currawong

I've long been wondering what the reason for any improvements would be, so that whitepaper is very helpful in explaining it. Thanks for the link.


----------



## iamoneagain

I had no luck with BetterSound yet unless NO sound is better.  Like the idea that there is no real interface except going into a menu to change preferences.  But I've played around with the options and still can't get it to play.  I'll see if I get any feedback here or in the other thread.  Not giving up on it yet.
   
  I have the latest version of Amarra mini and it's more stable than the last one but the looping is still happening.  What's weird is right after a reconvert with XLD, it fixes the problem but it eventually comes back.  Only using AIFF files completely fixes it but I believe the files are more than 3x as large and then would have even less space synching with my iPhone.


----------



## mrspeakers

​Personally, I found e white paper to mostly be a rehash of other explanations that have been given, it's a nice summary. What would be really interesting would be for a manufacturer or reviewer with jitter measurement equipment to actually test and compare the results to relate theory to real-world. 

Ir true, these claims should all produce measurable results.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> I had no luck with BetterSound yet unless NO sound is better.  Like the idea that there is no real interface except going into a menu to change preferences.  But I've played around with the options and still can't get it to play.  I'll see if I get any feedback here or in the other thread.  Not giving up on it yet.


 


  Try to turn off integer mode.
   
  Mine kept crashing until I realized that integer mode was the culprit. I could run integer mode on Audirvana and PM nonetheless.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Try to turn off integer mode.
> 
> Mine kept crashing until I realized that integer mode was the culprit. I could run integer mode on Audirvana and PM nonetheless.


 

 Can you send me the device info by PM? If you have the same problem as iamoneagain then BetterSound may be trying to use invalid audio formats.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





agentsim said:


> Can you send me the device info by PM? If you have the same problem as iamoneagain then BetterSound may be trying to use invalid audio formats.


 


  Device info? Both PM and Bettersound show the correct device though - TE7022 Audio w/ SPDIF, which is my Audio-GD USB to SPDIF converter.


----------



## agentsim

There is a "Device Info..." menu option, it will open a window with lots of extra information about the device which should help me understand why Integer mode is causing a crash. Once BetterSound is playing a track, open that window and PM me the contents please.


----------



## uelover

Ohh I thought PM refers to PureMusic in which I couldn't find any tab called 'Device Info'. Now that I see that you are referring to Private Message XD
   
  PM-ed you =)


----------



## iamoneagain

Yes, I finally have it working with integer mode off.  I have been working with agentsim about my issues and believe he's close to a fix.  So far, I have to say it's the best player I've used for a number of reasons.  It has seamless integration with iTunes, minimal interface (menu options only), there is no delay in startup, does gapless without the use of playlists, stand alone player, or caching the whole album, and sounds as good as Amarra.  It is also free of that annoying looping bug that Amarra has had around every since they add caching.  I'm glad to be done with them.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Yes, I finally have it working with integer mode off.  I have been working with agentsim about my issues and believe he's close to a fix.  So far, I have to say it's the best player I've used for a number of reasons.  It has seamless integration with iTunes, minimal interface (menu options only), there is no delay in startup, does gapless without the use of playlists, stand alone player, or caching the whole album, and sounds as good as Amarra.  It is also free of that annoying looping bug that Amarra has had around every since they add caching.  I'm glad to be done with them.


 


  Good to hear that =)
   
  This is the first player I have seen that has integer mode on by default.
   
  Amarra through its own playlist still has the best SQ and is the most engaging by far. Through itunes, I would prefer PM or Bettersound.
   
  I'm faced with another problem with bettersound though - after turning itunes and bettersound off, I will need to manually enter Midi setting to set my audio output device to the correct one.


----------



## turimbar1

audirvana's integer mode does not play nice with my DAC (Audio-gd nfb 12). there are perpetual drop-outs.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Good to hear that =)
> 
> This is the first player I have seen that has integer mode on by default.
> 
> ...


 

 Are you still having these problems with the latest version? If so, can you PM me the details of your system as well as the output of the "Device Info..." menu option?
   
  Thanks!


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





turimbar1 said:


> audirvana's integer mode does not play nice with my DAC (Audio-gd nfb 12). there are perpetual drop-outs.


 

 Try BetterSound 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  More seriously, try turning off "Use max I/O buffer size", that might help.


----------



## iamoneagain

BetterSound is working perfect now.   Thanks so much. 
   
  Oh, I finally compared it against Amarra in playlist/cache mode and actually like BetterSound better.  It has a more open sound than Amarra and Audirvana.  The soundstage is both wider and deeper with better instrument placement.  It also seemed to run as good as iTunes itself.  Don't think you'd even realize this was playing in the background.  With Amarra, there was always some delay and it couldn't do gapless with loading whole album into playlist.  Audirvana worked great but had to deal with separate player and wasn't really what I was looking for in the end.  Always wanted iTunes as my front end.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I'm gonna have to give Better Sound another try. My first run resulted in a kernal panic. I already deleted the diagnostics file, so sadly I can't forward it to the developer. If it happens again, I'll be sure to send it asap.


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> BetterSound is working perfect now.   Thanks so much.
> 
> Oh, I finally compared it against Amarra in playlist/cache mode and actually like BetterSound better.  It has a more open sound than Amarra and Audirvana.  The soundstage is both wider and deeper with better instrument placement.  It also seemed to run as good as iTunes itself.  Don't think you'd even realize this was playing in the background.  With Amarra, there was always some delay and it couldn't do gapless with loading whole album into playlist.  Audirvana worked great but had to deal with separate player and wasn't really what I was looking for in the end.  Always wanted iTunes as my front end.


 

  
  That's the reason I like BetterSound the most. All the other similar apps either have their own UI (which is nowhere near as good as iTunes, let's be honest) or are these horribly obtrusive add-ons. Agentsim is working really hard (with the community helping make recommendations) to make BetterSound as unobtrusive as possible. The idea being that you turn it on and sound is just better in ever way. Best way to do it, I think.


----------



## kchapdaily

one thing i really like about audirvana that a lot of other players dont do is that it integrates with the volume and music control keys on the apple keyboard


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





kchapdaily said:


> one thing i really like about audirvana that a lot of other players dont do is that it integrates with the volume and music control keys on the apple keyboard


 


  Have just started auditioning Audirvana, and that integration is one of its features that I'd rather not have. I like the way iTunes bypasses that volume control altogether. Anyway I definitely prefer Audirvana in terms of SQ, but after a couple of more weeks of familiarization, I will check out Better Sound.


----------



## JIGF

[size=medium]does anyone know how to use a VST plug in like TB Isone with Fidelia?​[/size]


----------



## sleepless64

Hey! I just downloaded "Fidelia"... I CANNOT BELIEVE my ears 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 (and feet!) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Wooow! what is this? I downloaded "Amarra Mini" too and either I never learnt (after 3 hours) how to manage it or it simply is not as good (and super simple) as FIDELIA and yes, super expensive (Amarra)...


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





sleepless64 said:


> Hey! I just downloaded "Fidelia"... I CANNOT BELIEVE my ears
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  You should try Decibel as well.


----------



## sleepless64

Oh thanks for suggesting that... what's the difference? you know? I wish I could EQ with FIDELIA... is it possible with DECIBEL?


----------



## kchapdaily

im a fan of audirvana becasue it integrates well with mac os x. it allows you to use the keyboards music control keys (pause, skip, volume)
   
  but i havent found it possible to match itunes equilizer. i wish there was a way to import eq settings...
   
  unfortunately fidela doesnt have an eq and if im not mistaken neither does decibel.


----------



## Hero Kid

EQ is for wieners, that's why


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Ask the dev for BitPerfect if EQ settings could be important as well. He's pretty responsive. Right now BitPerfect is a bit buggy (see what I did there?) but it's coming along very well.


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





sleepless64 said:


> Oh thanks for suggesting that... what's the difference? you know? I wish I could EQ with FIDELIA... is it possible with DECIBEL?


 

 You can EQ with Fidelia. Not possible with Decibel though.


----------



## turimbar1

vox has some good eq apps, but idk how to save the settings.


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





jigf said:


> [size=medium]does anyone know how to use a VST plug in like TB Isone with Fidelia?​[/size]


 

 Managed to do it. Works great.
   
  The VST plugin folder is in User/Library/Audio/Plug-ins/VST


----------



## sleepless64

How can I EQ with Fidelia?


----------



## sleepless64

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly these plug ins do with Fidelia? (like "TV Isone") what are they for? Thanks...


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





sleepless64 said:


> How can I EQ with Fidelia?


 

 Using the AU (Audio Unit) EQ plug-in.You should check out the manual.
  
  Quote: 





sleepless64 said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly these plug ins do with Fidelia? (like "TV Isone") what are they for? Thanks...


 

 VST (Virtual Studio Technology) and AU plug-ins can do all sorts of things with sound, they are mostly intended to be used with DAWs like protool and logic.
   
  You can use TB Isone with Fidelia to create a digital listening room.


----------



## sleepless64

JIGF, thanks so much. I shall check the manual to begin with the EQ plug in; I'm assuming that the plug in I download it from the same website right? then, if you have the chance, can you tell me a little bit more about that digital listening room... what does it do?
   
  Actually, I cannot find the AU EQ plug in in the Fidelia site anywhere... where is it JIGF?


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *sleepless64* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ... what does it do?
> 
> Actually, I cannot find the AU EQ plug in in the Fidelia site anywhere... where is it JIGF?


 
   
  Glad to be of help.
   
TB Isone
   
  AUGraphicEQ:


----------



## sleepless64

Thanks JIGF. One last question, when I select "Graphic EQ", does that mean it will apply the settings I lest at the EQ in iTunes? does it work like that?


----------



## LCfiner

I finally decided to give some of these programs a try.I ended up buying Fidelia and the Canz3D AU plugin for corssfeed purposes.
   
  That cross feed plugin makes a pretty big difference. I really like it but I needed to customize it. the default virtual room it creates has too many echoes and effects for me to enjoy but if I turn all that down and leave only the cross feed (blend) feature set to 50%, then I get a nicer, more natural sounding soundstange without any noticeable distortion in the sound. sounds that would be heard only in one ear are now slightly more in the middle of my head. I’d say it works as advertised.
   
  I do find it funny that the full size fidelia player takes up around 2500 horizontal pixels. you can fill up a 27” iMac screen with that thing.


----------



## sleepless64

Yes! I ♥ FIDELIA! I really don't know what it does but it certainly upgrades beautifully the sound... I wish only I could see the artwork and that they'd explain with more clarity how to manage the plug-ins.


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





sleepless64 said:


> Thanks JIGF. One last question, when I select "Graphic EQ", does that mean it will apply the settings I lest at the EQ in iTunes? does it work like that?


 

 PM'd


----------



## paconavarro

Quote: 





lcfiner said:


> I finally decided to give some of these programs a try.I ended up buying Fidelia and the Canz3D AU plugin for corssfeed purposes.
> 
> That cross feed plugin makes a pretty big difference. I really like it but I needed to customize it. the default virtual room it creates has too many echoes and effects for me to enjoy but if I turn all that down and leave only the cross feed (blend) feature set to 50%, then I get a nicer, more natural sounding soundstange without any noticeable distortion in the sound. sounds that would be heard only in one ear are now slightly more in the middle of my head. I’d say it works as advertised.
> 
> I do find it funny that the full size fidelia player takes up around 2500 horizontal pixels. you can fill up a 27” iMac screen with that thing.


 

 I have the same combo and managed to create a neutral preset with no echoes and delays and at the same volume level, so you only get the crossfeed without the room simulation, here you can find an image with my settings, I really dont know if they are technically correct, but I like how it sounds.
   

   
  Give it a try and tell me what you think!


----------



## arnaud

I did not expect this thread to grow by 50 pages since last I checked! I did not go through it so pardon if this has been covered but anyone noticed that 44.1kHz music sounds better when fed to the D/A (well through an Audio-GD Digital Interface in my case) in native sample rate rather than being upsampled to say 96kHz by Channel D's Pure Music? I had been using software upsampling to 96kHz for a while (because this stupid DI does not accept 88.2kHz signals at their native rate) but now that I have switched back to native sample rate I simply find it more natural sounding. In particular, some borderline agressive sounding redbook recordings (through the Stax 009) sound tamed at native sample rate.


----------



## MrBenvolent

I just bought the Fidelia player for my Macbook pro to compliment my upgrade to lossless rips and my new 325is cans...
   
  I am now convinced that there is something wrong with my iTunes config somewhere as the difference is quite pronounced - to my ears Fidelia sounds far richer and with a much-improved sound-stage.
   
  I really can't believe there is that much difference in the quality/sound reproduction from iTunes - surely technically, they are doing much the same thing, with just a few small refinements on the Fidelia side?
   
  I will recheck my iTunes tonight and make sure I haven't got any hidden EQ or that stupid sound boost turned on somewhere...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

arnaud said:


> I did not expect this thread to grow by 50 pages since last I checked! I did not go through it so pardon if this has been covered but anyone noticed that 44.1kHz music sounds better when fed to the D/A (well through an Audio-GD Digital Interface in my case) in native sample rate rather than being upsampled to say 96kHz by Channel D's Pure Music? I had been using software upsampling to 96kHz for a while (because this stupid DI does not accept 88.2kHz signals at their native rate) but now that I have switched back to native sample rate I simply find it more natural sounding. In particular, some borderline agressive sounding redbook recordings (through the Stax 009) sound tamed at native sample rate.




My default for PM is memory hog/upsample mode. Anythng 172KHz and higher is automatically passed through to the W4S DAC at native rates. 

On the other hand, I find almost any signal fed to the W4S DAC to sound better in native rates better than before.  Upsampling in PM, feeding the W4S DAC sounds even better.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





arnaud said:


> I did not expect this thread to grow by 50 pages since last I checked! I did not go through it so pardon if this has been covered but anyone noticed that 44.1kHz music sounds better when fed to the D/A (well through an Audio-GD Digital Interface in my case) in native sample rate rather than being upsampled to say 96kHz by Channel D's Pure Music? I had been using software upsampling to 96kHz for a while (because this stupid DI does not accept 88.2kHz signals at their native rate) but now that I have switched back to native sample rate I simply find it more natural sounding. In particular, some borderline agressive sounding redbook recordings (through the Stax 009) sound tamed at native sample rate.


 

 Depends on who you ask.  I prefer native rate for most of my listening.  But when using certain cables that are not as transparent as others I may use upsampling.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





mrbenvolent said:


> I just bought the Fidelia player for my Macbook pro to compliment my upgrade to lossless rips and my new 325is cans...
> 
> I am now convinced that there is something wrong with my iTunes config somewhere as the difference is quite pronounced - to my ears Fidelia sounds far richer and with a much-improved sound-stage.
> 
> ...


 

 Probably nothing "wrong" in itunes.  You may just be hearing how much better alternate players can be.  I was doing some tests with power cables this week and my computer kept defaulting to itunes when I pressed play thinking it was Pure Music.  Focus was off, bass was mushy and spread out and transparency not right.  I thought it was the cables under test.  Seems it was itunes playing and once I figured it out things were back to "normal"


----------



## LCfiner

Quote: 





paconavarro said:


> I have the same combo and managed to create a neutral preset with no echoes and delays and at the same volume level, so you only get the crossfeed without the room simulation, here you can find an image with my settings, I really dont know if they are technically correct, but I like how it sounds.
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a try and tell me what you think!


 


  I had a chance to try out your settings and I like them. removes all the other room effects that I didn’t want. thanks!


----------



## mrspeakers

Argh.  Head-fi's search is just awful.
   
  Anyone remember where to find "Better Music?"  I can't find the download info and I've reviewed half the thread...


----------



## estreeter

If Apple keep deleting optical drives from their machines, I'll keep crossing them off my shortlists.
   
  http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-mac-mini-2/4505-3118_7-34850078.html?part=cnet&subj=Apple+Mac+Mini+%282.5GHz+Core+i5%252C+Summer+2011%29
   
  Sure, those of you with topnotch internet connections wont miss a beat, but how do you plan to rip your CDs to the hard drive ? I've had a couple of Mac Minis, and loved them both, but this is moving into the 'computer as appliance' realm already occupied by the much cheaper Apple TV. Epic fail, guys.


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Meh. I see it as when people complained about them dropping the floppy disk. And zip drive. And how they're not going to bother with Bluray... Apple is right, digital is the future.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Just get an external drive for ripping; that's what I did. They're cheaper, faster and generally more reliable than ever. However, I've been downloading a lot of my music lately. 
  Quote: 





estreeter said:


> If Apple keep deleting optical drives from their machines, I'll keep crossing them off my shortlists.
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-mac-mini-2/4505-3118_7-34850078.html?part=cnet&subj=Apple+Mac+Mini+%282.5GHz+Core+i5%252C+Summer+2011%29
> 
> Sure, those of you with topnotch internet connections wont miss a beat, but how do you plan to rip your CDs to the hard drive ? I've had a couple of Mac Minis, and loved them both, but this is moving into the 'computer as appliance' realm already occupied by the much cheaper Apple TV. Epic fail, guys.


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Also, most built-in drives are region-locked but it's not overly difficult to find a region free DVD drive instead. Sure, I know this isn't a big deal for most people but I wish I'd known after three years of University in London and all the **** movies I bought... Came back and couldn't watch any of them.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





dougoftheabaci said:


> Also, most built-in drives are region-locked but it's not overly difficult to find a region free DVD drive instead. Sure, I know this isn't a big deal for most people but I wish I'd known after three years of University in London and all the **** movies I bought... Came back and couldn't watch any of them.


 


  Just use VLC dude.


----------



## JIGF

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Just get an external drive for ripping; that's what I did. They're cheaper, faster and generally more reliable than ever. However, I've been downloading a lot of my music lately.


 

 Same here.
   
  I use DVD/CD less and less these days.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> If Apple keep deleting optical drives from their machines, I'll keep crossing them off my shortlists.
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-mac-mini-2/4505-3118_7-34850078.html?part=cnet&subj=Apple+Mac+Mini+%282.5GHz+Core+i5%252C+Summer+2011%29
> 
> Sure, those of you with topnotch internet connections wont miss a beat, but how do you plan to rip your CDs to the hard drive ? I've had a couple of Mac Minis, and loved them both, but this is moving into the 'computer as appliance' realm already occupied by the much cheaper Apple TV. Epic fail, guys.


 
  You can always add a superdrive for 79 bux if you need one.  I've had a Macbook Air since mid 2009 and that option works very well.  What's wrong with the superdrive solution?


----------



## pigmode

Quote: 





mrbenvolent said:


> I am now convinced that there is something wrong with my iTunes config somewhere as the difference is quite pronounced - to my ears Fidelia sounds far *richer* and with a *much-improved sound-stage*...
> 
> 
> 
> I will recheck my iTunes tonight and make sure I haven't got any hidden EQ or that stupid sound boost turned on somewhere...


 


   
   
   
   
  Agree. Forth day here with the Fidelia trial period, and find it a nice improvement over iTunes. Is Fidelia Advanced worthwhile?


----------



## sleepless64

I had a similar problem and it was the "Sound Killer" oh, sorry, the "Sound Enhancer" feature...


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Just use VLC dude.


 


  Minus the crappy UI, laggy performance, and instability you're totally right, VLC player will ignore regions. On those DVDs it can actually play...


----------



## mrspeakers

I found some issues with Lion and Pure Music, who are working on resolution.  Integer support seems to have been dropped by Apple, the Channel D team has told me they're looking into this and if there may be other workarounds or new paths to similar performance through changes in Core Audio.
   
  My software had an issue with clipping on the DACPort, but is working great on the D6 with up sampling.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

The driver for my DAC (W4S DAC-2) doesn't support Integer mode. PM under OS X 10.7 is working fine for me so far.   
   
  Which DAC are you using with Integer support? 
  
  Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> I found some issues with Lion and Pure Music, who are working on resolution.  Integer support seems to have been dropped by Apple, the Channel D team has told me they're looking into this and if there may be other workarounds or new paths to similar performance through changes in Core Audio.
> 
> My software had an issue with clipping on the DACPort, but is working great on the D6 with up sampling.


----------



## mrspeakers

1.8a is working fine with my iBasso D6 with up sampling, etc.  With my DACPort I had terrible clipping.  I'm sure Channel D will sort it out.  When I hear more from them on integer mode I'll pass it on...
   
  EDIT:  Oddly, when I came home tonight the clipping was gone.  I connected a D6 then toggled DIM ON/OFF, and problem gone on the DACPort.  I have to have DIM off and go to +12 to get clipping on the DACPort now.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





dougoftheabaci said:


> Minus the crappy UI, laggy performance, and instability you're totally right, VLC player will ignore regions. On those DVDs it can actually play...


 

 Laggy performance and instability are the last words that come to my mind. VLC never lag nor crash on me and it runs smooth and fast. Much better than any video player I have used on Mac. Even the built-in apple dvd player cannot match it.
  
  Quote: 





pigmode said:


> Agree. Forth day here with the Fidelia trial period, and find it a nice improvement over iTunes. Is Fidelia Advanced worthwhile?


 


 Hmm the Fidelia Advanced sports Hog Mode which I think is quite crucial. The dithering options are cool too =)


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Laggy performance and instability are the last words that come to my mind. VLC never lag nor crash on me and it runs smooth and fast. Much better than any video player I have used on Mac. Even the built-in apple dvd player cannot match it.


 

  
  It was more of an issue with my laptop than my iMac but on the Mac VLC Player leaves a lot to be desired. I've had it crash a lot and on larger HD movies playback was often an issue where with other programs it was not. Notably MPlayerX and Boxee.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





dougoftheabaci said:


> It was more of an issue with my laptop than my iMac but on the Mac VLC Player leaves a lot to be desired. I've had it crash a lot and on larger HD movies playback was often an issue where with other programs it was not. Notably MPlayerX and Boxee.


 


  Hmm the largest HD file I played on VLC was 8gb. It does not crash at all. On the other hand, MPlayerX gives me a lot of problem. Seems like our mac are polar opposite =)
   
  Have you tried comparing the SQ on the different video player? I find VLC to be more natural sounding but of course, it is nowhere as good as Amarra, PM, Fidelia as well as other mac audiophile players.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Hmm the largest HD file I played on VLC was 8gb. It does not crash at all. On the other hand, MPlayerX gives me a lot of problem. Seems like our mac are polar opposite =)
> 
> Have you tried comparing the SQ on the different video player? I find VLC to be more natural sounding but of course, it is nowhere as good as Amarra, PM, Fidelia as well as other mac audiophile players.


 
  i always found Mplayer OSX Extended to be the best


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





souprknowva said:


> i always found Mplayer OSX Extended to be the best


 

 +1 for Mplayer OSX Extended, that's the only player I use.


----------



## uelover

I have just upgraded both my VLC and MPlayerX to the latest version.
   
  On my end, MPlayerX is laggy and frames are being dropped every now and then while playing a 1440X1080 vid. On CPU consumption it stays around 50-60%. On comparison using that same vid file, VLC consumes only 20% of the CPU and the video playback is extremely smooth. Image is clearer and the sound is less muddy. I have all the filtering options turned off.
   
  MPlayerX doesn't play .iso files as well.
   
  I guess on the newer i5/i7 core Mac the lag on MPlayerX will disappear.
   
  But then, how did we end up on VLC and MPlayerX?? Oh yeah, about apple choosing to drop the optical drive on the new Mac Mini =)


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Never really tried MPlayer Extended, to be honest.
   
  As for the largest files... My largest HD movie is 30.25 GB. But the file I noticed it worst was playing Ponyo (shush) which is only 9.39 GB. MPlayerX didn't do a great job on my laptop (Intel Core 2 Duo) but VLC Player was useless. Boxee did the best job.
   
  I'm actually working on putting all my movies into Boxee and just using that. That way instead of browsing a long list of files I'm using a nice, clean interface and I don't have to put everything in iTunes.
   
  With .ISO images, I've never really found a situation where I needed to play one. I either ripped them to MP4's or MKV's as tickled my fancy since you get a similar quality at half the file size (or less). HD movies are the same. There are very few movies that need to be that large. The largest I have is the extended version of The Lord of The Rings: The Return of The King, which is something like 4 hours long.


----------



## Hero Kid

And....... back on topic?


----------



## uelover

Yeah, was just suggesting that the use of VLC can enable one to play dvd from different regions and suddenly all the irrelevant things came in. Whatever it is, the player that does the job well is 'the' player.
   
   
  Anyone who owns both Fidelia Advanced and Amarra care to compare the SQ between these two players? Amarra is buggy but the SQ is the best I have heard when played via its Playlist. My Fidelia expired 3 months ago and there is no way I could try it out anymore.
   
   
  Edit: I went ahead and bought one to compare myself.


----------



## Shiryu

I got the evaluation for Fidelia, as I wanted to see if the grass was greener on the other side. For now, since my headphones aren't really "wide" (Oboe's from Wesc), I can't tell MUCH difference (unless with Isone VST, gives the music another "feel").
   
  Since I'm upgrading to a more decent pair (sound quality wise) of portable headphones, I think that it'll be more obvious. Although, do you guys all use Fidelia with just isone and/or dither on or not? (I don't know what the latter does)
  Will this provide a better sound than iTunes?
   
  Only thing that's bugging me is that having Firefox open and just surfing causes stutter from time to time. Maybe I should contemplate upgrading RAM but I didn't think a C2D 2.26Ghz MBP (2GB Ram) should offer any problems for just playing music;


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I've been very happy with Pure Music (1.8a), but I recently upgraded to OS X 10.7 and the Lion release client of Pure Music. Anyone else have any experience with this combo? Any observations?


----------



## mrspeakers

PM works fine, but the Integer mode has been dropped by Apple in Lion, according to Channel D.  
   
  The very first time I used PM there was a lot of distortion, but rebooting made that go away and not return...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Hmm... Integer mode is definitely in 1.81d5, and still show's up in the PM User's Guide (p24). Maybe, it was removed from an dot release? It show's up in Prefs.


----------



## mrspeakers

I have 1.8a.  The Channel D support indicated it had been removed, maybe it was just changed.
   
  I'll try D5.


----------



## agentsim

Integer mode is still included for users on 10.6, but it will not work on Lion. Lion has disabled Integer support for all programs.


----------



## mrspeakers

Can you actually USE Integer Mode?  It's in the UI but not selectable on my DACPort, which used to support it in Snow Leopard.


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

I believe the word is that Apple removed the functionality from OS X Lion.


----------



## mrspeakers

Right, I think I am the one who posted "the word" based on Channel D's communication to me.  Just wanted to verify with agentism that he was not actually able to use the feature in case the original information was updated...


----------



## kchapdaily

has anyone tried neutrino? im downloading the trial right now. not sure if it will actually improve sound quality, but it has itunes integration like amarra.
   
http://machinecodex.com/neutrino/


----------



## iamoneagain

BitPerfect has been released in the app store:
   
link


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> BitPerfect has been released in the app store:
> 
> link


 

  
  ...Has been compared with multi-hundred-dollar software in terms of sound quality and costs... $4.99. Go buy it.


----------



## puresilence

Awesome! Don't want to use fluke, so it's time to convert my music to ALAC. This'll take a while...


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> BitPerfect has been released in the app store:
> 
> link


 


  anyone know if it will ever get a volume control?
   
  And about the 64 bit requirement, does anyone know if it works with a 2008 macbook with duo core processors?  That model does not boot into 64 bit mode.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





bixby said:


> anyone know if it will ever get a volume control?
> 
> And about the 64 bit requirement, does anyone know if it works with a 2008 macbook with duo core processors?  That model does not boot into 64 bit mode.


 
   
  You can try asking these questions in this other thread that's all about BitPerfect.  Think it already has volume control but I've never used it, so developer can better answer your questions.
   
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/553416/audirvana-alternatives


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





bixby said:


> anyone know if it will ever get a volume control?
> 
> And about the 64 bit requirement, does anyone know if it works with a 2008 macbook with duo core processors?  That model does not boot into 64 bit mode.


 

 I think a 2008 macbook with a core duo processor is fine, you don't need to boot into the 64-bit kernel, only be able to run 64-bit programs. I think the app store will warn you if your computer is not up to spec.
   
  BitPerfect already has volume control. There are actually 2 volume controls, one in the menu which is available if your DAC supports volume control, this control is bit perfect and thus preferred. Alternatively, you can change volume with the slider in iTunes, but that is not bit perfect and might degrade quality. A future version will improve the iTunes volume control to increase quality, but for now, it is not an ideal solution.


----------



## bixby

Let me rephrase my concern about the volume control.  Will it ever have a volume control that is in increments that may be useful when playing through a normal dac directly into  a power amp?
   
  #1  It seems to prefer a dac with a built in digital volume control- I'd say 95% of all dacs in use lack this feature.
   
  #2  The volume control on the beta from a few days ago at least, is the itunes volume control and that will blast at just 1/8 of an inch from the full left hand setting (or lowest setting), so really not useful even though when running regular itunes the volume can be around 50% and still useful in my system
   
  Has anything changed in the version on the app store?
   
  thanks for the link to the other thread, I 'll try to get caught up there.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





bixby said:


> Let me rephrase my concern about the volume control.  Will it ever have a volume control that is in increments that may be useful when playing through a normal dac directly into  a power amp?
> 
> #1  It seems to prefer a dac with a built in digital volume control- I'd say 95% of all dacs in use lack this feature.
> 
> ...


 

 The iTunes control blasting is worrying. Normally it is at 100%, I'd say you need to control volume from the amp in that case. It is possible to use BitPerfect as a "pre-amp" by doing volume control with iTunes, but like you're seeing that will depend on your system, and I think the lower the volume in iTunes, the more likely you'll get a degradation in sound quality.
   
  The dithered volume control will help with sound quality, but not will volume level on the output, so I guess the answer is no... you need to use the volume control on your amp, it is just too powerful.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





agentsim said:


> The iTunes control blasting is worrying. Normally it is at 100%, I'd say you need to control volume from the amp in that case. It is possible to use BitPerfect as a "pre-amp" by doing volume control with iTunes, but like you're seeing that will depend on your system, and I think the lower the volume in iTunes, the more likely you'll get a degradation in sound quality.
> 
> The dithered volume control will help with sound quality, but not will volume level on the output, so I guess the answer is no... you need to use the volume control on your amp, it is just too powerful.


 

 great idea, but power amps usually do not have volume controls, and mine is no exception.  All attenuation must be done upstream.  I wonder why the itunes control works with plenty of attenuation range while bit perfect seems to not.  I'll try to test it later today again to see if I missed something.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





bixby said:


> great idea, but power amps usually do not have volume controls, and mine is no exception.  All attenuation must be done upstream.  I wonder why the itunes control works with plenty of attenuation range while bit perfect seems to not.  I'll try to test it later today again to see if I missed something.


 

 BitPerfect is using a simple %tage attenuation, perhaps iTunes is using an non-linear attenuation. To be honest I never really played with it much, but now that you point this out, I'll see if I can make BitPerfect match iTunes in terms of volume control.


----------



## n0ah

Are there any Cog users in here? I've only had a mac for about a month now and it was the first alternative to iTunes I found and have stuck with it. Just wondering if anyone's had any problems with it or have upgraded from it and for what reasons. Other than no album art I haven't found anything wrong with it. I'd also like to be able to bind rewind and fastforward keys at 5 seconds each to my arrow keys if anyone reading this knows how.


----------



## bixby

I just had a chance to test Bitperfect again with my system and determined that while the volume is not blasting when set at the small width of a mouse pointer above zero it is indeed quite different than when using itunes as the player.
   
  To refresh, I run my computer to a dac that does not have digital volume control built in directly to a power amp.  In this case I must rely on whatever software program to apply the attenuation for the system.  In this case the volume control in the bitperfect drop down menu is not active and you need to rely on the itunes volume slider.
   
  I used my trusty RS decibel meter with it set to slow response and “c-weighting” in order to get an average db reading for the test.
   
  I used a white noise file recorded at a reasonable level for the first test.
   
  % of volume slider bar           Bitperfect                    itunes
   
  75%                                         79 db                           73 db
   
  50%                                         74 db                           65db
   
  25%                                         68 db                           57 db
   
  12.5%                                      61 db                           54 db
   
  This not very scientific since getting the slider to be in the exact position each time is not probable, but you can see there is a non-linearity when comparing the two at lower volumes.
   
EDIT:  It was accurate for the white noise test since I slid the volume control into position then played bitperfect then disabled bit perfect and played itunes.  I meant it was not accurate insofar as the later test with the Beatles cut, where getting it back to the roughly 25% position was all that was possible.
   
  As a quick check I tested a bit of music the 24 bit Abbey Road album cut Oh Darling by the Beatles.  This is not recorded as hot as most of today’s music, but is recorded a bit more loudly than the test tone file.
   
  25%                                         84-87 db                      74-76%
   
  I think for folks that use a program's volume control, this 25-50% area might the area to address.  A true dithered volume control would be the best solution, but even the loss of some bits down around 25% would probably not be audible in most cases.


----------



## agentsim

Thanks for all the detail. I don't think the volume control fix will make it into the next version (that's being beta tested now) but it'll make it into the one after. I'll PM you with a link to a test version in the next few days so that you can confirm that the fix works properly.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





agentsim said:


> Thanks for all the detail. I don't think the volume control fix will make it into the next version (that's being beta tested now) but it'll make it into the one after. I'll PM you with a link to a test version in the next few days so that you can confirm that the fix works properly.


 


  indeedy, I would like to test, thanks


----------



## gogogasgas

OK, I am only slightly up to speed in this thread (page 23, to be precise). So I am going to assume that no one has asked the following question...
   
  Is there a music player available for Mac that handles *DSD files* ? (note: not SCAD discs or files) I am thinking of gettting a *[size=inherit]TASCAM DV-RA1000HD[/size]* which can record in both 24/192 and DSD. Although I can just store the files on my Mac and then access them by importing the files onto the Tascam's internal hard drive, it would be good to have the convenience of a player for the Mac.
   
Would it be preferable to stick with PCM rather than DSD?
   
Also, for the PCM 24/192 recording, the Tascam records in Wave files. Is this a problem for any of the players mentioned in this thread? Are Wave files undesirable from an audio quality point of view (I don't care about album artwork).


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





gogogasgas said:


> Is there a music player available for Mac that handles *DSD files* ? (note: not SCAD discs or files) I am thinking of gettting a *[size=inherit]TASCAM DV-RA1000HD[/size]* which can record in both 24/192 and DSD. Although I can just store the files on my Mac and then access them by importing the files onto the Tascam's internal hard drive, it would be good to have the convenience of a player for the Mac.
> 
> Would it be preferable to stick with PCM rather than DSD?


 
   
  I don't know much about DSD files, but what I do know is Pure Music supports them in the latest version... I don't think any other players can claim that bragging right.


----------



## gogogasgas

Thanks for the tip Agentsim. I've sent Pure Music an email for further info. Up until about page 23 of this thread, which is where I'm up to reading, the Pure Music player was not very popular with users/posters. Does PM 'tamper' with the sound before giving it over to the DAC?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Re PM, I do not believe there is any added DSP except via the plug-in's. You can bypass all DSP with a checkbox. While the interface is not much to behold, it is functional, if not utilitarian. It won't win any beauty contests, that's for sure. However, it has been very reliable, especially with the latest release for Lion, v1.81d5r4. I'm quite happy with it and it to sounds great. At this time, it's the only game in town if you want to play your DSD discs or media. Actually, given the current state of affairs with DSD, it might not much matter. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 (However, it sounds like it might be your cup-O-tea, since you'll be recording using that format.) Also, PM plays WAV files just fine. However, I use XLD and convert them to FLAC for consistency with all the music in my library--I also had problems with WAV metadata. Converting to FLAC resolved that issue.
   
   
   
   
  Quote: 





gogogasgas said:


> Thanks for the tip Agentsim. I've sent Pure Music an email for further info. Up until about page 23 of this thread, which is where I'm up to reading, the Pure Music player was not very popular with users/posters. Does PM 'tamper' with the sound before giving it over to the DAC?


----------



## Currawong

I've added BitPerfect to the original post by the way.


----------



## gogogasgas

Thanks for the tips on the Pure Music player, Rdr. I know that SACD is only hanging by a thread, but is that also true of it's DSD underpinnings? A company told me recently that Korg are discontinuing its DSD capable recorder. In the lower end of the Pro market, that leaves just the Tascam unit holding the fort with DSD. Perhaps DSD digital medium is going the way of the dinosaur too?
  I want to transfer a large amount of LPs/12s to digital (but I want to keep my fave discs). I know of the Pure Vinyl option, but their prices for the external ADC boxes they sell are expensive and is there really a decent (as in 'really decent') quality 24/192 ADC soundcard (or external soundcard in a box) out there that would be better than the Tascam unit connected to a very high quality phono stage? (keeping mind a $4,000 external ADC unit is not an option for me) The company's digital RIAA soundcurve software has got good reviews, but the sound card/ ADC issue is really a deal breaker for me.


----------



## LFG530

I'd like to know how Bitperfect compares to it's alternative for FLAC cd files, just in term of soundquality for someone who doesn't care about tons of equalizing options and higher definition tracks (96/24).


----------



## turimbar1

Better sound is all I use now. That (with fluke) is awesome for everything but the higher bitrate lossless stuff.


----------



## darcyb62

Quote: 





kchapdaily said:


> has anyone tried neutrino? im downloading the trial right now. not sure if it will actually improve sound quality, but it has itunes integration like amarra.
> 
> http://machinecodex.com/neutrino/


 
  I have had Neutrino for a couple of years but use it as more of a music utility than a main player.  It does a great of slowing down music without changing pitch for transcribing songs and also has a looping function which many of the other utility players don't have.  For my main player I purchased Fidelia and have been quite happy with it.


----------



## omasciarotte

Now that the first dot update is available, I just installed 10.7.1 on one of my FireWire volumes. Has anyone seen unwelcome behavior or noticed any pitfalls I should watch out for?


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

Lion was pretty stable at the GM release. What issues I've found were in third-party softwares and have all been fixed, for the most part. I ended up dropping Adium after being tired of waiting years for them to fix simple bugs. Otherwise everything else I've tried works as expected.


----------



## pigmode

Don't know if its been said already, but I find iTunes  to be such a handicap that I have no use for it for anything more than the most causal use.


----------



## DougofTheAbaci

I'm sure people have said it. I disagree because it's certainly the best from a UI perspective and with the addition of something like BitPerfect it's pretty great from an audio perspective, but it's all about personal preference.


----------



## qusp

Quote: 





agentsim said:


> I think a 2008 macbook with a core duo processor is fine, you don't need to boot into the 64-bit kernel, only be able to run 64-bit programs. I think the app store will warn you if your computer is not up to spec.
> 
> BitPerfect already has volume control.* There are actually 2 volume controls, one in the menu which is available if your DAC supports volume control, this control is bit perfect and thus preferred.* Alternatively, you can change volume with the slider in iTunes, but that is not bit perfect and might degrade quality. A future version will improve the iTunes volume control to increase quality, but for now, it is not an ideal solution.


 

 hmm, i find this statement a bit confusing, how does it make any difference if my dac supports volume control (mine does its a sabre) unless you are transmitting serial commands to the dac DSP layer via i2c independently to the audio data it wont have any control over the volume of the dac chip, but rather truncate the audio data, fine for 32 bit dacs. so i guess i'm missing the relevance, or out of the loop in some way


----------



## PedroH

I am using Decibel and noticing a very relevant sound improvement from my MacBookAir + AppleLossless files. Nice interface too.


----------



## disastermouse

I'm using Fidelia (trial version) mostly just for the Isone VST plugin.  It'll be nice to be able to get some Hi-res tracks from HD Tracks and check them out with it.


----------



## chicostein

Hello, I read a dozen of the earliest and latest pages on the thread, but I still not sure which program try first for best SQ?
  BTW, I have an old system: 2006 black MacBook, very first gen (Core Duo "1"), stuck with Snow Leopard with just 2GB of RAM)


----------



## MrQ

Quote: 





chicostein said:


> Hello, I read a dozen of the earliest and latest pages on the thread, but I still not sure which program try first for best SQ?
> BTW, I have an old system: 2006 black MacBook, very first gen (Core Duo "1"), stuck with Snow Leopard with just 2GB of RAM)


 

 Download some demos and try them out for yourself. At the moment I'm trying out the full version of Amarra free for 15 days. Other software offer similar deals. Some are free. Enjoy.


----------



## chicostein

Tks, I will start trying out Pure Music and Decibel.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Based on your memory model, try PM. 
  
  Quote: 





chicostein said:


> Hello, I read a dozen of the earliest and latest pages on the thread, but I still not sure which program try first for best SQ?
> BTW, I have an old system: 2006 black MacBook, very first gen (Core Duo "1"), stuck with Snow Leopard with just 2GB of RAM)


----------



## PedroH

Very happy with Decibel.
   
  Tried Amarra and cannot even make it work. Looks like it lacks quality control.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





pedroh said:


> Very happy with Decibel.
> 
> Tried Amarra and cannot even make it work. Looks like it lacks quality control.


 


  Yeah, I've basically given up on Amarra,  Had trouble re-registering with new update and didn't bother to follow up with support.  I was kind of settled with BitPerfect based on ease of use but then decided to give a listen to the other players again to test sound quality.  I finally tried Decibel and surprised that I liked it more than BitPefect. Decibel was noticeably better with drums and bass in general.  It also has a richer tone and fills out the soundstage better.  Just gets me into the music more.  BitPefect does sound good but it's more a technical sound in comparison.  The same goes for the new Audirvana Plus.  Technically a great player but also missing the richness of Decibel. 
   
  So once you load up the script to get the Apple remote app to work and set the IR remote to exclusive use, Decibel is pretty easy to use.  Not quite the integration of BitPerfect, but I'm happy with it for now.  I'll keep checking BitPefect for improved sound quality when new releases come out hoping it comes to par. Then I can get best integration with best sound quality.


----------



## estreeter

@iamoneagain, can I ask what Amarra charged you for the privilege of using their software ?


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> @iamoneagain, can I ask what Amarra charged you for the privilege of using their software ?


 


  I believe I paid $299 at the time for the mini version.  Now, I do admit their support got back to me and said they could remote in and fix my problem, but just haven't bothered since Decibel and BitPerfect have filled it's place.  But even if they get me past sign in, the biggest issue with Amarra for me is it doesn't play ALAC files converted from XLD or MAX correctly. It's the only player that has this problem.  At the very end of those files, it will loop for a few second.  It's a known bug listed on their website the last I looked.
   
  From their website:
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> Apple Lossless created in Max and xld may not play correctly


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> I believe I paid $299 at the time for the mini version.  Now, I do admit their support got back to me and said they could remote in and fix my problem, but just haven't bothered since Decibel and BitPerfect have filled it's place.  But even if they get me past sign in, the biggest issue with Amarra for me is it doesn't play ALAC files converted from XLD or MAX correctly. It's the only player that has this problem.  At the very end of those files, it will loop for a few second.  It's a known bug listed on their website the last I looked.


 


 Hmm I face none of the problems you described.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Hmm I face none of the problems you described.


 


  Do you use ALAC files converted from MAX or XLD?  I know using AIFF files fixes any problems but it also takes up way too much space.  I also see no reason to use uncompressed files.  As far as signing in, I can't get past the part where you enter new password.
   
  I'm not saying everyone has my problems. In fact I"m probably in the minority since I would think I'd see more people complaining the looping problem.  And support can fix my sign-on problem, so that's not a major issue.  
   
  I'm just venting is all.  But still shocked how just one guy (BitPerfect) can build such a simple but effective interface while Amarra's team has such a clunker as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Do you use ALAC files converted from MAX or XLD?  I know using AIFF files fixes any problems but it also takes up way too much space.  I also see no reason to use uncompressed files.  As far as signing in, I can't get past the part where you enter new password.
> 
> I'm not saying everyone has my problems. In fact I"m probably in the minority since I would think I'd see more people complaining the looping problem.  And support can fix my sign-on problem, so that's not a major issue.
> 
> I'm just venting is all.  But still shocked how just one guy (BitPerfect) can build such a simple but effective interface while Amarra's team has such a clunker as far as I'm concerned.


 

 My ALAC files converted using MAX are XLD works just fine.
   
  Bitperfect just doesn't sound as good as Amarra, Fidelia, Audirvana and Decibel on my system.
   
  Of course when it comes to price, none can match it.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





uelover said:


> My ALAC files converted using MAX are XLD works just fine.
> 
> Bitperfect just doesn't sound as good as Amarra, Fidelia, Audirvana and Decibel on my system.
> 
> Of course when it comes to price, none can match it.


 


  Oh, that's good to know.  Maybe I'll have support get me in and see if I'm still have problems.  I believe the only fix I found was to convert to AIFF files and then back to ALAC which was just a pain since I wouldn't know if I had a problem until the song started to loop.  And then I'd have to spend time converting when I should just be enjoying my music.
   
  I believe BitPerfect is still in the beginning stages and the developer is going to look into improving sound quality.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Oh, that's good to know.  Maybe I'll have support get me in and see if I'm still have problems.  I believe the only fix I found was to convert to AIFF files and then back to ALAC which was just a pain since I wouldn't know if I had a problem until the song started to loop.  And then I'd have to spend time converting when I should just be enjoying my music.
> 
> I believe BitPerfect is still in the beginning stages and the developer is going to look into improving sound quality.


 


 Yeah I certainly hope BitPerfect will improve along the way. It makes you wanna use iTunes more.
  So far it seems to work better on headphones than on speakers.
   
  Am still preferring Fidelia right now by a large margin.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Yeah I certainly hope BitPerfect will improve along the way. It makes you wanna use iTunes more.
> So far it seems to work better on headphones than on speakers.
> 
> Am still preferring Fidelia right now by a large margin.


 


  I'll have to give Fidelia another try too.  I was never a fan before but you never know.  Right now Decibel is sounding best in my system.  Was able to get previous build of Amarra to work and found it does sound great but Decibel is a little more involving than Amarra.  Amarra has more depth and tad more clarity but doesn't get my foot tapping the way Decibel does.  And doesn't look like Amarra had any changes to it's sound in latest build, so might just pass on it for now.  Haven't checked out Pure Music lately but don't own it and don't plan to shell out any more money.  In past I didn't find it as involving as other players.  Just a very clean sound and no richness to it.


----------



## PedroH

Have been comparing Fidelia with Decibel (my preferred and default player).
   
  Fidelia delivers great clean sound quality with a great interface looking like an hifi component.
   
  Decided to keep Decibel by a very thin margin. The sound is a bit more exciting.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





pedroh said:


> Have been comparing Fidelia with Decibel (my preferred and default player).
> 
> Fidelia delivers great clean sound quality with a great interface looking like an hifi component.
> 
> Decided to keep Decibel by a very thin margin. The sound is a bit more exciting.


 
   
  Yeah, that's what I'm noticing about Decibel.  It's somehow more engaging while other players might have a slightly cleaner sound.  But when listening to music as a whole, Decibel seems to just pull ahead.  But I'll check out Fidelia just to see.


----------



## iamoneagain

Big update for Audirvana Plus, there is now an iTunes integrated beta version out:
   
  http://audirvana.com/?page_id=4
   
  So I've been basically using Audirvana Plus the last few days but hoping BitPerfect would eventually upgrade it's sound.  But now with Plus' new beta, I have amazing sound plus full integration.  I also don't have BitPerfect's gapless bug, where I could only use playlists or it would play wrong track for a second.  Keep in mind, this is first beta release and others are finding bugs. So far, I've been lucky and all is well.  It runs completely in the background and gapless is working flawlessly.


----------



## iamoneagain

Audirvana Plus with iTunes integration just got a new update today.  I eventually came across several bugs with first beta but so far the new build seem perfect.  Plays completely in the background, files load quickly, and Apple's Remote apps works flawlessly with it.  Also still have option to use player as stand alone.  Other nice feature is has setting to turn off Spotlight and Time Machine while using it to cut back on CPU usage.  So for now, this is my preferred player.


----------



## MrQ

Problem is, if you have already tried out Audirvana Plus this new revision is not seen as a new trail, therefore requiring full purchase of what is a Beta with bugs.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





mrq said:


> Problem is, if you have already tried out Audirvana Plus this new revision is not seen as a new trail, therefore requiring full purchase of what is a Beta with bugs.


 


  Well if you do purchase, you are free to use the regular version too.  But so far after a whole day of use of current beta, I've have yet to encounter a bug.  Maybe you can email developer and see if you can get extra 15 days asking to test out integrated mode.


----------



## PedroH

@ Iamoneagain, thanks for the tip on Audirvana Plus.
   
  Downloaded the trial and compared with iTunes, Decibel, Amarra and Fidelia. In my opinion Audirvana delivers the best sound, an amazing warm and exciting sound. Also liked the interface simulating an HiFi component.
   
  This comparison also reminded me how bad iTunes sounds.
   
  In the Audirvana FAQs, founded this comment:
   
"Audirvana fully works under Lion.
 But as of today (10.7.1), Lion is not supporting Integer Mode anymore. As there is no information from Apple on a date for a potential fix for this regression, it is strongly recommended to keep a Snow Leopard partition to boot on to get the best results."

  What does this mean?


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





pedroh said:


> @ Iamoneagain, thanks for the tip on Audirvana Plus.
> 
> Downloaded the trial and compared with iTunes, Decibel, Amarra and Fidelia. In my opinion Audirvana delivers the best sound, an amazing warm and exciting sound. Also liked the interface simulating an HiFi component.
> 
> ...


 


   
  I'm not quite sure what it means but this is same issue on all other players that use Integer Mode, not just Aurirvana.  I'm just using optical toslink to my DAC, so don't think my setup supported this mode anyway.
   
  If you downloaded the integrated beta version, make sure you have it check for updates, to get latest version.  Then in menu, select integrated with iTunes.  You may have to quit and restart for best results.  At this point, you not longer have to touch Audirvana unless changing any of the settings.  Some are claiming better sound with stand alone option, but I can't hear the difference myself and prefer to use iTunes as my front-end.
   
  Edit: After a little testing, it does seems like using it stand-alone makes a slight improvement in sound. Just a little fuller and richer. But I could be hearing things since it seems close.  The developer did say once he got the functionality of integrated mode down, he'd work on optimizing the sound in this mode.  Seems like he quickly worked almost all the bugs out, so I'm imagine it won't be long before he starts on optimization.


----------



## turimbar1

I just tried using Audirvana Plus and it has gone unresponsive every time I try to use it.... It just sits there and causes my cpu to give itself a heart attack. It is completely unusable for me as is. I tried changing the settings so that it was not as cpu intensive, but it was already unresponsive by the time I got to the preferences pane. I will stick to the free version for my ultra-flac needs and bettersound for my itunes needs.
   
   I have a 2007 macbook pro, 2.1ghz 3 gigs of RAM (it came with 1 gig O_o)


----------



## uelover

turimbar1 said:


> I just tried using Audirvana Plus and it has gone unresponsive every time I try to use it.... It just sits there and causes my cpu to give itself a heart attack. It is completely unusable for me as is. I tried changing the settings so that it was not as cpu intensive, but it was already unresponsive by the time I got to the preferences pane. I will stick to the free version for my ultra-flac needs and bettersound for my itunes needs.
> 
> I have a 2007 macbook pro, 2.1ghz 3 gigs of RAM (it came with 1 gig O_o)




make sure upsampling is off.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Big update for Audirvana Plus, there is now an iTunes integrated beta version out:
> 
> http://audirvana.com/?page_id=4
> 
> So I've been basically using Audirvana Plus the last few days but hoping BitPerfect would eventually upgrade it's sound.  But now with Plus' new beta, I have amazing sound plus full integration.  I also don't have BitPerfect's gapless bug, where I could only use playlists or it would play wrong track for a second.  Keep in mind, this is first beta release and others are finding bugs. So far, I've been lucky and all is well.  It runs completely in the background and gapless is working flawlessly.


 

 Just wanted to point out, that BitPerfect's gapless bug was actually cause by some script or plug-in, or both.  When I was trying to get the new Audirvan Plus with iTunes integration to work, they said to delete all your scripts and plug-ins.  Well this also fixed any problems I was having with BitPerfect as well.


----------



## turimbar1

well whatever the case, after the latest update, audirvana plus is working just fine. I think it was having trouble with the itunes integration + upsampling.


----------



## mrspeakers

Bit perfect is a fail for me.  It worked for a while but now it is incredibly distorted.  Pure Music sounds great but the UI is gross and iTunes pops to the front every time a track changes.  
   
  Guess I will try Audirvana.  Sure wish PM would update the UI and iTunes window jump.


----------



## crumpler

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Bit perfect is a fail for me.  It worked for a while but now it is incredibly distorted.  Pure Music sounds great but the UI is gross and iTunes pops to the front every time a track changes.
> 
> Guess I will try Audirvana.  Sure wish PM would update the UI and iTunes window jump.


 


  Mine doesn't have the window jumping forward. I'm pretty sure it's a setting issue.


----------



## thread

Side note: Ecoute 3.0 is expected to drop on the Mac App Store today.

I like to use this one occasionally, but most of the time I use MPD -- both on my linux server (home stereo / headphone rig) and my macbook air.

In fact, MPD (Music Player Daemon) probably deserves a spot on the original post. It's a music player that runs in the background with no interface, so you need another app to let you control it. The site has instructions to install it on OSX with a tool called homebrew. Theramin is the pretty mac client, but there are nice web-based ones, too. I rather like client175... It's written in python and has its own, self-contained web server.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Bit perfect is a fail for me.  It worked for a while but now it is incredibly distorted.  Pure Music sounds great but the UI is gross and iTunes pops to the front every time a track changes.
> 
> Guess I will try Audirvana.  Sure wish PM would update the UI and iTunes window jump.


 

 Sorry to hear that. Send me a PM describing the kind of distortion and I'll try to find a solution for you.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I'm sticking with Pure Music...


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Big update for Audirvana Plus, there is now an iTunes integrated beta version out:
> 
> http://audirvana.com/?page_id=4
> 
> So I've been basically using Audirvana Plus the last few days but hoping BitPerfect would eventually upgrade it's sound.  But now with Plus' new beta, I have amazing sound plus full integration.  I also don't have BitPerfect's gapless bug, where I could only use playlists or it would play wrong track for a second.  Keep in mind, this is first beta release and others are finding bugs. So far, I've been lucky and all is well.  It runs completely in the background and gapless is working flawlessly.


 
  Been also using Audirvana Plus for the past few days.  The new integration feature is excellent.   Sonics are also very good.  I still prefer Amarra but it's catching up for sure.


----------



## miceblue

Just thought I'd bring it up:
   
  Winamp is available on Mac OS X: http://www.winamp.com/media-player
   
  I saw this article from Lifehacker.com for Enqueue, which is apparently a replacement for iTunes?: http://www.enqueueapp.com/
   
Another article from Lifehacker.com is for Simplier, which is a lightweight iTunes media player from what I've read (note that it's $2.99 on the Mac App Store): http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/simplier/id467077932?mt=12
   
  I personally haven't used these media players yet, but my main ones are Clementine, VLC, and Vox. Clementine is a media player that is iTunes-like-ish, VLC is a pretty basic media player for many file types, and Vox is a decent media player for sound enhancements.


----------



## turimbar1

Ive found that some sort of bineaural mode or cross-feed is absolutely necessary for my older jazz, it was meant to be played with speakers, so I have the percussion on one side of my head and the trumpet on the opposite side, with no cross feed at all, perfectly 180 degrees from each other. It presents a very confusing image to me, and this is when I really appreciate Vox's support for multiple bineaural settings. The jan meier seems to keep them well spaced, maybe at 90 degrees from each other (in front of me). The Chu Moy brings it even further in front of me, and the default is directly in front of me.
   
  I wish that either Audirvana or Better Sound would introduce the bineaural setting (and maybe an EQ, is that too much to ask?) so I could get that level of quality while keeping the trumpets and drums on both sides of my head.


----------



## mrbig

.


----------



## twelvebears

I've been using Audirvana (the free version until now) and agree that iTunes sound really 'sat on' by comparison.
   
  I didn't really appreciate just how big the difference was until I started using 'phones more (thanks Head-fi) and bought a Fiio E10.
   
  Since then iTunes sounds pants!!


----------



## lextek

I use iTunes for the convenience of Home Sharing.  My library is 30/70 split of music purchased from iTunes and ripped from CDs.  What would I gain from one of these other player?


----------



## thread

miceblue said:


> I saw this article from Lifehacker.com for Enqueue, which is apparently a replacement for iTunes?: http://www.enqueueapp.com/




Btw, I've been really liking Enqueue. It keeps a library just like itunes. (It can even import your itunes library.) It seems nice and efficient. (I loaded 1.5Tb music from an external hdd into it, and it works!) It has global hotkeys. This could actually be the player that i pay money for.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





thread said:


> Btw, I've been really liking Enqueue. It keeps a library just like itunes. (It can even import your itunes library.) It seems nice and efficient. (I loaded 1.5Tb music from an external hdd into it, and it works!) It has global hotkeys. This could actually be the player that i pay money for.


 


  How is the sound of Engueue?


----------



## mrspeakers

Enqueue doesn't seem to offer any up sampling, etc.  It's a light shell as far as I can see and I am guessing that it goes straight to core audio, since they don't brag about their audio processing, so it maybe easier to use and lighter, but it's not going to change the sound...


----------



## WarriorAnt

Looks like just a cataloging alternative then with the addition of playing , FLAC files and Last.fm support but not really a music player in the sense of Audirvana, Bitperfect, Fildelia Amarra and so on.


----------



## mrspeakers

That's my guess but this isn't confirmed.


----------



## SoulSyde

I found "hog mode" to be very annoying.  I get the purpose, but it creates a problem depending on your lifestyle.  I often listen to music in bed while my wife is either reading or has gone to sleep.  A few weeks ago I was listening to music with the app in "hog mode" and I opened some web site that has sound embedded.  The music played through my headphones and the website played through my laptop speakers.  Needless to say my wife was pretty ticked that I had woken her up by some nonsensical advertisement on a random website.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





soulsyde said:


> I found "hog mode" to be very annoying.  I get the purpose, but it creates a problem depending on your lifestyle.  I often listen to music in bed while my wife is either reading or has gone to sleep.  A few weeks ago I was listening to music with the app in "hog mode" and I opened some web site that has sound embedded.  The music played through my headphones and the website played through my laptop speakers.  Needless to say my wife was pretty ticked that I had woken her up by some nonsensical advertisement on a random website.


 


  Which app and what platform?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





soulsyde said:


> I found "hog mode" to be very annoying.  I get the purpose, but it creates a problem depending on your lifestyle.  I often listen to music in bed while my wife is either reading or has gone to sleep.  A few weeks ago I was listening to music with the app in "hog mode" and I opened some web site that has sound embedded.  The music played through my headphones and the website played through my laptop speakers.  Needless to say my wife was pretty ticked that I had woken her up by some nonsensical advertisement on a random website.


 


  Hog mode works by hogging the audio output of your Mac and disallow any other programs (including browsers) to output sound. I have yet to come across an app that will automatically output sound into the secondary audio output device when the primary device has been hogged. Interesting phenomenon


----------



## SoulSyde

BitPerfect and OS X.  Music was playing through iTunes/BitPerfect to my Dr. DAC Nano and the video played through the OS X Built-In speakers.


----------



## lextek

Thanks


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





soulsyde said:


> BitPerfect and OS X.  Music was playing through iTunes/BitPerfect to my Dr. DAC Nano and the video played through the OS X Built-In speakers.


 


  How do you have the AUDIO MIDI application setup?


----------



## SoulSyde

I'm sure how to answer that other than the Dr. DAC Nano is the Default player for output (at 96/24).


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





soulsyde said:


> BitPerfect and OS X.  Music was playing through iTunes/BitPerfect to my Dr. DAC Nano and the video played through the OS X Built-In speakers.


 

 This will happen with any music player using HOG mode. I have had a few requests to add an option to disable HOG mode, and I am considering it for the next version, but only if there is still a significant increase in sound quality even when HOG mode is disabled.


----------



## SoulSyde

Thanks for the reply.  Nice to see you on Head-Fi.  For the record I was excited about your product after reading Mike's article on Headfonia.  If you can successfully build that option into your App (and there is still a benefit in SQ) I will re-purchase it.


----------



## uelover

agentsim said:


> This will happen with any music player using HOG mode. I have had a few requests to add an option to disable HOG mode, and I am considering it for the next version, but only if there is still a significant increase in sound quality even when HOG mode is disabled.




hmm this is weird because I never experience this when using decibel or fidelia.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 If you're using an optical DAC, you won't experience this problem. That is because the optical DAC is using the built-in output device, which is what the speakers use.


----------



## uelover

agentsim said:


> If you're using an optical DAC, you won't experience this problem. That is because the optical DAC is using the built-in output device, which is what the speakers use.




Optical dac? I'm using USB output.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Then I do not understand what's happening. Perhaps after the USB DAC gets hogged a third, non built-in output, device becomes the default, and thus you still don't get output from the speakers...


----------



## Koolpep

Agentsim...
   
  the skipping is really bad now. Especially with my optical used NuForce icon HDP and Fiio D3 (running 32bit/96khz) ....
   
  Is there any cure for this issue in the pipeline?
   
  Thanks and cheers,
  K


----------



## tdogzthmn

I find the BitPerfect sound a little smoother when upsampling is turned off.  I have tried it with a few different settings but when I leave it set to play at whatever the file is encoded at the sound is less grainy and smoother overall.  Only downside that I notice is sometime a loud noise is produced when my DAC, the HRT II+ is switching between sample rates from say 48K to 96K.  This does not happen too often but it certainly does not sound fun.


----------



## Stephen L

Been using Puremusic for some months now. Quite nice but does not support VST plugins. Any recommended wrapper to get around this limitation?


----------



## iamoneagain

So Audirvana Plus with iTunes integration has been officially released and is out of beta.  The big difference from the beta is he was able to get the sound to be exactly the same as the stand alone player by giving user options to disable iTunes playback position and volume control.  I can hear a fuller sound with a more tube like quality with these disabled. You still play directly from iTunes and get gapless playback without the use of playlists and the Apple remote app still works with it.  
   
  I really think this is best integrated player out there right now.  Now I know BitPerfect is working on some things to improve their sound, so I'll check back when that happens. 
   
  http://audirvana.com/


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> So Audirvana Plus with iTunes integration has been officially released and is out of beta.  The big difference from the beta is he was able to get the sound to be exactly the same as the stand alone player by giving user options to disable iTunes playback position and volume control.  I can hear a fuller sound with a more tube like quality with these disabled. You still play directly from iTunes and get gapless playback without the use of playlists and the Apple remote app still works with it.
> 
> I really think this is best integrated player out there right now.  Now I know BitPerfect is working on some things to improve their sound, so I'll check back when that happens.
> 
> http://audirvana.com/


 

 I just noticed, Audirvana Plus costs $49 USD...it did used to be free, correct?


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> I just noticed, Audirvana Plus costs $49 USD...it did used to be free, correct?


 

 Audirvana Plus was never free.  The original Audirvana one was.  That used a different sound engine and had less features.  He used to have a download link on his page but maybe he doesn't support it anymore.  But with some searching, you can still get links.  I personally find BitPerfect sounds better than the original Audirvana but the Plus version is a big step up in my system.  Of course your talking about free vs $50 but BitPerfect is only $5 on Mac app store.
   
  http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Audio/Audirvana.shtml


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Audirvana Plus was never free.  The original Audirvana one was.  That used a different sound engine and had less features.  He used to have a download link on his page but maybe he doesn't support it anymore.  But with some searching, you can still get links.  I personally find BitPerfect sounds better than the original Audirvana but the Plus version is a big step up in my system.  Of course your talking about free vs $50 but BitPerfect is only $5 on Mac app store.
> 
> http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Audio/Audirvana.shtml


 

 Ah, I see. I might give BitPerfect a try then. Thanks for the info!


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> So Audirvana Plus with iTunes integration has been officially released and is out of beta.  The big difference from the beta is he was able to get the sound to be exactly the same as the stand alone player by giving user options to disable iTunes playback position and volume control.  I can hear a fuller sound with a more tube like quality with these disabled. You still play directly from iTunes and get gapless playback without the use of playlists and the Apple remote app still works with it.
> 
> I really think this is best integrated player out there right now.  Now I know BitPerfect is working on some things to improve their sound, so I'll check back when that happens.
> 
> http://audirvana.com/


 

 Audirvana Plus has come a long way but Amarra still beats it hands down.  Having said that Audvirana Plus is a bargain for $49 for sure and does sound excellent.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Audirvana Plus has come a long way but Amarra still beats it hands down.  Having said that Audvirana Plus is a bargain for $49 for sure and does sound excellent.


 


  What about Amarra's overall performance?  I've been reading it's still plagued with bugs.  I still never got past the sign in on 2.3.2.  Will have to have support remote in to fix.  Figured I'd wait for their next update, which they promised would be out on Nov 15th, but still no sign.
   
  My biggest problem was the bug where track skips last few seconds if decoded to ALAC from MAX or XLD.  Also don't like fact it can't play gapless directly from iTunes, need to load up a playlist.  And finally, to get best sound, also needed to use playlist mode.  
   
  Still would like to compare to Audirvana for sound, but think Audirana's overall performance wins out.  Amarra's bugs is what drove me to try other players in the first place. Eventually settled on BitPerfect but moved to Audirvana Plus for best combination of sound and performance.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> What about Amarra's overall performance?  I've been reading it's still plagued with bugs.  I still never got past the sign in on 2.3.2.  Will have to have support remote in to fix.  Figured I'd wait for their next update, which they promised would be out on Nov 15th, but still no sign.
> 
> My biggest problem was the bug where track skips last few seconds if decoded to ALAC from MAX or XLD.  Also don't like fact it can't play gapless directly from iTunes, need to load up a playlist.  And finally, to get best sound, also needed to use playlist mode.
> 
> Still would like to compare to Audirvana for sound, but think Audirana's overall performance wins out.  Amarra's bugs is what drove me to try other players in the first place. Eventually settled on BitPerfect but moved to Audirvana Plus for best combination of sound and performance.


 

 I use Amarra's Playlist feature to transfer tracks from iTunes to the amarra list and i never have problems that way.  also for me this is better sound than letting iTunes control Amarra.
   
  I've done a lot of comparison between Audirvana and Amarra and find that Amarra is still superior but Audirvana is no slouch and probably the better deal for $50.   I have found a few list bugs with Audirvana Plus though.
   
  I have a friend who has Amarra, Pure Music and Audirvana Plus and he's done a lot of comparisons.  He rates them this way.
   
  Amarra
  Pure Music
  Audirvana Plus.  
   
  For the price of Audirvana I don't think you can go wrong at all.  Audirvana Plus is impressive.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> I use Amarra's Playlist feature to transfer tracks from iTunes to the amarra list and i never have problems that way.  also for me this is better sound than letting iTunes control Amarra.
> 
> I've done a lot of comparison between Audirvana and Amarra and find that Amarra is still superior but Audirvana is no slouch and probably the better deal for $50.   I have found a few list bugs with Audirvana Plus though.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks for the info.  For some reason I've never liked Pure Music.  Very clean but very digital sounding in my setup.  I was always a fan of Amarra for their sound but hated their interface.  For Audrivana Plus, really think he might have made an improvement in sound in very latest build.  I know the integrated mode was improved when using the checkboxes, but this mode sounds even better than the previous stand alone version.
   
  And my preference has nothing to do with price.  I already own Amarra Mini, so in reality, I wish it worked like I wanted it too.  I just wanted a great sounding player that stayed in the background and allowed me to use iTunes as I always did.  Pure Music was close but had a few issues and never like their sound.  BitPefect was the first to get things right.  Set it up and forget it.  Audirvana Plus improved upon this formula with a better sound engine.  So if Amarra could do the same, I'd probably use them again.  I'm not dedicated to anyone vendor.  Whoever has best overall player at the moment, I'll use (of the ones I already own).


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Thanks for the info.  For some reason I've never liked Pure Music.  Very clean but very digital sounding in my setup.  I was always a fan of Amarra for their sound but hated their interface.  For Audrivana Plus, really think he might have made an improvement in sound in very latest build.  I know the integrated mode was improved when using the checkboxes, but this mode sounds even better than the previous stand alone version.
> 
> And my preference has nothing to do with price.  I already own Amarra Mini, so in reality, I wish it worked like I wanted it too.  I just wanted a great sounding player that stayed in the background and allowed me to use iTunes as I always did.  Pure Music was close but had a few issues and never like their sound.  BitPefect was the first to get things right.  Set it up and forget it.  Audirvana Plus improved upon this formula with a better sound engine.  So if Amarra could do the same, I'd probably use them again.  I'm not dedicated to anyone vendor.  Whoever has best overall player at the moment, I'll use (of the ones I already own).


 

 Does Amarra Mini have a separate window for a playlist and does it have that function?  I can't tell from the website.    To be honest I can tell the difference with all my music players and iTunes except Bitperfect.  Honestly I can't hear any difference between iTunes and Bitperfect.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Does Amarra Mini have a separate window for a playlist and does it have that function?  I can't tell from the website.    To be honest I can tell the difference with all my music players and iTunes except Bitperfect.  Honestly I can't hear any difference between iTunes and Bitperfect.


 


  I haven't used the latest Mini, but previously, you'd highlight the tracks and then select to add to Amarra.  When done, clean out the tracks and add more.  Not that difficult but it's extra steps. Also couldn't use remote app this way. With Audivana Plus, just use iTunes the way you always have and plays albums gapless.  Remote app also still works. And with optimized settings, doesn't sound different from stand alone player setting. With Amarra if you play directly, you have sound loss and lose gapless playback.  I don't have a ton of gapless albums but when album had tracks that where supposed to blend together, Amarra direct play ruined the experience.  
   
  Bitperfect's sound difference from iTunes is very subtle. Find it little smoother and just a bit more depth.  But difference don't stand out the way other players do.  I believe BitPerfect is getting a new sound engine as a free update or small fee add-on at some point in the future.  Should bring similar results as Audirvana does but using different techniques.  Looking forward to see how it compares.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Have you found any bugs in Audvirana and the iTunes list?   I find that when I use iTunes under "Date Added" and then let Audirvana track the list eventually Audirvana will jump down a few tracks in iTunes even though it is actually playing the very next song in iTunes.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Have you found any bugs in Audvirana and the iTunes list?   I find that when I use iTunes under "Date Added" and then let Audirvana track the list eventually Audirvana will jump down a few tracks in iTunes even though it is actually playing the very next song in iTunes.


 


  Occasionally if I've stopped and started tracks a lot, I have had it look like it skipped a track.  If I quit and restart, problem goes away.  For most part relatively bug free.  The only thing weird is the behavior with update track position in iTunes disabled.  If you pause a track, it pretty much stops it.  Have to restart from beginning of track.  But improvement in sound is worth it.  If this box is unchecked, iTunes works exactly the same as it always has.  But if you do find bugs, developer is pretty quick about fixing things.  Can send him something directly or list it on computer audio forum.
   
  But if testing for sound quality, make sure you go to preference, iTunes tab, and then check Sound quality optimizations boxes.  Don't think these are check by default.


----------



## Saturn

Please excuse my noobness, but does it really matter which music player you have whether it be a paid or free player (I still use iTunes) if you have an external dac and amp?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





saturn said:


> Please excuse my noobness, but does it really matter which music player you have whether it be a paid or free player (I still use iTunes) if you have an external dac and amp?


 

 Yes.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





saturn said:


> Please excuse my noobness, but does it really matter which music player you have whether it be a paid or free player (I still use iTunes) if you have an external dac and amp?


 


  Feel free to test any of these players out for yourself.  Most have free trials.  I didn't believe it would make any difference either but some the programs have just enough subtle changes to make the experience more musical. Deeper soundstage, smoother, tube like liquid sound.  iTunes will sort of sound flat in comparison.  On some programs it's harder to tell the difference.  And also depends on ones setup.  And in the end, you can just stick with iTunes if didn't notice any improvement or was big enough to pay for.  The great thing now is more and more players are becoming fully integrated, so you use iTunes as you always have and the sound player just hijacks the sound.


----------



## Saturn

Great replay! I am currently testing out Amarra through a trial and it surely does sound better than iTunes. But, I do not understand how, I mean, do these programs just EQ the music to make it sound better?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





saturn said:


> Great replay! I am currently testing out Amarra through a trial and it surely does sound better than iTunes. But, I do not understand how, I mean, do these programs just EQ the music to make it sound better?


 

 These programs do not EQ the music.
   
  EQ is absolutely a no-no. It is a cheap but lousy solution to solve problems in the playback system.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





saturn said:


> Great replay! I am currently testing out Amarra through a trial and it surely does sound better than iTunes. But, I do not understand how, I mean, do these programs just EQ the music to make it sound better?


 

 I think it has to do with the conversion process,  more advanced than iTunes.  Also loading tracks into memory improves performance.  And then some have hog mode to block all other sounds from coming through.  There are other tricks these programs uses.  But in the end, not sure how it really improves the sound, just know that you can hear the improvement.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> I think it has to do with the conversion process,  more advanced than iTunes.  Also loading tracks into memory improves performance.  And then some have hog mode to block all other sounds from coming through.  There are other tricks these programs uses.  But in the end, not sure how it really improves the sound, just know that you can hear the improvement.


 

 There are a few things going on that are probably real.  For example, many preload the music into memory vs. reading from disk.  However, as you note, the difference is really in the conversion.  The better products let you set your up sampling parameters, sometimes including multiple interpolation options, ability to only scale 2x, etc.  Up-sampling in theory (and in measurable practice) reduces aliasing artifacts which are an issue with 44.1 audio, in particular.  Aliasing is a form of in-band distortion caused by the Nyquist limit being to close to the top frequency, and the need to apply brick wall filters that affect sound.  
   
  Up sampling can't really improve the "signal", it is more about reducing the digital and analog filter artifacts 44.1KHz sampling creates by moving the top frequency so far above your hearing that gentler, better filters can be used, and aliasing vastly reduced.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> There are a few things going on that are probably real.  For example, many preload the music into memory vs. reading from disk.  However, as you note, the difference is really in the conversion.  The better products let you set your up sampling parameters, sometimes including multiple interpolation options, ability to only scale 2x, etc.  Up-sampling in theory (and in measurable practice) reduces aliasing artifacts which are an issue with 44.1 audio, in particular.  Aliasing is a form of in-band distortion caused by the Nyquist limit being to close to the top frequency, and the need to apply brick wall filters that affect sound.
> 
> Up sampling can't really improve the "signal", it is more about reducing the digital and analog filter artifacts 44.1KHz sampling creates by moving the top frequency so far above your hearing that gentler, better filters can be used, and aliasing vastly reduced.


 
   
  I don't upsample/downsample my music and software like Fidelia doesn't offer memory playback as well. Yet, it improves the audio quality significantly.
   
  I guess that maybe the decoding process and the way the software handles the data transfer makes the bulk of the difference. I hope that we will be able to hear a formal explanation as to how software affects the quality of audio playback from the software makers themselves but I don't think that is possible.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Some of these players license the izotope conversion engine.  I forgot which ones offhand but it is used in many off them. 
   
  http://www.izotope.com/tech/mbit/


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Some of these players license the izotope conversion engine.  I forgot which ones offhand but it is used in many off them.
> 
> http://www.izotope.com/tech/mbit/


 


  I know Audirvana Plus uses it.  I can easily tell the difference when switching between Apple Core and izotope, even with upsampling off. Izotope brings out more detail and separation of instruments.  Apple Core does still sound pretty good with Audrivana but it almost seems muddy in comparison.  Instruments don't sound as real.
   
  A couple of other tricks Audirvana Plus has available is it allows you disable Spotlight,Time Machine, and new USB connections while music is playing to lesson the hard drive load. Once you stop the player, these features are reactivate.  Only issue is if you leave player in pause mode, then features are still off.  May delay backup for hours.
   
  Here's the other piece of izotope it uses:  http://www.izotope.com/tech/src/


----------



## iamoneagain

Audirvana Plus 1.1.1 update just came out.  Fixed my biggest issue: Fix stopping instead of pausing in no update position mode.  So now iTunes works as it normally does while having optimized sound quality.
   
  These are bug fixed too.
   
* Fix issue "unable to load first track" when restarting playback after
   having stopped it
 * Remember hidden or not Audirvana Plus window at startup in iTunes
   integrated mode
 * Fix stopping instead of pausing in no update position mode
 * Fix wrong error message for device initialization issue
 * Fix init errors due to device hogging issues
 * Fix desynchronization with iTunes for tracks in Library


----------



## vrln

Awesome thread here! After getting a Mac Mini as my main source, I´ve been playing around with all these different options. My first impressions:
   
  (1) PureMusic. Used this the whole demo period. Initially an almost shocking amount of options, but it was much easier to setup than I expected. These options also give a lot power to the user. I´m simply very impressed by this product. It´s extremely stable, something that should not be taken for granted (more on that later...) Well coded, gets out of the way and does everything it claims to do. Audible improvement over iTunes when using HOG mode and memory playback, and runs FLAC from iTunes without an issue. Sound wise to me it´s very solid state: good imaging, precise and neutral. I haven´t decided which app to buy yet, but this is easily currently my favourite. I would never guess it´s also cheaper than Amarra, especially since it gives a far, far more professional impression.
   
  (2) Amarra (Mini). Oh well, where to start... Sound wise it´s like a high end tube amp, with the midrange feeling more liquid than in PureMusic. I have a feeling the imaging is not as accurate though. Is Amarra doing some special things behind the curtains like applying a minimum phase filter? Probably not, since as far as I know it measures bitperfect. Why does it sound different then? No idea. Considering sonics only, it´s a very good competitor. I´m not sure if I prefer it to PureMusic when it comes to sonics, maybe I even do. Some days (or should I rather say for some songs!) I feel PureMusic is superior though. The difference isn´t huge, but it´s there. I could easily live with either of these though. But oh boy, this is where the good comparison ends. Amarra is quite simply sluggish and buggy compared to Pure Music.
   
  To my suprise Amarra is actually a lot more difficult to setup than PureMusic, even though it has less options. To get it on the same line as PureMusic, you´ll need to use the iTunes integration playlist mode, which always feels clunky and odd. It´s simply nowhere near as fluid as an overall experience. The iTunes integration is just not on the same level as in PureMusic. I also experience strange sluggish skips in the sound sometimes when it´s not supposed to happen. Even the second counter in the Amarra bar outside iTunes isn´t smooth. The developers might have the sound quality down, but there is a lot of work to be done everywhere else. I had high expectations for Amarra since it´s considered by many to be the finest there is, and in general it let me down. In my opinion, it should be sold as beta software with a far lower price. I´ll check it again every few months to see if it´s been improved. Bonus points for crazy pricing, I guess anything flies in the world of high fidelity. The current prices are not in line with the quality of the software, and what´s even more amazing is that it used to cost twice as much. 
   
  (3) Decibel. This little player is something Linux users familiar with the GNOME desktop environment will love. It´s extremely minimalistic. Designed to do one thing and do it well. Very stable, the user interface makes sense, and the pricing is fair too. Sound quality wise I´m not convinced I could tell the difference between PureMusic and this in a blind test. That said, for me it isn´t an option. Why? No iTunes integration. I´m not ready to give up the fantastic iTunes user interface: song rating, playlists and above all remote control from my Android phone (and in the future maybe an iPad). If you have no need for such advanced features, I highly recommend checking this player out.
   
  (4) Audirvana Plus. I tried the previous standalone version once, but quickly uninstalled it due to the missing iTunes integration. Guess what? Now the latest version has it, and it works great. It´s perhaps even more elegantly done than in PureMusic. It has less options than PureMusic, but a lot more than Decibel. I don´t like the huge hifi box player window though - it´s ugly and makes me want to turn it off. I hope a less intrusive, more minimalistic GUI will be added as an option to the "hifi box player" one. That said, in general I´m very impressed by this new version. So impressed actually, that I´ll email the author if he would give me another trial period. Only used the new version for a day, because the trial period for the older version ran out (which I didn´t even use due to the missing iTunes integration). Sound quality wise my first impressions are very positive. Bonus points for using the iZotope sample rate converter software.
   
  The result of my tests? Undecided so far, but right now it´s a battle between PureMusic and Audirvana Plus.


----------



## WarriorAnt

I haven't tried PureMusic yet but I have all the other players.  Audvirana Plus is very nice. I'm going to have to try the PureMusic demo.  I didn't realize there was one.  What mode did you have Amarra in?  Was it checked AUTO-DITHER MBIT+ 24 bits?
   
   
  Also Apple is putting out an update to Itunes today that supposedly fixes audio distortion while playing certain CD's  As of this post I'm still waiting on it.
   
  http://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/12/apple-releases-itunes-10-5-2/


----------



## Olias of Sunhillow

Nice summary of the current alternatives, vrln. I agree with most of your observations.
   
  Even though I've already purchased a PureMusic license, I'm leaning toward buying Audirvana Plus (still have five days in the demo period) because (a) it sounds just as good, and (b) the interface is much less intrusive -- it just runs in the background once everything is set.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Thanks for starting this thread Currawong, your post was very informative. As was this whole thread, Ijust finished reading it.
  As Olias said, vrln nailed it with his summary. I'm going for the Audirvana Plus option as well since I love the integration and remote option.
  Just need to order my new DAC first, else it'd be of little use I guess.
   
  I do have two questions though:
  How will using Audirvana Plus affect Airplay?
  And Home Sharing?


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Thanks for starting this thread Currawong, your post was very informative. As was this whole thread, Ijust finished reading it.
> As Olias said, vrln nailed it with his summary. I'm going for the Audirvana Plus option as well since I love the integration and remote option.
> Just need to order my new DAC first, else it'd be of little use I guess.
> 
> ...


 


  I know Home Sharing works on iPhone, iPad and Apple TV with Audirvana Plus running.  I haven't tried to see if shared library within iTunes works though since I don't have another computer.  Also haven't tested Airplay out iTunes while it's running.  Would think if there was a problem, shutting off hog mode would fix it.
   
  So far with latest version, I haven't ran into any bugs.  Also once you click hide display, it will stay minimized on future relaunches, so program stays completely in the background.  Other than sound, only way to tell it's running is iTunes progress doesn't move (if have it disabled).


----------



## iamoneagain

...


----------



## AppleheadMay

What happens if I install Audirvana Plus (or any of the others) already if I don't have a DAC connected to my Mac yet?
  I'd buy it already while waiting for the DAC tto arrive as there's a little scenario I'd like to test.
   
  Situation would be this:
  Speaker rig --> Dac --> Mac Mini with iTunes containing the Library
  Headphone Rig --> Dac --> iMac with iTunes and an empty Library, thus playing from the Mac Mini Library using Home Sharing.
   
  Would the iMac then be using the full resolution files from the other Library through Home Sharing or is there some conversion in the path for streaming's sake?
  I believe that for Airplay everything gets sampled to 16/44 ALAC, but what happens with Home Sharing?
  That would make the difference between having one highres library accessible on multiple systems that have a Mac connected or having to maintain and sync multiple libraries.


----------



## AppleheadMay

How do I know if a DAC is core audio compatible by the way.
  I see that's a requirement for Audirvana.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> What happens if I install Audirvana Plus (or any of the others) already if I don't have a DAC connected to my Mac yet?
> I'd buy it already while waiting for the DAC tto arrive as there's a little scenario I'd like to test.
> 
> Situation would be this:
> ...


 
   
   
  So I believe any these players will work without using a DAC but not sure how much you'll notice an improvement in sound.
   
  Ok, so you were wanting to see in a Shared library could be used with Audirvana Plus and I have no way of testing that.  Check out this forum's thread and either post the same question or contact the developer.  He's pretty quick about responding.  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Audirvana-Plus-iTunes-Integration


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> So I believe any these players will work without using a DAC but not sure how much you'll notice an improvement in sound.
> 
> Ok, so you were wanting to see in a Shared library could be used with Audirvana Plus and I have no way of testing that.  Check out this forum's thread and either post the same question or contact the developer.  He's pretty quick about responding.  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Audirvana-Plus-iTunes-Integration


 

 Just plug your earphone into your mac audio output jack and hear it for yourself.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Will have my second DAC tomorrow afternoon.
  I'll hook up my MBP to te speaker setup and check on the DAC's what sampling rate I get when playing via Home Sharing.
  I'll keep you guys up to date.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Right, figured out I only need one dac for testing this.
   
  With Audirvana running on the source computer, neither Airplay nor Home Sharing is possible.
   
  When Audirvana is not running on the source, everything works fine of course, but I tried to test and see on the screen of my DAC whether the highres file gets pulled over the network or it gets downsampled.
  Can't find a way to do that since the DAC always displays the frequency I select in Audio-Midi Setup.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I wonder if this would work with other Ethernet enabled DAC's as well.
  I sent them a mail.
   
http://www.stylesound.com/appl/botiga/client/img/PONTNEUF.pdf


----------



## AppleheadMay

I registered on Audirvana's forum. Going to put the Home Sharing question up there as it's pretty important for me using two separate systems with two DAC's. Maybe a future version could have Home Sharing support.
   
  For the rest, I'm pretty happy with Audirvana Plus, featurewise and the way it works I mean.
  SQ-Wise I will see tomorrow when the DAC for my Desktop setup arrives.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I wonder if this would work with other Ethernet enabled DAC's as well.
> I sent them a mail.
> 
> http://www.stylesound.com/appl/botiga/client/img/PONTNEUF.pdf


 


  Got a reply, they're willing to license it to others but have no takers yet.
  Only works with their player/dac.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Hmm, when I play a 16/44 file through Audirvana it uses 24/44.
  I think it didn't do that at first, but not sure.
  Is it supposed to work like that?


----------



## AppleheadMay

Here's a screenshot. You'll notice the DAC and file settings are not the same, 24/44 vs 16/44. Is this the way it's supposed to be? I have upsamling off.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I tried Bit Perfect as well.
  First it played 16/44 the way it should, then I clicked the option to use maximum bitrate and it did that.
  Now I can't disable that anymore.
  Bitperfect also doen't play anything higher than 48k.
   
  Now I installed Amarra and deleted it right away. It wants to start iTunes in 32-bit mode. Stupid a program that expensive hasn't even got 64-bit support yet.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I tried Bit Perfect as well.
> First it played 16/44 the way it should, then I clicked the option to use maximum bitrate and it did that.
> Now I can't disable that anymore.
> Bitperfect also doen't play anything higher than 48k.
> ...


 


  What do you mean "It wants to start iTunes in 32-bit mode".  How can you tell if iTunes is running 32 or 64 bit in Amarra?


----------



## AppleheadMay

You get a message saying that you have to quit iTunes and restart it in 32bit-mode in order for Amarra to work.
   
  From their website:
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> Q: Using Amarra and OS X 10.7, iTunes 10.4  A: Amarra has been tested using the development builds of 10.7 with success. There are reports in the field that there are differences in the sound quality and that certain features are missing. We would not recommend using 10.7 unless required.
> One issue when using iTunes 10.4 has been found and can be easily addressed. On launch iTunes will present an Alert stating 32-bit mode is required to launch Amarra. Please follow the instructions and Using the Info Command in Finder change the preference for iTunes to 32-bit.
> 
> Quit the iTunes Application
> ...


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> You get a message saying that you have to quit iTunes and restart it in 32bit-mode in order for Amarra to work.
> 
> From their website:


 

 Thanks for that info.  I'm still using 10.6.8 with Amarra and have no problems.  I did not know about problems with Lion and was thinking of switching over to it today or tomorrow. However I am using iTunes 10.5.2 is the warning just for 10.4?


----------



## AppleheadMay

No, I have 10.5.2 as well. I guess it's a problem under Lion in combination with iTunes 10.4 and above.
  Will see after the next update if they fixed it and then give it another try,


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> No, I have 10.5.2 as well. I guess it's a problem under Lion in combination with iTunes 10.4 and above.
> Will see after the next update if they fixed it and then give it another try,


 


  It is my understanding that Amarra is working on the problem.  Lion has created a number of incompatibility problems with many types of software across the OSX platform so its not just Amarra.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Yep, rather common with a new OS.
  That's why I'll give it another shot. I'll probably have to drop them a line to get a second trial period.
   
  I must say for now I'm enjoying Audirvana. There's an audible increase in SQ to my ears and I kind of dig the interface.
  I just wonder why everything is put out at a bit depth of 24 instead of the native bit depth, and what impact that has on SQ.
  I have the same problem with BitPerfect, not sure where the problem lies thus.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I just wonder why everything is put out at a bit depth of 24 instead of the native bit depth, and what impact that has on SQ.
> I have the same problem with BitPerfect, not sure where the problem lies thus.


 

 There should be no difference in quality. All that is happening is BitPerfect is finding a 24-bit "stream" instead of a 16-bit "stream" on your DAC. The difference will just be zero-padding and will not affect sound quality.
   
  As for your previous comment about 48khz being the limit with BitPerfect, this should not be the case. BitPerfect has been tested up to 384khz. Are you sure your DAC supports more than 48khz over USB? There are many DACs that will do 24/96, but only via an optical connection.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Yes, my dac supports up to 96khz over USB and 192 over optical and coax.
  It accepts and displays it from both iTunes/Audio Midi Setup and Audirvana. 192 kHz plays but gets downsampled.
   
  With BitPerfect, I can only play 44 and 48. Anything above that and the song starts playing (I see the time scale move) but there is no sound.
   
  Thanks for the info on the bit-stream.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Pure Music just works, sounds excellent, is technologically on par with anything out there, and is so feature laden that most of the other music players are playing catching up. I don't let the effect of aesthetics get in my way of just enjoying the music! Just sayin'!


----------



## AppleheadMay

@agentsim : Ah, I just noticed you're the developer. Any idea why I can't play them? Your program is rather inobtrusive and I would love to try and compare it against Audirvana and Amarra.
   
  @Rdr. Seraphim :
   
  Quote: 





> Pure Music just works, sounds excellent, is technologically on par with anything out there, and is so feature laden that most of the other music players are playing catching up. I don't let the effect of aesthetics get in my way of just enjoying the music! Just sayin'!


 
  It doesn't work for me though as I can't play hires files. I would love it to work so I can try and compare it.


----------



## miceblue

For people who use Audirvana Plus, does Spotlight work for you? I keep getting this issue:
   

   
  It's really annoying because even when I quit Audirvana Plus, Spotlight does the same thing. No, I don't have any restrictions on Spotlight searches, so it should be looking in the Utilities folder for the Terminal app.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Spotlight works for me yes.
  I haven't used the "disable spotlight" and am a bit reluctant to give it a try having seen your issue.
  Did you post it at the Audirvana forum? Maybe the devoloper could look into it.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> @agentsim : Ah, I just noticed you're the developer. Any idea why I can't play them? Your program is rather inobtrusive and I would love to try and compare it against Audirvana and Amarra.
> 
> It doesn't work for me though as I can't play hires files. I would love it to work so I can try and compare it.


 

 I'll send you a PM with some instructions for gathering the details I'd need to look into this.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Got your PM, thank you.
  I-ll send the info in a few.


----------



## Anthony1

Does amarra play FLAC


----------



## DarknightDK

Is Amarra or Pure Music a big step up (in terms of SQ) compared to Bit Perfect?


----------



## Olias of Sunhillow

Quote: 





darknightdk said:


> Is Amarra or Pure Music a big step up (in terms of SQ) compared to Bit Perfect?


 

 Depends on your perspective. IMO, stepping up from iTunes to either one of the three is a much bigger step than going from one of the three to another.
   
  Did that make sense?


----------



## DarknightDK

Quote: 





olias of sunhillow said:


> Depends on your perspective. IMO, stepping up from iTunes to either one of the three is a much bigger step than going from one of the three to another.
> 
> Did that make sense?


 


  Makes perfect sense to me. I'm currently using Bit Perfect and indeed its a big step up from iTunes. However, I'm always tempted with the offerings from Pure Music and Amara, given the positive reviews. However, these players cost a lot more compared to Bit Perfect. So I'm wondering if the additional features and maybe the improvement in SQ might justify the price.


----------



## Olias of Sunhillow

Quote: 





darknightdk said:


> Makes perfect sense to me. I'm currently using Bit Perfect and indeed its a big step up from iTunes. However, I'm always tempted with the offerings from Pure Music and Amara, given the positive reviews. However, these players cost a lot more compared to Bit Perfect. So I'm wondering if the additional features and maybe the improvement in SQ might justify the price.


 


  Hard to say. I've purchased PureMusic and BitPerfect, and am considering buying Audivana Plus as well. I think PureMusic sounds slightly better than BitPerfect, though I have interface issues with both -- PureMusic crashes a lot, and BitPerfect does the whole jumping back and forth between tracks thing that others have reported here.
   
  The Audirvana Plus trial I've been using sounds great and has a minimal interface that (at least since the latest version) has never crashed, jumped or otherwise screwed things up.
   
  IMO, interface preferences are more of a determining factor here than sound. They all sound great.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





anthony1 said:


> Does amarra play FLAC


 


   
  Yes.
   
  http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarrafaq.html#flac


----------



## WarriorAnt

The only player I do not have is PureMusic.     I prefer Amarra by a large margin over everything else.  But Audivana Plus would be my second choice if I did not have Amarra. I think for the $49 it is a bargain.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I decided only to look at the players that integrate into iTunes.
  I have bought both Audirvana and BitPerfect. Will try out Amarra as sson as it's fully Lion compatible (or 64bit).
  I did try PureMusic more than a year ago but remember having serious problems with it, nut sure what exactly it was anymore but I blieve it made a mess of my library. Don't take that for an absolute truth though. Also, I found it's interface rather irritating.


----------



## AppleheadMay

WarriorAnt, I read a thread yesterday about streamers. Did you ever try out the Logitech?


----------



## Anthony1

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Yes.
> 
> http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarrafaq.html#flac


 


  Thanks


----------



## AppleheadMay

Been messing with my DAC and computer for at least 10 minutes since I had no sound from my phones.
  I had 4 pairs of phones lying around my desk, the one that I had on my head wasn't plugged into the amp ...


----------



## thrak

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Will try out Amarra as sson as it's fully Lion compatible (or 64bit).


 
   
  I had that message/warning popup for me when I was trying out the 15-day demo of Amarra.  I really wanted to try it so I went set iTunes to start in 32-bit as Amarra requested.  When the trial period ended I reset iTunes to start at 64-bit.  A few days after that I decided to purchase Amarra MINI so I uninstalled the demo version and installed MINI but forgot to set iTunes to 32-bit.  Guess what?  It works just fine in 64-bit.  I can't guarantee that it will stay that way after a reboot nor can I guarantee that iTunes is in fact running at 64-bit.  Anyone know a way to check this?


----------



## AppleheadMay

You can check it in Activity Monitor when it's running though I'm not sure if it displays what mode the program is running in as opposed to what mode it is capable of.


----------



## thrak

i checked activity monitor and it was not immediately obvious.  if you sample the process it lists the code-build you are running (X86-64) but not necessarily which mode it is in.  maybe I'm missing something?


----------



## AppleheadMay

With me it lists "Intel (64-bit)" for iTunes under the "kind" column.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I decided only to look at the players that integrate into iTunes.
> I have bought both Audirvana and BitPerfect. Will try out Amarra as sson as it's fully Lion compatible (or 64bit).
> I did try PureMusic more than a year ago but remember having serious problems with it, nut sure what exactly it was anymore but I blieve it made a mess of my library. Don't take that for an absolute truth though. Also, I found it's interface rather irritating.


 


  A year is a long time for a change in development for a music player. Do you have Audirvana Plus?


----------



## AppleheadMay

I have Audirvana Plus yes, as well as BitPerfect.


----------



## vrln

PureMusic has changed since then. Less options, especially ones that you can break things with. The default options are pretty sane, and the interface is now more minimalistic as well. Interface wise it´s currently my favourite, closely followed by Audirvana Plus - the new iTunes integration is extremely well coded. When you disable the player screen you don´t even know it´s on. Been trying out Audirvana now for a few days and I´m very impressed also when it comes to sound quality. I have no illusions I could tell PureMusic and it apart in a blind test, so it comes down to interface. The only thing I´m missing in Audirvana is the dynamic range meter. As it´s also much cheaper, right now I think I´ll go this way once the trial expires. Personally I can´t stand Amarra due to user interface design issues (and it´s unstable/buggy on my 2011 Mac Mini with Lion). It´s also the player that sounds the least neutral to me - I wonder if anyone has actually measured these players if they all indeed are bitperfect. Just wondering because sometimes I strongly feel Amarra is adding a minimum phase filter or something similar. 
   
  All in all though, any of the players I´ve tried (Decibel, Pure Music, Audirvana Plus and Amarra) are a clear improvement over iTunes. The differences between the players are nowhere near as big as the difference coming from iTunes to any of then, so pricing and the user interface is my main concern. As I need remote control functionality, Decibel is ruled out. Amarra is ruled out because if you ask me users are paying a ridiculous price tag for getting to be beta testers (or maybe alpha, Audirvana beta was way less buggier than the current Amarra). So hard to decide between Pure Music and Audirvana Plus though...


----------



## AppleheadMay

Completely agree with you on the differences and how to choose one.
  (sorry, on an iPad atm and too lazy to quote)
   
  I 'll give BitPerfect another try then and cross my fingers I don't break anything important.
   
  Edit: PureMusic I mean, I have BitPerfect.


----------



## vrln

Just bought Audirvana Plus. Made the best overall impression in the end, especially the iTunes integration is just flawless. Been playing around with the iZotope upsampling options too, it´s pretty neat. I like it for less than perfectly recorded music, makes the noise floor seem lower with a slight loss in dynamics. Also converted all my FLAC to AIFF with XLD, now I´m all set. When I woke up today, I started playing Fleetwood Mac via my Android phone (Hyperfine Remote for iTunes - works faster than the iPad/iPhone app!)


----------



## AppleheadMay

Why did you convert your Flac to Aiff?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Why did you convert your Flac to Aiff?


 


  Sounds better, though debatable.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Indeed, it shouldn't sound better though. 
   
  Not getting into this by the way.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Indeed, it shouldn't sound better though.
> 
> Not getting into this by the way.


 


  The thing I dislike about Apple is that it is so complicated to import Flac into iTunes and that there is no native support for it, making me always converting my files to ALAC or AIFF. Then, when I am using other non-Apple devices, I will need to convert back to either Flac or Mp3.
   
  I have also just purchased the Audirvana Plus. The iTunes library management is still the best.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Right, tried PureMusic:
  - It plays nothing above 88khz.
  - It sounds veiled to me at +0db volume.
  - When I go above +0db I get heavy distortion.
  - Waaaay too much and too complicated options in preferences.
   
  So, big nono for me. I'll stick with Audirvana and BitPerfect.
  I will give Amarra one more chance though at the next update.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Right, tried PureMusic:
> - It plays nothing above 88khz.
> - It sounds veiled to me at +0db volume.
> - When I go above +0db I get heavy distortion.
> ...


 


  Sounds like there is something wrong with your configuration because I have none of the problems described above.


----------



## crumpler

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Sounds like there is something wrong with your configuration because I have none of the problems described above.


 


  Ditto.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Probably, since I can't play more than 48k with BitPerfect either.
  With Audirvana or iTunes everythhing works fine though.
   
  Any ideas?


----------



## vrln

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Why did you convert your Flac to Aiff?


 
   
  Convenience, it´s too much trouble adding FLAC files to an iTunes playlist. Sure it can be done, but it´s just easier to use AIFF as it´s supported natively. Also I can move AIFF files to my iPod, but not FLAC. Another reason is that the Mac version of the dynamic range meter (by Pleasurize Foundation) doesn´t work with FLAC, but does with AIFF. I don´t believe there are any sound quality differences - some people claim so on the Computer Audiophile forums though.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Sorry, you wrote Flac and I thought Alac. I wrote Flac as well but meant Alac. My mistake.
  Makes sense converting Flac of course if you're on a Mac. I convert all hires Flac to Alac.


----------



## vrln

It´s all good, as long as it´s lossless. Leave no music behind, no mp3/ogg etc!


----------



## thrak

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> With me it lists "Intel (64-bit)" for iTunes under the "kind" column.


 


  doh! i can't believe i didn't see that.  in any case, it looks like iTunes is running 64-bit and MINI is 32-bit.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





uelover said:


> The thing I dislike about Apple is that it is so complicated to import Flac into iTunes and that there is no native support for it, making me always converting my files to ALAC or AIFF. Then, when I am using other non-Apple devices, I will need to convert back to either Flac or Mp3.
> 
> I have also just purchased the Audirvana Plus. The iTunes library management is still the best.


 
  Have you tried FLUKE for Mac?  it will import Flac files into iTunes and play them.   
   
  http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/28768/fluke


----------



## Anthony1

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Have you tried FLUKE for Mac?  it will import Flac files into iTunes and play them.
> 
> http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/28768/fluke


 

 Im playing around with Amarra + Fluke now to see how my FLAC files work.
   
  Itunes doesnt just rip the flacs again does it?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Have you tried FLUKE for Mac?  it will import Flac files into iTunes and play them.
> 
> http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/28768/fluke


 


  Yeah I have tried it like one or two years ago. Not so convenience. But I have since converted all my files to ALAC/AIFF and the trouble began after I have sold away my iPod


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





anthony1 said:


> Im playing around with Amarra + Fluke now to see how my FLAC files work.
> 
> Itunes doesnt just rip the flacs again does it?


 

 No it does not.  It is like a plug in that allows iTunes to use Flac files.  
   

  
  Quote: 





uelover said:


> Yeah I have tried it like one or two years ago. Not so convenience. But I have since converted all my files to ALAC/AIFF and the trouble began after I have sold away my iPod


 


  What was the inconvenience?   If I have Flac files on any of my drives I click on the Flac file and Fluke automatically imports them into iTunes folders like any other files and they become part of the iTunes Library.  Then afterwards they play without a hitch.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> What was the inconvenience?   If I have Flac files on any of my drives I click on the Flac file and Fluke automatically imports them into iTunes folders like any other files and they become part of the iTunes Library.  Then afterwards they play without a hitch.


 


  Yeah the problem of going to each folders, select the files, import them slowly. It takes a long time to import just a few albums, not to mention when I decide to reorganize the stuffs on my harddrive. Also, can't add/edit artwork on the iTunes for Flac files.


----------



## AppleheadMay

OK, with all this testing now even Audirvana nor iTunes refuses to play anything above 48k through my DAC.
  Not even 44k plays when I set Audio Midi setup to 96k. My DAC does still display 96k though.
  They do play them fine to the built-in output though when they need to downsample.
  Any idea how I can fix this or remove any drivers associated with my DAC? I didn't have to install any by the way, it's fully PnP.


----------



## uelover

What is your DAC? May be the time to get a better piece.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Eh ... 1 week old Luxman DA-200, costs 2800€ over here ...
  But the problem lies with the DAC indeed. At first it worked and now it plays anything but 96/24 (so it does 96/16).
  I tested with 2 Macs and had the same result. When I use the Macs built in DAC all players do 96/24.
   
  Strange it worked for a week and now only doesn't play 96/24, no?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Eh ... 1 week old Luxman DA-200, costs 2800€ over here ...
> But the problem lies with the DAC indeed. At first it worked and now it plays anything but 96/24 (so it does 96/16).
> I tested with 2 Macs and had the same result. When I use the Macs built in DAC all players do 96/24.
> 
> Strange it worked for a week and now only doesn't play 96/24, no?


 

 I just went to take a look. It uses a Burr-Brown DAC chip.
   
  You may want to create a separate fresh Mac login free from other settings and softwares to see if it is indeed due to the conflict of the audio playback softwares you have installed.
   
  Pure Music for one installs its own proprietary drivers while bitperfect (at least on my Mac) will alter the default audio output rate of the system even when it has been turned off.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Tried with separate login, sam result. Anyway I can reset tha default output rate that was changed by BP?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Tried with separate login, sam result. Anyway I can reset tha default output rate that was changed by BP?


 


  What is the setting in your Mac Audio Midi?


----------



## AppleheadMay

96/24 atm.
  I just rebooted with an old backup where none of the players have ever been installed on, but iTunes ofc.
  There it works, I can play 96/24.
  So one of the players I tested must have screwed something up on my Mac in Core Audio.
  Any idea how I can undo that completely, like resetting the core audio drivers?


----------



## AppleheadMay

Allright, seemd to have found the problem. Not sure I fully understand though.
   
  I first completely erased evrything related to the 2 players.
  I switched USB ports (have 4 on the iMac on 2 busses) and it worked on all ports except one, even on the other port on the same bus. Weird I thought.
  I then put it back on the not working port and checked what the difference in settings was in Audio Midi Setup.
  The Luxman is recognised both as a input and output device, and to make a long frustrating story short: when you set both the input and output to the same bit depth, 24 in this case, you get no sound and the song doesn't even start to play.
   
  I was about to spend the whole day reformatting etc ... Phew!
  So, problem solved, I know how I did it but haven't got a clue why.
   
  I'll now very carefully try to install a player again. Wish me luck!


----------



## AppleheadMay

Got so stressed out I forgot to thank you for trying to help me uelover. Thanks!


----------



## AppleheadMay

Tried the same trick on the Macbook Pro. Works like a charm without even deinstalling either of my players.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Tried the same trick on the Macbook Pro. Works like a charm without even deinstalling either of my players.


 


  Nice to hear that!


----------



## AppleheadMay

Reinstalled BitPerfect as well as Audirvana. Both werk perfectly now.
  I must have had the device input setting on 24bit all along. At first it worked, then I started to have problems and then it stopped completely.
  Anyway, if your DAC has an input device stetting in Audio Midi Setup (even while in reality it doesn't) , make sure it's not on 24 bit.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Reinstalled BitPerfect as well as Audirvana. Both werk perfectly now.
> I must have had the device input setting on 24bit all along. At first it worked, then I started to have problems and then it stopped completely.
> Anyway, if your DAC has an input device stetting in Audio Midi Setup (even while in reality it doesn't) , make sure it's not on 24 bit.


 


  By right that should not cause any problem. But then again, all kind of weird things can happen =)


----------



## AppleheadMay

Finally I can start comparing them a bit. Sweet!
  First impression is no audible difference betwwen both, for me at least. (Bitperfect vs Audirvana)
  In comparison with iTunes I definitely hear more depth, more substance to the sound. Bass sounds nicer for sure.


----------



## essex853

Interesting... I exclusively use iTunes as my music source from my MacMini connected to a Dacmagic via optical cable.
  I did wonder why the incoming sample rate never changed from 44.1khz on the Dacmagic even when I played hi-res files of 2304kbps. Then I read this and downloaded 'Bitperfect' from the app store, now I'm apparently sending 32bit 96khz to the Dac, hooray, although I'm not sure I can hear the difference, it's nice to see a light that has remained dormant on my Dacmagic suddenly in use!
   
  While I'm on a roll and enjoying the infinite knowledge of head-fi members, does anyone have any further advice for improving sound from the following set up?
   
  Macmini (WAV files from itunes and the bitperfect app recommended in this thread by Currawong)
  Cambridge Audio Dacmagic
  Pro-ject headbox ll head amp,
  Sennheiser HD650 user?
   
  Any easy to understand and cheap/free upgrades to the sound quality of this set up would be greatly appreciated. And yes, I realise I need a better head amp than the Pro-ject to really appreciate the HD650's, Musical Fidelity M1HPA is on my list to Santa!


----------



## AppleheadMay

Indeed, the amp is the weak link there. I had one of these myself and it's nothing special to say the least.
   
  For the rest I'd say you're pretty good. The WAV files are full resolution I guess, nothing compressed?
  I wonder why you don't use ALAC instead, should be the same quality. Maybe for compatibility reasons?
  The only other thing I can say is to disable all stuff in iTunes preferences under the playback tab and don't use the iTunes volume control, put it always at max and use the one on your amp intead. (or on your new amp    )


----------



## essex853

Thanks for the reply, yes WAV files are completely uncompressed 1411kbps, I chose this on the recommendation of the Hi-fi mag I read (Hi-Fi Choice) because they should sound as good as the CD's they are ripped from.
  All settings are set to off in preferences and volume is always max on iTunes Player and Bitperfect and I only use the volume on the head amp.
   
  Can I ask what you upgraded to from the headbox? my shortlist is Musical Fidelity M1HPA and I've recently been tempted by the Schiit Asgard although this seems to tricky to buy here in the UK.
   
  Anything else you would recommend? I have a max budget of about £500 which I think is about $700-800.
   
  Good to know I'm doing most of this right already though, thanks for that!


----------



## AppleheadMay

I upgraded to both a tube amp, the Little Dot MkIII and a PSAudio GCHA. I was rather fond of the low priced Little Dot but don't expect a top amp for that price of course. The GCHA never seemed to enchant me and was way overpriced at the time in my opinion. They started selleing them at half price a year after.
  You can see what amps I use in my profile, if you click on my name.
  Of the two Amps you mention I don't know the MF although I know the brand and I have never heard the Asgard though I read a lot of good from it by people here from which I trust their opinion. But since I haven't heard it myself I can't tell you more about it.
  One amp I can recommend at around the price you mention is the SPL Auditor. I had the Phonitor which is esssentially the same amp but with crossfeed. It's one hell of an amp and for the price the Auditor goes you won't find much better in my opinion. If you do a search on Auditor or Phonitor here you'll find a lot to read about. They are the same ampwise.
  Also, take a look in the For Trade/For Sale forums here. I traded quite a bit myself here and found there's a lot of nice gear to be found. You can check how good the trader is by his feedback from others. And no, I haven't got an amp for you.


----------



## essex853

Thanks, the SPL Auditor looks good, I'll do a bit of research now.
  Your advice is much appreciated.


----------



## rosgr63

I would suggest you also look into the Graham Slee amps as you are UK based.
  I use the Novo+PSU upgrade, not a bad combo.
  I have read that the GS amps are "warmer" sounding than the SPL amps mentioned above, so best re search a bit more.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I have the feeling that since I resolved the problem with my DAC/Audirvana/BitPerfect combination the sound got better as well. It could also be due to burn in of the DAC, if' there's such a thing for a DAC.


----------



## autoteleology

Winamp is quite obviously the best choice here.


----------



## essex853

Okay, I've heard of Winamp, why is it the best?


----------



## AppleheadMay

Isn't that a Windows only program? Not of much use to us then.


----------



## liamstrain

My current set up is iTunes running through Audio Hijack Pro with the Redline parametric EQ and Redline monitor crossfeed (these are spendy, but amazing - transformed my critical listening). 
   
  Tried Pure music, for a while - I liked it, but it was a resource hog. Since I must do work on the same machine as my music feed, that was a no go. And the differences I did hear have since been out done by adding the monitor crossfeed and eq - nice as a one-stop listening device, I suppose
   
  Play - is a nice little app if you want FLAC support (instead of just ALAC). I'm not a huge fan of how it handles playlists, but it's workable - and of course, can feed through AHP just the same.


----------



## essex853

Whoa! That sounds very technical and I have no idea what any of it meant!
  Thanks for the advice though...er, AppleheadMay, I just checked out your kit history, I'm interested to know how the headbox compared to the 6.3mm jack on the PM KI PEARL amp you had, I haven't tried the Senns in an ordinary amp output and I'm interested to hear how they compare to proper head amps. This amp is also on my shortlist of future purchases.


----------



## AppleheadMay

As far as I know the phones out from most integrated amps have no dedicated headphone amp board. They just tap the signal from the speaker output and put a resistamce in or something alike (I'm not too good at all that tech stuff, heard that from my dealer who is an engineer, hope it's true).
  I used to try phones with my Marantz PM7200KI which was not good at all for driving them. The output from the KI Pearl is cleaner but has a lot less power, way too less for driving Senns. The phones out of a decent CD player or surround amp is usually a nice step up as these have a dedicated phone amp board as I was told. I certainly find 'em better when I hear them.
  To be honest about the headbox, I found it to be somewhere inbetween an integrated amp and a CD player phones out. Not that good thus, and not comparable with any decent headphone amp, certainly not with an Auditor which I like to call "high-end for a bargain".
  But do not neglect reading up for yourself as my opinion and taste might not be yours. There are a lot of good amps out there.
  I still have the Pearl by the way, it's my speaker amp, in dire need of some decent speakers which I would have bought already if I wasn't spending all my hobby budget on headphones and associated gear.


----------



## essex853

Thanks for taking the time to reply in such detail, I think we are both at a similar level tech wise!
  I should mention that my interest today in improvements to my source is born out of disappointment with my new set up, hence the questions regarding the Marantz, I am caught between buying an intergrated amp and speakers again or going for a better head amp.
  The sound from my current set up isn't awful but it isn't good enough for me to be satisfied, it's clearly bad enough for me to join the Headfi community and ask some questions!
  My headphone history is a very humble Sony MDR- something or other that served me well for most of the nineties, Denon AH-D2000, Denon in ear buds, Sennheiser HD448 (seriously bad sound albeit straight from my Mac) and now the HD650 which seem to be very well rated by people who know there cans.
  The Dacmagic seems to be accepted by most as a truly great piece of kit at it's price point and the Headbox is rated at 5***** by What HI-fi so I've kind of taken the 'safe' options so far.
  Pretty much every thing you said was what I expected to hear and some of what I knew already, I had hoped that the little Headbox with the Sennheisers' was going to sound better as I recall my previous one (paired with Denon AH-D2000 headphones about a year ago when I ditched my hi-fi amp and speakers for the head-fi route) was pretty good. 
  Perhaps my appreciation for sound quality has improved/changed in that time, perhaps the many things I've read about 'burn in' are true and the Senns haven't fully got going yet.
  Your post is really helpful because it confirms what I already thought and hoped was right, my source is pretty clean and the HD650's HAVE to be good from every thing I've read but the head amp isn't really good enough to do them justice.
  So, I am on a quest for another, so far the shortlist includes Musical Fidelity M1 HPA, Schiit Asgard and now the SPL Auditor, from what you have said I hope either of these would be a big improvement.
   
  I'm trying really hard to be a head-fier (attempt 2, week 2) but as you brought up speakers!... auditioned the PMC GB1i the other day, very nice indeed and would be my choice in the £1500 region. 
  oh yeah, what is crossfeed? (simple enough that Balderick could understand it)


----------



## liamstrain

simply - crossfeed allows headphones to mimic the placement of speakers (since your ears hear both speakers at once, with a little time delayed bleed over) - as opposed to just left | right - (it feeds a little of the other channel over)
   
  Good ones allow you to precisely match studio monitor settings - e.g. speakers 2 m apart, toed in 30 degrees, and adjust center volume. So you can use headphones as a portable monitor set up (and get more realistic soundstages)


----------



## uelover

Cross your feet while crossfeeding to enjoy the crossfeed!


----------



## AppleheadMay

As Liamstrain said re crossfeed.
  The SPL Phonitor has one of the best implementations (meaning subtle and not overdone) of crossfeed available, highly configurable. Meier Audio is good in the crossfeed department as well.
  As good as the Phonitor's crossfeed was it's not my thing. I love the super stereo effect and in the head center phones have, so I don't need it.
  There is a Phonitor for sale in the For Sale/For Trade forums atm. I'd try to lower the price a bit. Still will be more expensive than an Auditor though.
  Regarding speakers vs. phones : I like speakers as well but they don't give me as much joy as I get from Phones. You love the sound or you don't. Hence why I decided to wait with speaker upgrades and bought some nice headfi gear instead.
  If you're going for phones the first step would be the amp. If you notice some kind of veil over the mids and highs and a bass that is a bit bleeding then you need to look into a silver cable for your HD650's. I'm not much of an upgrade cable fan, I like to keep my phones standard mostly, especially if they have no detachable plugs, but the HD650's change a lot for the better with a silver cable. Check Artissan in the UK for that or Moon Audio in the US. The stuff ain't cheap, mind you!


----------



## liamstrain

And if you're using computer as your source - a software based crossfeed can be just as good as a hardware solution like the Phonitor - I really like Redline's Monitor Plugin for Audio Hijack Pro (mentioned earlier).


----------



## AppleheadMay

By the way, another Phonitor up for sale from Germany. The price is 800€. It says 920€ though, but read his post. 
  That one is priced well if you ask me, about 300€ less than the other one.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> And if you're using computer as your source - a software based crossfeed can be just as good as a hardware solution like the Phonitor - I really like Redline's Monitor Plugin for Audio Hijack Pro (mentioned earlier).


 


  If these apps have a trial period it could be a nice way to try if you like crossfeed.


----------



## Austin Morrow

Quite question for all the audio setup savvy people out there. I'm currently using Fidelia for the Mac. Is there any way to bypass the internal soundcard and run the signal outboard to the amp? I know the DAC has to do the conversion but isn't hooking up my Valhalla to the headphone socket on my Mac considered double amping since it's going through the soundcard and then into the amp? Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## AppleheadMay

@tohenk2
   
  What transformer do you use for your HA5000? And where did you get it?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> If these apps have a trial period it could be a nice way to try if you like crossfeed.


 


  Yeah, Redline offers a 60 day demo license - full features.


----------



## essex853

Okay, cross feed, got it, thanks. I have read that one channel 'bleeding' into another channel is a bad thing for hi-fi amps and speakers but I can see why headphones need to do it. easy, great!
   
  An update on my head amp search, Schiit audio won't/can't deal with me direct but were very quick to advised me to go to the UK dealer/distributor Electromod.
  Unfortunately Electromod have no prices on their website, wont answer my emails and the phone number given on the site is not working.
  So, surprisingly it seems that I can not buy an Asgard, crap, next...
   
  SPL list their UK dealer/distributor as Synthax Audio, a visit to their site reveals that they have no details for SPL products so one can only assume that they do not sell/distribute SPL products!
   
  Musical Fidelity it is then!
   
  So, this is why the only headphone amps I've ever heard of until I joined head-fi are Musical Fidelity, Graham Slee, Pro-ject and Lehmann.
   
  Come on people, I can't believe that I am the only person in the UK with money in my pocket wanting to but one of these products.
   
  UPDATED 21.12.11, This morning I received an email from Electromod, Schiit in the US had taken the time to contact them on my behalf.
  It sounds like Electromod have been experiencing some difficulty with their website and hadn't received my emails. A quick conversation with Mark at Electromod and £279 later I have an Asgard on it's way to me. Thanks guys, can't wait to receive it.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





essex853 said:


> SPL list their UK dealer/distributor as Synthax Audio, a visit to their site reveals that they have no details for SPL products so one can only assume that they do not sell/distribute SPL products!
> 
> Musical Fidelity it is then!
> 
> ...


 


 Hmm. Never considered Woo Audio, Luxman, Eddie Current??


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





austin morrow said:


> Quite question for all the audio setup savvy people out there. I'm currently using Fidelia for the Mac. Is there any way to bypass the internal soundcard and run the signal outboard to the amp? I know the DAC has to do the conversion but isn't hooking up my Valhalla to the headphone socket on my Mac considered double amping since it's going through the soundcard and then into the amp? Correct me if I'm wrong.


 

 Do you know what a DAC is exactly and how it outputs signal to an amp?


----------



## AppleheadMay

Why don't you buy from other countries?. If it's in the EU you won't even pay import on them.
  I'd never buy another amp or phone than the one I want just because I can't get it where I live.
  I buy the stuff I want from all over the world. I just bought an amp, phones and a transformer straight from Japan. 
  And then there's the FS/FT forum here. I did quite a few nice purchases here from fine people.


----------



## crumpler

Quote: 





austin morrow said:


> Quite question for all the audio setup savvy people out there. I'm currently using Fidelia for the Mac. Is there any way to bypass the internal soundcard and run the signal outboard to the amp? I know the DAC has to do the conversion but isn't hooking up my Valhalla to the headphone socket on my Mac considered double amping since it's going through the soundcard and then into the amp? Correct me if I'm wrong.


 


  Most apple products have an optical out, so all you need is a DAC that accepts optical inputs.


----------



## AppleheadMay

USB is another option.


----------



## essex853

uelover...I would love a Luxman (I would happily give a home to anything they produce) but waayyy over budget sadly (£500/$800 is my max) and I don't like valve amps so Eddie Current and Woo are not in the running, thanks though, nice to get some options.
   
  AppleheadMay...I'm sure I could get one shipped from another country in the EU but as someone who has worked in retail for most of my adult life it would pain me to spend money on a product from a company that has made it difficult to buy. Also there is the plug/voltage issue which although simple enough to get around is further hassle. 
  I deal in high end bicycles and like the audio industry, there are a lot of brands and retailers all fighting for the customers money at every price point, frankly if Schiit can't get a decent UK dealer organised and that dealer can't reply to an email or answer the phone then I'll take my business elsewhere. I represent a very British outlook, happy to queue patiently and wait without issue but fail to deliver (or even acknowledge in this instance) and you've lost a customer for life.
  Perhaps there are enough people buying in the US for them to not care? I wonder if anyone in the UK has had a similar problem?
  Anyway, I'm over it, my heart was set on the Musical Fidelity MI HPA before I started looking at other options so I'll buy one of those, I'll post my thoughts on this amp when it arrives as it doesn't seem to have much of a presence on head-fi.
   
  On a more positive note, a bit of an improvement in the Senns I think, probably burnt in for about 100 hours now and the bass seems to go down further and the sound is opening up nicely, there is also less of the distortion I spoke of in my first thread, upper mids now seem more under control. Hopefully by the time the new amp arrives they will be in full voice and I too will find sound quality Nirvana!


----------



## AppleheadMay

The Senns you have are great cans, and the MF will probably be a fine amp as well, certainly a huge step up from the Project.
  It's not because it's not that well known here on HF that it's bad, some of the Luxman stuff I have/had (DA-200 & SQ-N100) isn't known well here either.
  Anyway, you replaced the part that was most in need of replacing in your chain, I'm sure you will hear a big improvement. 
  Congrats and enjoy!


----------



## Austin Morrow

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Do you know what a DAC is exactly and how it outputs signal to an amp?


 


  Yes, I know exactly what a DAC is and what it does seeing as I have a few of them on my desktop.
   
  DAC: Takes the digital signal out of the computer via USB (or other connection) and converts it to analogue, then sends it to the amplifier.
   
  But that's not the question that I am asking.


----------



## darcyb62

Quote: 





austin morrow said:


> Yes, I know exactly what a DAC is and what it does seeing as I have a few of them on my desktop.
> 
> DAC: Takes the digital signal out of the computer via USB (or other connection) and converts it to analogue, then sends it to the amplifier.
> 
> But that's not the question that I am asking.


 

 So why aren't you connecting your Valhalla to your DAC then?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





austin morrow said:


> Yes, I know exactly what a DAC is and what it does seeing as I have a few of them on my desktop.
> 
> DAC: Takes the digital signal out of the computer via USB (or other connection) and converts it to analogue, then sends it to the amplifier.
> 
> But that's not the question that I am asking.


 

 That is very relevant to the question you are asking - how could the DAC send signals to the amplifier if it does not first amplify the analogue signal?
   
  If you consider hooking your soundcard to your amp as double amping, then all DAC will be found guilty of double amping.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





austin morrow said:


> Quite question for all the audio setup savvy people out there. I'm currently using Fidelia for the Mac. Is there any way to bypass the internal soundcard and run the signal outboard to the amp? I know the DAC has to do the conversion but isn't hooking up my Valhalla to the headphone socket on my Mac considered double amping since it's going through the soundcard and then into the amp? Correct me if I'm wrong.


 


  You should be doing this.   iMac out( for this example use USB out) to your outbooard  DAC (what are you using?)  then DAC out to your Valhalla.    How are you configured?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> You should be doing this.   iMac out( for this example use USB out) to your outbooard  DAC (what are you using?)  then DAC out to your Valhalla.    How are you configured?


 


  Don't you all find it weird that [b]Austin Morrow[/b] has been doing audio reviews for many of the head-fi audio gears (including the high-end ones) and yet doesn't even know how to hook up a basic desktop setup?


----------



## Austin Morrow

Quote: 





darcyb62 said:


> So why aren't you connecting your Valhalla to your DAC then?


 


  I am. I;m asking for people who don't want to use a DAC and want to hook their amplifier straight to the computer.

  
  Quote: 





uelover said:


> That is very relevant to the question you are asking - how could the DAC send signals to the amplifier if it does not first amplify the analogue signal?
> 
> If you consider hooking your soundcard to your amp as double amping, then all DAC will be found guilty of double amping.


 
   
  I though the sound card was already an amp. Hooking up the Valhalla to the headphone out sends the signal to the sound card, processes it, and then amps it via the sound card, then amps it again via the Valhalla, no?
  
   


  Quote: 





warriorant said:


> You should be doing this.   iMac out( for this example use USB out) to your outbooard  DAC (what are you using?)  then DAC out to your Valhalla.    How are you configured?


 

 I know exactly how to do this. That's not what I am asking thigh. Refer to the next statement. 
   


  Quote: 





uelover said:


> Don't you all find it weird that [b]Austin Morrow[/b] has been doing audio reviews for many of the head-fi audio gears (including the high-end ones) and yet doesn't even know how to hook up a basic desktop setup?


 

  
  Okay. I know exactly how to do everything perfectly well. Your not getting my question at all. Let me rephrase it. If someone were not using a DAC, then how would you bypass the sound card in the iMac so your NOT double amping because hooking up the Valhalla to the headphone out is considered DOUBLE AMPING.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Yeah, Redline offers a 60 day demo license - full features.


 


  Been using Redline extensively for a number of hours now in Garageband with my own compositions and I don't find must difference with it in or out.


----------



## liamstrain

Lots of variables. And without seeing your set up and settings (and if you are using Hijack properly), I can't really say what to expect sound wise. I only really bother with reference recordings and mastering. I don't really bother with crossfeed for most listening.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Lots of variables. And without seeing your set up and settings (and if you are using Hijack properly), I can't really say what to expect sound wise. I only really bother with reference recordings and mastering. I don't really bother with crossfeed for most listening.


 

  
  I'm using it as a mastering AU in Garageband and in Logic.  Tested it out on my own compositions but couldn't wrangle much of anything out of it.    iMac>W4S DAC-2>V200>LCD-2, LCD-3.


----------



## liamstrain

May not be as useful for your needs. I like it because I can get my K702s to sound like my nearfield monitors, so I can master from my laptop remotely and not have to make field corrections later.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> May not be as useful for your needs. I like it because I can get my K702s to sound like my nearfield monitors, so I can master from my laptop remotely and not have to make field corrections later.


 


  What nearfield speakers are you using?  I have 24 years professional mixing experience and I can't get anything out of the Redline but I'm trying to add crossfeed for the headphone realm the way some headphone amps can.


----------



## liamstrain

Just some Adam ARTist 5's - I like 'em.
   
  I end up doing the sound for our video work - nothing spectacular - just basic production work - but I like to try to keep things clean.
   
  that's so odd - even with the default values I got a huge change using redline monitor - there is a clear difference when I bypass the plugin. I'm using -1 center, 75 soundstage and 1m distance to get pretty damn close to the room I mix in at the office. 
   
  There are other more robust crossfeeds out there - if you want to take a look, I just have enjoyed redline. Midnight Walrus Canz3D is supposed to be quite good - frankly, I couldn't make heads or tails of it though.


----------



## turimbar1

the problem with FLUKE is that it cannot support flac above 44.1khz,
   
  to Austin: of course it will be double amping it, there is no way to stop this, but all the amping is done digitally (unless you have some op-amps in your soundcard, some do). There is nothing wrong with this, in fact, many phono players have a preamp. 
   
  it will just not be as detailed as a separate DAC unless it is a really good soundcard.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Good to know, I always wondered about that. Used to think it was best to max the volume of the first amp in the chain.


----------



## darcyb62

Quote: 





> Okay. I know exactly how to do everything perfectly well. Your not getting my question at all. Let me rephrase it. If someone were not using a DAC, then how would you bypass the sound card in the iMac so your NOT double amping because hooking up the Valhalla to the headphone out is considered DOUBLE AMPING.


 
   
  Okay, I understand.  If you are using the analog out of the computer you can't bypass the sound card so you are in effect double amping and there is really no way around that.


----------



## Austin Morrow

Quote: 





darcyb62 said:


> Okay, I understand.  If you are using the analog out of the computer you can't bypass the sound card so you are in effect double amping and there is really no way around that.


 


  Thanks you. Some people were not looking at my question correctly. Thanks you for understanding what I was trying to say.


----------



## thread

I just wrote a little blog post about how I settled on using MPD to listen to music under OS X. It might be of interest since it's not really covered in this thread. Getting MPD running under OS X does take a little elbow grease, but it's really not too difficult, and I am delighted with the options that open up with it.

I'd truly love to hear if anyone likes what I've done or goes as far as to try it out. 

http://www.threadbox.net/2011/12/27/mpd-on-mac-os-x/

MPD is the Music Player Daemon. It sits in the background and doesn't have a user interface of its own. There are MANY clients to choose from, but if you demand a pretty, native Mac interface, you'll want to check out Theremin.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Can you use your iTunes library and iTunes as a player with MPD?


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





thread said:


> I just wrote a little blog post about how I settled on using MPD to listen to music under OS X. It might be of interest since it's not really covered in this thread. Getting MPD running under OS X does take a little elbow grease, but it's really not too difficult, and I am delighted with the options that open up with it.
> I'd truly love to hear if anyone likes what I've done or goes as far as to try it out.
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I went to your blog. IOt doesn't say anything about the sound quality of any of the players available on the market.   While many of us want something that handles the list really well and integrates well with iTunes most of us want a player that has superior sonic capabilities, otherwise what's the point?


----------



## thread

AppleheadMay, you can aim MPD at the iTunes music collection and play that music through MPD, but it will not actually interface with iTunes in any way. ( Thank god  ) When you add music, you will need to tell MPD to update its library.

WarriorAnt, actually I did make mention of the "audiophile" issue in the closing remarks of my post:



> There are some folks who look for an “audiophile” player, but the fact is that if the program can decode the file and feed it to the audio device in a “bit perfect” manner, every app should sound the same. I think there are apps that are broken and don’t do this quite right, and I also think there are people who get fall victim to the placebo effect. I really see no reason to worry about the sound quality of MPD — I trust it.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





thread said:


> AppleheadMay, you can aim MPD at the iTunes music collection and play that music through MPD, but it will not actually interface with iTunes in any way. ( Thank god
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yes I noticed it.   Did you know that the majority of companies exhibiting at the recent Rocky Mountain CanJam used Amarra as their computer music player?   I guess all those designers also fell victim to the placebo effect.  Take your weary, self righteous, and insulting placebo effect argument somewhere else.


----------



## thread

Yikes, didn't mean to start an _argument_ on this one. It's just my belief. I thought sharing these is what this forum is about.  I've spoken to software developers on the topic, too. I'm still not sure what it is that makes expensive software like Amara so appealing... but if you hear a great difference in the sound and feel it's a better option, by all means -- don't let me stand in your way!

From my understanding, these softwares do on the fly, transparent upsampling and downsampling, and that could help in some cases... but almost all my music is standard 16/44.1 going to DACs that support it natively.

<3


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





thread said:


> Yikes, didn't mean to start an _argument_ on this one. It's just my belief. I thought sharing these is what this forum is about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I don't see a need for subjective debate on this issue. Anyone can just grab a free trial copies of audiophile Mac audio playback softwares and have a listen for themselves.


----------



## KevinWolff

I've tried everything. NOTHING comes close to Amarra with my setup. PureMusic is a way distant second. The rest (Audionirvana Plus, Bitperfect, Decibel, etc) were so close to native iTunes (or worse than) that they're not worthy of comparison IMHO. 
   
  I think Amarra's pricing, bugginess, and crappy interface need to be addressed, but judging by sonics alone, they stand alone.
   
  Has anyone noticed issues with Lion? Demo'ing Amarra in 10.7, I don't get the same full sound I get in Snow Lep. Less bass, less dynamic around. I think it's Apple's problem, not Sonic Studio's, but until it's resolved I'm stick with 10.6.8.


----------



## mtkversion

I just don't understand the support behind Amarra.
   
  $1,500 initially, now $700 for a program that piggybacks off iTunes and is full of bugs.
   
  As a consumer I'd expect a lot more solid implementation/support for something that expensive.
   
  My ears must not be as sensitive as others who can hear a night/day difference between Amarra and other players. My opinion is there's one born every second ....


----------



## KevinWolff

I'm not debating its price or its stability ( both are deplorable ), just it's sonics. I see it as I spent too much on my system to short-change my sonics by using an inferior sounding player. The Peak/Volcano is known for showing the weaknesses in any chain. The sabre-based Anedio D1 dac does the same. To me the differences are night and day.
   
  Again, I hate that Amarra is so expensive and so full of bugs. Even worse is their licensing system. But as I said, judging by sonics alone, there's no real contest.
   
  I WISH that bitperfect or Audionirvana Plus were better. I WANTED them to be so. I keep reading this thread hoping to read of something that beats Amarra, I really do. But I get frustrated when there's so much support for lesser products mainly because they are more affordable. Maybe the thread should be split into "best sound player" and best value for your buck player" or something similar.
  
  Quote: 





mtkversion said:


> I just don't understand the support behind Amarra.
> 
> $1,500 initially, now $700 for a program that piggybacks off iTunes and is full of bugs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Austin Morrow

Quote: 





mtkversion said:


> I just don't understand the support behind Amarra.
> 
> $1,500 initially, now $700 for a program that piggybacks off iTunes and is full of bugs.
> 
> ...


 

  
  I've personally never tried Amarra. but for $700 you could get a used LCD-2 or a HD650 + Audinst HUD-MX1. Would you rather have a decent headphone setup or a top of the line music player? The price is just plain stupid, IMO, and I absolutely love Fidelia.


----------



## Austin Morrow

Sorry, I really can't see me using anything besides Fidelia at the moment. It's budget friendly, and sounds good.


----------



## mtkversion

Quote: 





austin morrow said:


> I've personally never tried Amarra. but for $700 you could get a used LCD-2 or a HD650 + Audinst HUD-MX1. Would you rather have a decent headphone setup or a top of the line music player? The price is just plain stupid, IMO, and I absolutely love Fidelia.


 


  Sonic Studio is marketing the player to users with high ends systems already who are trying to 'tie up loose ends' and from a business/marketing standpoint they are doing a good job.
   
  The only issue I have is with the cost of the player versus the support/bugs I've read about in Amarra threads. For $700 I'd really expect a standalone type software with continuously updated support. That's just me though.
   
  I can see the viewpoint of users like KevinWolff who have high end systems and want to maximize their systems from all angles, but have some doubts when I read that this player is a night/day difference maker when it comes to sound against some of the other software out there. Then I have to remind myself that sound is subjective and if people think it's worth the cost then it shouldn't matter to me.
   
  I'm interested to see though if people have done some kind of blind testing with these programs and what the results are.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





kevinwolff said:


> I've tried everything. NOTHING comes close to Amarra with my setup. PureMusic is a way distant second. The rest (Audionirvana Plus, Bitperfect, Decibel, etc) were so close to native iTunes (or worse than) that they're not worthy of comparison IMHO.
> 
> I think Amarra's pricing, bugginess, and crappy interface need to be addressed, but judging by sonics alone, they stand alone.
> 
> Has anyone noticed issues with Lion? Demo'ing Amarra in 10.7, I don't get the same full sound I get in Snow Lep. Less bass, less dynamic around. I think it's Apple's problem, not Sonic Studio's, but until it's resolved I'm stick with 10.6.8.


 


  I use Amarra.  I find it less buggy when I open Amarra first and let it open iTunes.   I use an app called "iCleanMemory" and it resets the iMAc's memory cache when it gets too low and that has helped for me to keep the bugginess away I think.  I can't really say because I rarely experience the bugs other seems to have.    I originally got ICleanMemory because I found Bitperfect to be very buggy.  Frankly I hear no difference between Bitperfect and iTunes.   
   
  As far as Audionirvana Plus goes I find it to be superior to iTunes.  To me Amarra is still much better but in my opinion Audionirvana Plus is an excellent purchase in light of how much Amarra costs.  I think it is a good value.  I have not tried PureMusic yet or the latest version of Decibel which I also own.  I haven't used Fidelia in a while.
   
   
  I have stayed with Snow Leopard and Amarra.   Amarra is working on the issues with Lion and has sent out a notice that it is working to resolve them and did not want to put out an update until it was fully ready.

 I think if ones rig is capable of high resolution Amarra is the way to go.


----------



## Austin Morrow

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> I use Amarra.  I find it less buggy when I open Amarra first and let it open iTunes.   I use an app called "iCleanMemory" and it resets the iMAc's memory cache when it gets too low and that has helped for me to keep the bugginess away I think.  I can't really say because I rarely experience the bugs other seems to have.    I originally got ICleanMemory because I found Bitperfect to be very buggy.  Frankly I hear no difference between Bitperfect and iTunes.
> 
> As far as Audionirvana Plus goes I find it to be superior to iTunes.  To me Amarra is still much better but in my opinion Audionirvana Plus is an excellent purchase in light of how much Amarra costs.  I think it is a good value.  I have not tried PureMusic yet or the latest version of Decibel which I also own.  I haven't used Fidelia in a while.
> 
> ...


 

 Warrior Ant, have you ever tried Fidelia?


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





mtkversion said:


> Sonic Studio is marketing the player to users with high ends systems already who are trying to 'tie up loose ends' and from a business/marketing standpoint they are doing a good job.
> 
> The only issue I have is with the cost of the player versus the support/bugs I've read about in Amarra threads. For $700 I'd really expect a standalone type software with continuously updated support. That's just me though.
> 
> ...


 

 Sound isn't always as subjective as so many people like to say it is.   In 24 years  of professionally mixing and editing I found that there is truth to be had and for the most part the people who came and went through the editing/mixing suites I worked in pretty much heard the same thing.  Personally I think the whole subjective hearing line of logic is a cop out and I say this from 2.5 decades of mixing experience.   

 One thing I have noticed is that people with very high resolution rigs particularly high quality DACs tend to report that Amarra floats their boat more than the other players out there and with my own rig I can attest to that.  Amarra beats them all hands down AND it definitely and woefully over priced but if ones rig isn't up to it then Amarra is not going to be cost effective.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





> I have stayed with Snow Leopard and Amarra.   Amarra is working on the issues with Lion and has sent out a notice that it is working to resolve them and did not want to put out an update until it was fully ready.


 
  I am waiting for Lion support to try Amarra out, hopefully it doesn't take too soon. The idea about a blind test I read here is something I would love to try myself. 
   
   
  @ WarriorAnt
   
  Have you by any chance tried out both Amarra Mini and the full Amarra? If so, was there any difference sonically?
   
   
  Edit:
   
  Also, what is their DSD conversion? Does it mean I can put an SACD in my Mac and rip the SACD audio on it rather than the normal CD audio on the disk?


----------



## mtkversion

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Sound isn't always as subjective as so many people like to say it is.   In 24 years  of professionally mixing and editing I found that there is truth to be had and for the most part the people who came and went through the editing/mixing suites I worked in pretty much heard the same thing.  Personally I think the whole subjective hearing line of logic is a cop out and I say this from 2.5 decades of mixing experience.
> 
> One thing I have noticed is that people with very high resolution rigs particularly high quality DACs tend to report that Amarra floats their boat more than the other players out there and with my own rig I can attest to that.  Amarra beats them all hands down AND it definitely and woefully over priced but if ones rig isn't up to it then Amarra is not going to be cost effective.


 

 No one is going to spend $700 on something and NOT say it sounds better. No one.
   
  The only real way to test it with an impartial blind test. Just my opinion though.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Hi WarriorAnt,
   
  I tend to agree. Sadly, when I tried Amarra, when it required the dongle (not the demo), it was Ok, but exhibited shoddy programming and was full of bugs.
   
  What caught my eye more than the e-zine reviews was a quote that Rob uses on his site (amongst all the others), from Bob Katz, formerly with Chesky. It's surprising to me that someone of his calibre would be so verbose about the player even though it's literally hundreds of $ less than the equivalent Amarra product. It could be that I'm just looking for support for my own decision 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, but having heard PM in a reference six figure system, I sure like what I'm hearing!
   
  To qualify his quote, he DOES NOT say that his masters sound as good through PM as what he hears in his mastering facility, but that it certainly beats any CD source!  
   
  "When playing 16/44 sources, Pure Music sounds as good to me as the best CD transport anyone can dig up - as long as I'm using a high-quality jitter-immune D/A converter. But I can play my 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz and 192 kHz/24 bit masters and then Pure Music beats any CD source. I love being able to play a collection of my masters using the friendly Itunes interface, but with Pure Music bypassing any sound processing that iTunes performs. Throw in a calibrated, dithered volume control marked in decibels, and I'm in heaven. Mechanically, the Mac Mini is quieter than some CD players!" 
- Bob Katz, Mastering Engineer, Digital Domain, Orlando, FL; Formerly Recording Engineer and Technical Director of audiophile label Chesky Records 
  
  Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Sound isn't always as subjective as so many people like to say it is.   In 24 years  of professionally mixing and editing I found that there is truth to be had and for the most part the people who came and went through the editing/mixing suites I worked in pretty much heard the same thing.  Personally I think the whole subjective hearing line of logic is a cop out and I say this from 2.5 decades of mixing experience.
> 
> One thing I have noticed is that people with very high resolution rigs particularly high quality DACs tend to report that Amarra floats their boat more than the other players out there and with my own rig I can attest to that.  Amarra beats them all hands down AND it definitely and woefully over priced but if ones rig isn't up to it then Amarra is not going to be cost effective.


----------



## DarknightDK

Is there any differences in SQ with the Amarra Full and Amarra Mini (besides the 384 kHz support)? Amarra Mini is on promo now at $195. Seems like a much better deal compared with the $700 Amarra Full.
   
  Should I go for the Amarra Mini instead of the Full? Would I be missing out on any important features or SQ which the Full might offer?


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





mtkversion said:


> No one is going to spend $700 on something and NOT say it sounds better. No one.
> 
> The only real way to test it with an impartial blind test. Just my opinion though.


 

  Speak for yourself.  I've spent 7 time that amount on a set of tube mono block power amps which I realized were pretty bad afterwards.  What did I do?  I admitted it, took the loss, got something else and moved on.  As far as blind test go that's for people who either don't trust what their ears are telling them.  I can't imagine if I had to do a blind test every time I had to mix something and then present it to a client.   Get all the clients into the room and then blind test them all asking which mix sounded better.  At some point you have to learn to trust your ears.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Hi WarriorAnt,
> 
> I tend to agree. Sadly, when I tried Amarra, when it required the dongle (not the demo), it was Ok, but exhibited shoddy programming and was full of bugs.
> 
> ...


 
  Pure Music is the only player I've never tried.   I did not know Amarra once used a dongle.  I have encountered very little problems with Amarra myself but I think it is because I use the "iCleanMemory" app.      I think Audirvana Plus is a good bargain and if I didn't already have Amarra I'd go with Audirvana Plus, I think it's going to get better and better.  Amarra is good but it isn't worth the price of the full version, but perhaps the Mini is.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





darknightdk said:


> Is there any differences in SQ with the Amarra Full and Amarra Mini (besides the 384 kHz support)? Amarra Mini is on promo now at $195. Seems like a much better deal compared with the $700 Amarra Full.
> 
> Should I go for the Amarra Mini instead of the Full? Would I be missing out on any important features or SQ which the Full might offer?


 


  I think the Mini is the same SQ as the full but without all the other features but I'm not sure.   I like the function in Amarra where I can load tracks into its own list and play tracks without using itunes.  don't know if the Mini has that option.


----------



## essex853

I installed Bitperfect following a recommendation from someone on this forum, personally I can't hear any difference in sound quality and if I skip a track it starts to stutter and sometimes just gets stuck. I've disabled it now. No real complaints for £3 but I thought I'd share that.


----------



## vrln

+1 for the blind testing suggestion. I´m pretty sure I could pick apart Amarra in a test. That said, the AB tests I´ve done didn´t end up with Amarra winning. To me it is artificially coloring the midrange. The effect is pleasant, but I think PureMusic and Audirvana Plus are better at imaging and neutrality. The Amarra pricing is still a complete joke to me, especially considering how buggy the software is. In my experience the audiophile players sound so similar that the user interface, stability and pricing are the main concerns.
   
  There I felt Audirvana Plus won (Pure Music is good too, but over twice as expensive - bonus points for classic dollars to euro conversion rates), and I went that way in the end. In my opinion If Amarra costed 50 dollars (fair price, but I still wouldn´t buy it right now because it´s too buggy) I doubt there would be as much hype for it. Classic marketing social psychology if you ask me.


----------



## mtkversion

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Speak for yourself.  I've spent 7 time that amount on a set of tube mono block power amps which I realized were pretty bad afterwards.  What did I do?  I admitted it, took the loss, got something else and moved on.  As far as blind test go that's for people who either don't trust what their ears are telling them.  I can't imagine if I had to do a blind test every time I had to mix something and then present it to a client.   Get all the clients into the room and then blind test them all asking which mix sounded better.  At some point you have to learn to trust your ears.


 

  
  I understand the point you're making but you were also able to recoup most of the cost on those amps, can you recoup any of the money on Amarra?
   
  Ultimately if anyone enjoys Amarra over the other players that's all that matters but I still believe that until a controlled blind test is done most people are influenced by cost/marketing over any actual sound differences.  Trusting your ears is fine but would most people trust them _enough_ to put them through a blind test?


----------



## nesf

Hey, I'm experiencing clicking and skipping Audirvana and Fidelia with an E10 DAC, I've disabled the Max I/O buffer size option and Integer Mode and it's still an intermittent problem. It's a 2010 i5 Macbook Pro so CPU power really shouldn't be a problem and with Fidelia anyway being multithreaded there should be plenty of spare CPU clock cycles for on-the-fly conversion of bitrate etc. 
   
  Any thoughts? Oh and hi, long time lurker, first time poster etc.  
   
  Edit: And oh, not a defective headphone jack on the E10, I can move the plug around as much as I want without anything negative happening to sound quality. Thankfully.


----------



## KevinWolff

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> I think the Mini is the same SQ as the full but without all the other features but I'm not sure.   I like the function in Amarra where I can load tracks into its own list and play tracks without using itunes.  don't know if the Mini has that option.


 
   
  I think they are all the same sound quality. The sonic difference is that junior tops out at 96khz sample rate (which is fine for most of us), Mini tops out at 192khz, and the full version 384khz. Then there are feature differences between the 3, which although substantial, don't contribute to the sonics discussion. So one could get Amarra quality for as little as $99. Then if you acquire a significant amount of 192 or 384 recordings, you could always upgrade. Memory cache, a really good feature especially if you don't have a dedicated music computer, starts with mini. Junior does not have it if I remember correctly. 
   
  Mini has playlist, but full has independent playlists, no itunes required. Not sure what that means


----------



## uelover

kevinwolff said:


> Mini has playlist, but full has independent playlists, no itunes required. Not sure what that means




It means that you can use Amarra mini as an standalone audio playback software.


----------



## KevinWolff

Quote: 





uelover said:


> It means that you can use Amarra mini as an standalone audio playback software.


 


  Full version I think you mean, since that's the one with independent playlist. Mini just says playlist probably meaning itunes playlists. Standalone is a nice feature, but not enough to warrant the cost for most. And how many of us have 384khz recordings. Looks like Mini is the sweet spot.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





mtkversion said:


> I understand the point you're making but you were also able to recoup most of the cost on those amps, can you recoup any of the money on Amarra?
> 
> Ultimately if anyone enjoys Amarra over the other players that's all that matters but I still believe that until a controlled blind test is done most people are influenced by cost/marketing over any actual sound differences.  Trusting your ears is fine but would most people trust them _enough_ to put them through a blind test?


 
  No I did not recoup most of the cash on my amps I lost $1500 on the resale.  I think when you make blanket statements like _"No one is going to spend $700 on something and NOT say it sounds better. No one." _you are really make a definitive statement about yourself and your own integrity and also making a false assumption that your nature is the same as every one else.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





nesf said:


> Hey, I'm experiencing clicking and skipping Audirvana and Fidelia with an E10 DAC, I've disabled the Max I/O buffer size option and Integer Mode and it's still an intermittent problem. It's a 2010 i5 Macbook Pro so CPU power really shouldn't be a problem and with Fidelia anyway being multithreaded there should be plenty of spare CPU clock cycles for on-the-fly conversion of bitrate etc.
> 
> Any thoughts? Oh and hi, long time lurker, first time poster etc.
> 
> Edit: And oh, not a defective headphone jack on the E10, I can move the plug around as much as I want without anything negative happening to sound quality. Thankfully.


 


  How much memory do you have installed.  I was getting a lot of skipping from bitperfect  and then I added iCleanMemory to the mix and things got better. I can't say if it will help you or not.  I've never had any trouble with Audirvana Plus or Fidelia but plain Audirvana was extremely buggy for me. I could not use it.    I also went from 4 to 8 GB memory afterwards
   
  http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/icleanmemory/id439277582?mt=12


----------



## uelover

kevinwolff said:


> Full version I think you mean, since that's the one with independent playlist. Mini just says playlist probably meaning itunes playlists. Standalone is a nice feature, but not enough to warrant the cost for most. And how many of us have 384khz recordings. Looks like Mini is the sweet spot.




Amarra mini can be used either with itunes integration or as a standalone player by adding files into the amarra playlist.

Why don't you download the trial instead of playing the guessing game here?


----------



## nesf

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> How much memory do you have installed.  I was getting a lot of skipping from bitperfect  and then I added iCleanMemory to the mix and things got better. I can't say if it will help you or not.  I've never had any trouble with Audirvana Plus or Fidelia but plain Audirvana was extremely buggy for me. I could not use it.    I also went from 4 to 8 GB memory afterwards
> 
> http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/icleanmemory/id439277582?mt=12


 
   
  Only 4GB. For some reason I'm not getting the clicks if I set the device to 16 bit playback in Fidelia. I was getting the clicks and pops with Audirvana Plus too unfortunately. I'll listen for a few hours now that I've gotten my kids to sleep to see if the bit setting was causing the problems or not. At the moment in Audio MIDI setup the input is set to 16 bit and the 24 bit is the output, in case that matters for you, complete noob to higher than 16/44.1 resolution here.


----------



## Anthony1

Ive got:
   

 Songbird
 Fidelia
 audirvana
 audivana plus
 Amarra
   
  And so far I prefer Fidelia for a whole range of reasons including SQ and ease of use and interface. Anything that touches iTunes aka "The Devil's Work" IMO makes me feel the sudden need to shower  immediately. I concur with other posters here that I found Amarra flakey and wasn't into the whole Fluke thingy with my FLACS.


----------



## nesf

Quote: 





nesf said:


> Only 4GB. For some reason I'm not getting the clicks if I set the device to 16 bit playback in Fidelia. I was getting the clicks and pops with Audirvana Plus too unfortunately. I'll listen for a few hours now that I've gotten my kids to sleep to see if the bit setting was causing the problems or not. At the moment in Audio MIDI setup the input is set to 16 bit and the 24 bit is the output, in case that matters for you, complete noob to higher than 16/44.1 resolution here.


 


  Right so after an hour and a bit of listening: no clicks if set to 16 bit and no upsampling, clicks if set to upsampling. Going to try 24 bit now with no sampling to see if this makes a difference. Will try upsampling with a lot of memory free after that to investigate whether it's a memory problem. Insomnia is a bitch but at least I've a project to occupy me. 
   
  Edit: Right, after further testing, seems to indeed be a memory problem caused by oversampling. Audirvana seems to want around half a Gig to do it's thing flawlessly and that's a bit tight on a 4GB Macbook if you're doing other things without iCleanMemory. 8GB is on my shopping list anyway, I've regretted going with 4GB since I got this machine earlier this year.


----------



## nesf

Actually, does Audirvana Plus have a memory leak? After an hour or two's play it goes from needing half a gig of memory to needing a full gig. If I then exit it and restart it on the same song it goes back to needing 400 MB or so again. Or am I misunderstanding how these players work? This is only with oversampling enabled.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





anthony1 said:


> Ive got:
> 
> 
> Songbird
> ...


 

 Actually I find that anything that uses the iZotope processing sounded very similar, if not, the same.
   
  My preference for each software changes as any single part of my audio chain change. It is hard to say which software sounds the best. It is much easier to say which software is the most user friendly and aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## mbhauzer

Very helpful thread - lots to research now.  Will start by looking at Fidelia.


----------



## DarknightDK

Quote: 





anthony1 said:


> Ive got:
> 
> 
> Songbird
> ...


 

 How does Fidelia sound compared to Audivana plus? Is there a sonic difference between the two (I note they both use the same iZotope 64 bit SRC)? 
   
  I have downloaded the trial versions of Audivana plus and Amarra and I note that Amarra's SQ is better as compared to Audivana plus in my system. I'm interested in your thoughts on Fidelia's SQ.


----------



## thread

Where is the magic in these "audiophile" players?

It seems to me that one of the chief reasons these fancy players sound so nice is for their upsampling/downsampling techniques (and the convenience of automatically changing the OS sampling rate preference). I can see how some software can add a unique dithering algorithm and for that reason actually sound better or worse to a person, but all my source material is 16/44 for now, so I don't really see this as much of an issue for me.

To my knowledge, enabling "exclusive access" to the sound device will only prevent other apps from making sound. So while that might be a good thing for your musical enjoyment, it shouldn't exactly add to the sound quality itself. This is corroborated by the PDF I found.

I'm not certain of all the implications of "integer mode", though... according to this PDF, it seems that integer mode allows the computer to skip a couple steps in getting the audio to the DAC which seems like it could reduce jitters if you computer is weak or under load.

Through my Googles, I found this really enlightening whitepaper PDF from the Audirvana author:

http://www.amr-audio.co.uk/large_image/MAC%20OSX%20audio%20players%20&%20Integer%20Mode.pdf

In a footnote, he even says that iTunes can be bit perfect. I just don't see where there is any more opportunity for sound quality if you have a decent player doing bit-perfect playback with the OS and DAC both accepting the recording's native sample rate.

Does anyone have a better idea than me just where the "magic" lies?

My most sincere apologies if my discussion has upset any devout believers. I like to believe things too, but I'm not one for being dogmatic.


----------



## WarriorAnt

http://www.izotope.com/tech/src/
   
  http://www.izotope.com/tech/mbit/
   
  Izotope technology is often licensed by some of the music player designers.   Give them a read and then send them some questions.  They'll have in depth answers for you.


----------



## thread

Thanks for the links, WarriorAnt! That stuff looks really neat and no doubt can make a difference vs other algoritms for dithering. (That is, upsampling or downsampling in a way that is smoothest and sounds the best and most transparent.)

But I was referring to my own situation (which I presume to be somewhat common, even among audiophiles) where my entire chain from FLAC to DAC is all in 16/44.1 mode.

I guess I'm comfortable using MPD as an "audiophile" player. The sheer number of options for interface software and the fact that it's so quick and lightweight have me quite satisfied. I recognize it's a little trickier to set up than your average OS X app, though.

Here's a screenie of another favorite (web-based) client of mine, Client175.


----------



## mtkversion

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> No I did not recoup most of the cash on my amps I lost $1500 on the resale.


 


  Ouch.
   
  Regardless you got _something_ back, no return on Amarra's $700 if you're unhappy with the bugs/support that seem to plague it.
   
  Although a quick search in the dark underbelly of the interwebs comes back with some interesting results ..... just saying.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





mtkversion said:


> Ouch.
> 
> Regardless you got _something_ back, no return on Amarra's $700 if you're unhappy with the bugs/support that seem to plague it.
> 
> Although a quick search in the dark underbelly of the interwebs comes back with some interesting results ..... just saying.


 
  I don't seem to have the bugs that plague others been using Amarra for 2 days straight without a problem but regardless of that you still assume that just because someone paid a high price for something it means they will be unable and unwilling, to say something negative about their purchase and criticize it fairly.    
   
  Plus anyone can try out any version of Amarra free for 15 days.   Not too many hardware companies offer something like that without a 15% restocking fee.    If you can't figure out if you like or want or hear any difference in 15 days or if there are bugs in the program then you haven't lost anything.
   
   
 Q: How can I trial the Amarra products prior to purchasing?  A: All of our Amarra products are free to download from our website and have a free demo capability included in the software.

 All Amarra products except Amarra VINYL provide a free Full 15 day Evaluation.


----------



## WarriorAnt

thread said:


> Thanks for the links, WarriorAnt! That stuff looks really neat and no doubt can make a difference vs other algoritms for dithering. (That is, upsampling or downsampling in a way that is smoothest and sounds the best and most transparent.)
> But I was referring to my own situation (which I presume to be somewhat common, even among audiophiles) where my entire chain from FLAC to DAC is all in 16/44.1 mode.


 
  These players are not just upsampling and down sampling, in my setup the players sample whatever rate the file is unless I instruct them to upsample and downsampling which I do not I play the files at whatever their sample rate is.   Pretty much the general population has a library that is dominated by 16/44 files.


----------



## thread

Right, that was pretty much my point exactly, WarriorAnt. So without a need for the fancy dithering/anti-aliasing functions that you linked to, I'm still left wondering what magical feature it is that leaves some audiophiles preferring the sound of one app over another, if any.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





thread said:


> Right, that was pretty much my point exactly, WarriorAnt. So without a need for the fancy dithering/anti-aliasing functions that you linked to, I'm still left wondering what magical feature it is that leaves some audiophiles preferring the sound of one app over another, if any.


 


  dithering/anti-aliasing is not upsampling and down sampling.


----------



## thread

You're right. I'm confusing my terms. Dithering is used when changing bit depths -- not sampling rates.

My open question still stands, though. All of these issues (converting bit depth OR sampling rates) become moot the moment you have the entire chain dialed into a particular resolution. Am I to understand that nobody knows, cable-style, exactly what constitutes the "audible" differences between apps?

That's cool, of course; I just felt it was an interesting question to ask.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





thread said:


> You're right. I'm confusing my terms. Dithering is used when changing bit depths -- not sampling rates.
> My open question still stands, though. All of these issues (converting bit depth OR sampling rates) become moot the moment you have the entire chain dialed into a particular resolution. Am I to understand that nobody knows, cable-style, exactly what constitutes the "audible" differences between apps?
> That's cool, of course; I just felt it was an interesting question to ask.


 


  It does not become moot it. They are exactly the things that make the difference or at least some of the difference and to understand them is a lengthy process of explanation that I'm pretty sure no one wants to take the time to lay it all out which is why no one is getting into it.


----------



## turimbar1

Quote: 





thread said:


> You're right. I'm confusing my terms. Dithering is used when changing bit depths -- not sampling rates.
> My open question still stands, though. All of these issues (converting bit depth OR sampling rates) become moot the moment you have the entire chain dialed into a particular resolution. Am I to understand that nobody knows, cable-style, exactly what constitutes the "audible" differences between apps?
> That's cool, of course; I just felt it was an interesting question to ask.


 
  Many times they use different sampling algorithms along with the upsampling/dithering etc aspects of it. I understand that you are wary, you probably root for NWavGuy in all his battles and talk down to cable and vinyl people.
   
  But the truth is, there is a difference in these players, you can try them all for free right now. ALL OF THEM (even pure music). You could get your significant other to set up a completely blind test and listen for yourself, and then enlighten us on our success or folly.
   
  I don't believe in cables, I believe in getting the best bang for my buck, and that is "free" right now, and they sound better than Itunes especially given that price. Many people on here were just as wary and questioning as you are, it really differs from player to player, and you would have to talk to the developers' coders to get the skinny on exactly what is happening underneath the hood. Upsampling does seem to help bring out the ambiance, crispness, and separation (more noticeable in certain songs), my comp does not support integer mode so I do not know if that helps.
   
  So please do your own tests and tell us the difference if any, almost everyone on here has done so and have distinct opinions on what they hear. 
   
  I have never looked at the source code for any of these players, nor have I ever worked with audio-processing algorithms, If you truly want definitive answers, I would ask someone who does and has.


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





thread said:


> [...] My open question still stands, though. [...]


 

 Not my post but here we go:
   
  Here are some of the non-snake-oil reasons you asked for:
  1. Automatic sample rate switching (as you noted). Briefly, iTunes has to be closed, Audio MIDI reset, and iTunes then reopened in order to play a track with a different sample frequency bit-perfectly. This one is the major problem that all of those address.
  2. Memory play. Many of the alternatives you mention can load the entire track into memory prior to playing. The idea is this removes disk i/o from the playback sequence, possibly improving playback sound quality.
  3. Ability to "Hog" an output device. Essentially, you can play your music without having any other sound or notification beep or anything contaminate playback. (Some also offer integer mode playback in 10.6, with hog mode a prerequisite of this).
  4. Upsampling and other tricks that iTunes doesn't do.
  None of these things are "required" for serious listening, and there is nothing wrong with iTunes per se as a player. These are better understood as enhancements and conveniences.
  5. Changing the way the CPU cycles information (music) and sends it to your DAC. By creating an "open" stream per se, free from interruptions/changes many believe you can achieve higher quality music playback.
   
  Also try reading this: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Bit-perfect-player-having-differnt-sound-signatures
  It has some interesting arguments/discussion.
   
  There is a lot on the topic. I suggest you stop asking rhetorical questions and go and do some reading.
   
  In the end it is obviously subjective. People may claim they have measurements that prove A is better than B, but people will always dispute such measurements in favor for what they believe/hear. In the end does it really matter what creates a difference (if any)? As posters have kept saying you can easily demo the players on your own system, using your own ears and decide for yourself. If you hear a difference - great, if you don't - no harm done.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





> 2. Memory play. Many of the alternatives you mention can load the entire track into memory prior to playing. The idea is this removes disk i/o from the playback sequence, possibly improving playback sound quality.


 
   
  This is something that is also used in the expensive  PS Audio PWT, PWD and Bridge. They have memory built in for the sole purpose of buffering.
  You also use it when playing back video from the Internet for example, to get a steady stream. I'd say it surely is an improvement.
   
  And indeed, the convenience of automatic sample rate switching to me is worth quite a €, yet you have it for only €3,99 with BitPerfect.


----------



## Anthony1

Quote: 





darknightdk said:


> How does Fidelia sound compared to Audivana plus? Is there a sonic difference between the two (I note they both use the same iZotope 64 bit SRC)?
> 
> I have downloaded the trial versions of Audivana plus and Amarra and I note that Amarra's SQ is better as compared to Audivana plus in my system. I'm interested in your thoughts on Fidelia's SQ.


 


  I deleted Amarra becase of the buggy behaviour on it and the UI wasnt my cup of tea so I couldnt give you an honest SQ comparison. IMO Audirvana Plus SQ is on par with Fidelia on my system but I just prefer Fidelia (just).


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

I finally upgraded to OSX 10.7.2 Lion, and with Amarra Mini 2.2 and iTunes set for 32 bit mode it seems to work fine, as long as I don't do anything else at the same time on my 4Gb 2.4Ghz core 2 due MacBook Pro. With some music the difference isnt that great, but with most music I can accurately pick out when listening to Amarra Mini vs iTunes alone.

I will try comparing to BitPerfect sometime, but I'm in no rush.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> I finally upgraded to OSX 10.7.2 Lion, and with Amarra Mini 2.2 and iTunes set for 32 bit mode it seems to work fine, as long as I don't do anything else at the same time on my 4Gb 2.4Ghz core 2 due MacBook Pro. With some music the difference isnt that great, but with most music I can accurately pick out when listening to Amarra Mini vs iTunes alone.
> I will try comparing to BitPerfect sometime, but I'm in no rush.


 


  I haven't gone over to Lion yet.  Why do you have iTunes in 32 bit instead of 64 is it something in Lion that is a problem?


----------



## Austin Morrow

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> I haven't gone over to Lion yet.  Why do you have iTunes in 32 bit instead of 64 is it something in Lion that is a problem?


 


  No, from what I know (and have), iTunes is running 64 bit in iTunes...


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> I haven't gone over to Lion yet.  Why do you have iTunes in 32 bit instead of 64 is it something in Lion that is a problem?


 


  Yep, if you have Lion and iTunes 10.4.2 or higher you get a message you should run iTunes in 32-bit mode when you install Amarra.
  I see that version 2.3 of Amarra came out this week. I wonder if it solves the problem. Since I used up my trial time, is there anyone who can test this?


----------



## vrln

Has anyone checked if the new Amarra version resets the trial period? If it does I could give it another shot, since the changelog says stability and user interface are both improved. The problem with Amarra is that it´s too buggy to evaluate properly, so from a purely business sense they should reset the trial period with every significant release. People won´t buy it blind if they´ve had bad experiences with a previous trial version.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Yep, if you have Lion and iTunes 10.4.2 or higher you get a message you should run iTunes in 32-bit mode when you install Amarra.
> I see that version 2.3 of Amarra came out this week. I wonder if it solves the problem. Since I used up my trial time, is there anyone who can test this?


 

 Wow, just tried 2.3.3 and I still can't get past the activation.  Also, seeing that horrible activation interface gives me no confidence of what comes next.  Just not worth my time to get this issue fixed.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Yeah, I'm not trying it again before they have full Lion and latest iTunes support.
  I'll mail them again then to get a new trial.


----------



## vert

Any of these players have Airplay built-in? I'm currently using Airfoil with Decibel to stream to a Zeppelin Air.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Nope, at least the 4 ones with iTunes integration are not, and I suspect none of them are.
  For Airplay, everything gets sampled to 16/44 Alac. That's a bit contrary to the point of these players.
  When you want to use Airplay, just disable the player and play straight from iTunes.
  When you want the best sound, don't use AirPlay, use something connected with a cable.


----------



## vert

Thanks, didn't know that. WAV files from Decibel still sounded damn good streaming to the Zeppelin.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





vert said:


> Thanks, didn't know that. WAV files from Decibel still sounded damn good streaming to the Zeppelin.


 


  What do you mean by streaming to the Zeppelin? How did you do that? With an optical cable connection I guess?


----------



## DarknightDK

I had the chance to compare BitPerfect, Audirvana Plus and Amarra Mini over the past 2 weeks and there are indeed audible differences in how each of these players sound.
   
_System used: Power conditioner -> iMac (Lion OSX) with 8 GB RAM -> iTunes (ver 10.5.2) with music players mentioned below - > NFB 10SE -> LCD-3._
   
_All players were set to memory playback and no up-sampling. Software ('freememory') was used to free the memory of my iMac before loading each player._
   
_All music in AIFF or lossless format._
   
_BitPerfect_
   
  BitPerfect is a good step up from iTunes. It brings back the bass, resolution and clarity that iTunes lack. The difference in SQ is immediately apparent using BitPerfect compared to iTunes. I was very happy using BitPerfect in my system...until I heard the Audirvana Plus and Amarra players. IMO, BitPerfect is worth the asking price of $5. But if you have a higher budget, I would recommend the Audirvana Plus or Amarra players instead.
   
_Audirvana Plus_
   
  Comparing all 3 players in my setup, Audirvana Plus and Amarra sound better than BitPerfect. I had spent the past 2 weeks comparing the differences in SQ between Audirvana Plus and Amarra in my setup and was able to tell the players (i.e. Audirvana Plus and Amarra) apart, even in a blind listening test. 
   
  Comparing Audirvana Plus with Amarra, I found that the music sounds more forward with Audirvana Plus. There is also less depth and warmth in the vocals, which makes vocals sound slightly nasal-sounding and flat at times. With Audirvana Plus, details in the music stood out more and are more forward sounding. I would think Audirvana Plus has a more "digital" sound compared to Amarra and would appeal to those who seek analytical (with details thrown at you) sound.
   
  On another plus point, Audirvana Plus has a great user-friendly interface which made it extremely simple and a joy to use. All buttons/menus were well presented and easily understood. I did not experience any bugs at all during playback and it worked flawlessly.
   
_Amarra_
   
  In my 2+ weeks of listening to these 3 players. I liked the sound quality of Amarra best. With Amarra, there seems to be better instrument separation, sound staging and richer vocals. The warmth, emotion and depth in vocals which were missing in Audirvana Plus returned with Amarra. I also felt that Amarra had slightly deeper bass notes compared to Audirvana Plus. Overall, I would describe Amarra's sound quality to be more analog sounding and fluid to my ears.
   
  Upon first listen, Amarra may sound dark sounding due to a slight midrange warmth, however it is my opinion that Amarra presents a more neutral, organic and transparent sound which is more faithful to the original recording and better captures the 'atmosphere' present in the recording. Also, I would say that using Amarra after BitPerfect is an incremental step up, akin to an equipment upgrade (I'm not kidding).
   
  Now Amarra is not without its faults. I had experienced many software glitches during the time I used Amarra (i.e. no music playback, some skips during playback, system hangs unexpectedly, playback using iTunes instead of Amarra, etc). Also, the time required to load each track is slightly slower compared to BitPerfect or Audirvana Plus (both are almost instantaneous). In addition, Amarra has the worst, non-user friendly player interface of the three players mentioned. It certainly is a great product, worthy of world-class music playback but until these issues are resolved, it cannot be considered the best or worth the high coin required to own one of the Amarra players. Now as suggested by WA, I used a software to clear the memory of my system prior to starting up Amarra, but still experienced some software glitches during use in my system.
   
_Conclusion_
   
  I would whole heartedly recommend Amarra for its analog, transparent and fluid sound quality and if you prefer musical enjoyment rather than an analytical sound. However, Amarra is recommended only if you can look past the high price tag, the software glitches and the below-average user-interface. It is definitely a step up from BitPerfect and even Audirvana Plus. Amarra and Audirvana Plus come with a 15 day trial so you don't have an excuse not to try them for yourself in your system to see if they suit your listening preferences and budget. Hope this is comparison is useful to those who are considering an alternative music player to iTunes.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Thanks for the comparison Darknight, very helpful to me.
  I have BitPerfect and Audirvana Plus at the moment but didn't really compare them as I have too much new equipment coming in and trying to tell the differences between those.
  I will certainly try Amarra Mini again, but I'm waiting untill they have full Lion compatibility.
  I'll give them a listen once I get used to my system and compare what I hear with your findings.


----------



## vert

Quote:


appleheadmay said:


> What do you mean by streaming to the Zeppelin? How did you do that? With an optical cable connection I guess?


 

 I used Rogue Amoeba Airfoil to wireless stream from Decibel to the Zeppelin Air. If I playback from iTunes, it will stream to the Zeppelin via Airplay.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Ah, ok, sorry, forgot about Airfoil. I know the program, just never used it.
  But when using Airfoil any quality you gained with Decibel will be undone.


----------



## WarriorAnt

I have experienced skipping in Amarra at times but I've been using Amarra for 2 straight days about 8 hours a day and not one glitch or skip.  Lately though I have been restarting my iMac just before a listening session.  Don't know if that really has anything to do with it but thought I'd mention it.  Previously when I did get occasional skipping the iMac had been on without a restart for weeks at a time maybe more.


----------



## DarknightDK

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> I have experienced skipping in Amarra at times but I've been using Amarra for 2 straight days about 8 hours a day and not one glitch or skip.  Lately though I have been restarting my iMac just before a listening session.  Don't know if that really has anything to do with it but thought I'd mention it.  Previously when I did get occasional skipping the iMac had been on without a restart for weeks at a time maybe more.


 
   
  Thanks for sharing your experience with Amarra. Personally i think that freeing the computer's memory (before each listening session) helps somewhat in minimising the gliches with Amarra, although skips during playback still occur. I did experience Amarra hanging a couple of times when I tried to playback high resolution tracks tho.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





darknightdk said:


> Thanks for sharing your experience with Amarra. Personally i think that freeing the computer's memory (before each listening session) helps somewhat in minimising the gliches with Amarra, although skips during playback still occur. I did experience Amarra hanging a couple of times when I tried to playback high resolution tracks tho.


 
  Just out of curiosity how often do you restart your Mac and also how often do you repair permissions?    Are you using iCleanMemory?   It has a gauge that shows you when and how much and if memory cache is being used up.  It can be set to reset the memory cache when it gets too low which is user set.  
  
  Still no skipping today when doing the restart again before a session.  Will keep everyone posted.


----------



## DarknightDK

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> Just out of curiosity how often do you restart your Mac and also how often do you repair permissions?    Are you using iCleanMemory?   It has a gauge that shows you when and how much and if memory cache is being used up.  It can be set to reset the memory cache when it gets too low which is user set.
> 
> Still no skipping today when doing the restart again before a session.  Will keep everyone posted.


 

 I don't re-start my Mac before loading Amarra (or any other players for that matter). I only use the app to clear/cleanup the memory before I load the players and when I find that the available memory drops to 2.5 GB or less (I usually have a total of 6+GB available). The app that I use is called 'Free Memory'. It's available for free on the Apple app store.
   
  With Amarra, I experience some occassional skipping of music with the playback of 16-bit tracks. However, when I play 24-bit tracks Amarra gets really buggy (i.e. does not play the track, software hangs, etc). Note that I have several other programs running at the same time when such problems occur (i.e. stickies, safari, mail, freememory, etc). I'm not a believer of quitting these programs to get Amarra to work well, because for the average user, he/she will be running such programs while listening to music via a computer. Hope Amarra figures out a solution to these issues faced.


----------



## mtkversion

If you want to free up memory open Terminal and type 'purge' and wait a few seconds. Free way of accomplishing the same command that the apps are doing without having to install/pay for them.
   
  Any negative opinions of Amarra I have are just reinforced when people have to rely on other apps (iTunes, Fluke, memory apps) for the app to function correctly.
   
  The latest beta of Fidelia just introduced memory playback, 64 bit engine and some headphone DSP (crossfeed features). Little buggy but once it goes to a release it should be a nice option. The stable release now works with no problems on my system. I've had it installed for about 3-4 days now and have been very impressed so far.
   
  Much better bargain as well. You can spend $20 on the app and the remaining $680 you'd spend on Amarra on music ... in the end isn't that what these players are about?


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





darknightdk said:


> I don't re-start my Mac before loading Amarra (or any other players for that matter). I only use the app to clear/cleanup the memory before I load the players and when I find that the available memory drops to 2.5 GB or less (I usually have a total of 6+GB available). The app that I use is called 'Free Memory'. It's available for free on the Apple app store.
> 
> With Amarra, I experience some occassional skipping of music with the playback of 16-bit tracks. However, when I play 24-bit tracks Amarra gets really buggy (i.e. does not play the track, software hangs, etc). Note that I have several other programs running at the same time when such problems occur (i.e. stickies, safari, mail, freememory, etc). I'm not a believer of quitting these programs to get Amarra to work well, because for the average user, he/she will be running such programs while listening to music via a computer. Hope Amarra figures out a solution to these issues faced.


 

 You should give restart a try. I'm on my third day without any bugs.      Also how often do you repair permissions?
   


  Quote: 





mtkversion said:


> If you want to free up memory open Terminal and type 'purge' and wait a few seconds. Free way of accomplishing the same command that the apps are doing without having to install/pay for them.
> 
> Any negative opinions of Amarra I have are just reinforced when people have to rely on other apps (iTunes, Fluke, memory apps) for the app to function correctly.
> 
> ...


 

 One doesn't have to spend $700 on a full blown Amarra, the MINI is probably just as good though still expensive.  
   
  What is the latest version of Fidelia?   I have 1.1.2. Is there a new beta version to try that is different than 1.1.2?


----------



## mtkversion

Quote: 





warriorant said:


> One doesn't have to spend $700 on a full blown Amarra, the MINI is probably just as good though still expensive.
> 
> What is the latest version of Fidelia?   I have 1.1.2. Is there a new beta version to try that is different than 1.1.2?


 


Fidelia 1.2.0b2 
   
  Nice set of new features once it goes to release.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





mtkversion said:


> Fidelia 1.2.0b2
> 
> Nice set of new features once it goes to release.


 
  Thanks, I could not find that link over on the Fidelia page.


----------



## MrQ

Downloaded Fidelia 1.2.0b2 
   
  The headphone processing section has got my interest. Plus lots of other tweakable preferences.


----------



## Kepic

anyone couldn't license their fidelia after installing the beta?
   
  I bought both basic and advanced license and now...
   

   
   
  I'm pretty sure I pasted the basic key to the basic license and same to the advanced but neither worked 
   
  Already mailed Fidelia support...


----------



## Kepic

WOW! got the support reply within 1 minutes, that's nice!
   
   
 Hi
 You'll need beta licenses to register the latest beta version of Fidelia. Not a problem - I've provided you with these licenses.
 Just check your account. Note: the Fidelia Headphones license is under the *My Licenses* page on our Support site instead of *Fidelia*'s licenses page.
 *If you haven't already done so, please uninstall the release version before installing the beta.*
  How to access your account
 To access your license key(s):
 [1] Visit our Support Area
 [2] Click the "user login" link at the upper right and enter your email address and password (Password Reset)
 [3] Once logged in, you will find your license key(s) for each application you own on the Support page for that application. Choose the desired application via the navigation at the left. Your license key(s) will be displayed under the tabbed section of each support page.
  
  
  
 Hope it helps


----------



## AppleheadMay

What is "Fidelia Headphones"?
  Is it included in the 49$ advanced version or a separate paid plugin?
   
  EDIT: Just bought Fidelia, no time to test SQ now though.
  I installed the beta and am using it in trial mode while waiting for the Beta keys.
  At first glance it looks, works and sounds very good I must say.
  The crossover thingie isn't bad either. It seems that it will require the purchase of a separate license.
  I might start liking this player.
   
  What are the three effect buttons in the bottom for?


----------



## WarriorAnt

The "Effects" buttons are for accessing any AU's (Audio Units) or VST's you might want to use to process your tracks with.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I asked the developers of Fidelia if the headphone features would be further developed/expanded in the future.
  This was the reply:
   
  Quote: 





> We're definitely not going to leave the Headphone module out of our developers' sight. Rest assured, it's a very treasured feature for us too!


 
  Good news for us!  
   
  And an option to switch Dac's on the fly from the main window (for comparison reasons and switching to amps on a different dac).
   
  Quote: 





> _"An option to change the audio output (Dac) from within the main player instead of from preferences."_
> 
> 
> > It's a popular feature request (I'll add your vote to it). Expecting it to be added soon.


 
  I must say switching on the fly really goes seamlessly from the preferences menu. This player rocks, quite solid programming!
   
  And my third feature request:
   
  Quote: 





> _"Display of the bit depth and sample rate in the main window instead of the track time and file size above and below the file type."_
> 
> 
> > This is a known feature request as well and sounds like an easy tweak. I'll add your vote to it. Stay tuned on this one!


 
  Answers to all my feature requests within an hour. These guys sure are on top of things.
   
  I didn't do any direct comparisons for SQ with the other players I have yet, but from memory this one might sound better.
  It's very natural sounding, non digital (metallic) and  ... effortless is what comes to mind.
  And for the first time I seem to dig crossfeed, they certainly did it right. A bit more body to the mids and a subtle warmth are my first impressions.
   
  What are your impressions on the crossfeed, and what settings do you use?
  I first put both settings at max but that was unnatural.
  Now I have angle and amount set in the middle, the type to most natural. I din't touch the EQ, never felt comfortable using equalizers.


----------



## AppleheadMay

What's your impression of Fidelia WarriorAnt? How does it compare to Amarra?
  I'm still waiting for Lion support to try it again.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> What's your impression of Fidelia WarriorAnt? How does it compare to Amarra?
> I'm still waiting for Lion support to try it again.


 

 With a 4Gb RAM 2.4Ghz core 2 duo Macbook Pro I get Amarra Mini 2.2 working under Lion just fine, as long as iTunes is in 32 bit mode and I don't do anything else while playing music.  I'm about to install my 8Gb upgrade, so we'll see if that helps when multi-tasking.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Yes, that's what I'm waiting for so I don't need to use iTunes in 32-bit mode.
  I got 16Gb ram, so that should be fine. I can load 192k files into memory with Fidelia while having a bunch of other programs open.
  I only got Audirvana to stutter on a 192k file twice, but Fidelia seems to handle them fine.
  I don't have a dedicated Mini for music/video yet so I need to be able to do other stuff on my computer when playing music.
   
  Edit: I believe 2.3 is out now HeadphoneAddict


----------



## DarknightDK

I've downloaded the trial version of Fidelia and have been impressed with the way it sounds. It considerably narrows the gap in SQ between Audirvana Plus and Amarra. Sound is closer to Amarra but Amarra still has an edge in the transparency of vocals, presents a more analog sound and slightly deeper bass notes. However, the bass sounds tighter and better defined on Fidelia.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Yes, that's what I'm waiting for so I don't need to use iTunes in 32-bit mode.
> I got 16Gb ram, so that should be fine. I can load 192k files into memory with Fidelia while having a bunch of other programs open.
> I only got Audirvana to stutter on a 192k file twice, but Fidelia seems to handle them fine.
> I don't have a dedicated Mini for music/video yet so I need to be able to do other stuff on my computer when playing music.
> ...


 

 I'll have to check that out.  With 8Gb RAM over half is free with Amarra Mini, iTunes, Safari, Calendar, Contacts and Email open, but then doing some things in email or opening System Preferences causes skipping.  Don't know if it's Amarra Mini, my 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, or the Hybrid SSD/HD causing hiccoughs when it tries to decide what goes into the 8Gb SSD portion of the 750Gb drive.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Completely off topic but useful for those who sit in front of their computer for a long time and want less strain on their eyes.
   
Flux. For OSX, Windows, iOS and some other portable devices.
   
  Set it to the right lighting conditions and make sure to put the transition on slow (1 hour).
  It will feel funny in the beginning but try to get used to it for a couple of days and your eyes will like it!


----------



## Kepic

just installed! looks very cool  
   
  Thanks for sharing 
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Completely off topic but useful for those who sit in front of their computer for a long time and want less strain on their eyes.
> 
> Flux. For OSX, Windows, iOS and some other portable devices.
> 
> ...


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





> I've downloaded the trial version of Fidelia and have been impressed with the way it sounds. It considerably narrows the gap in SQ between Audirvana Plus and Amarra. Sound is closer to Amarra but Amarra still has an edge in the transparency of vocals, presents a more analog sound and slightly deeper bass notes. However, the bass sounds tighter and better defined on Fidelia.


 
  I hope Amarra gets an update soon. I've emailed them and theyr're working on it. They'll give me a new trial as well.
  Did you try out the headphone (more or less crossfeed) thing in Fidelia? How do you like it?
   
   
  Quote:
   


> just installed! looks very cool


 
  Yep, or rather, it looks warm. 
  Don't set it up too radically and give your eyes a few days to get used to it, then it works like a charm.
   
   
   
  EDIT : I was wondering, would there be an app that provides isolation feet for under the Fidelia player?


----------



## liamstrain

Been playing a bit with Fidelia, and like it so far. 
   
  Out of curiosity, does anyone use AU or VST filters with theirs? I know the new beta no longer supports VST, but even with AU I am having a hard time getting it to recognize my non-apple plugins - and it seems to kill the ability to load in my presets.
   
  I think I'm just going to have to bit the bullet and still use AHP, and buy the expensive plugins I'd been demoing, since I cannot make the cheaper versions work properly in either program (was hoping I could configure Fidelia such that I could bypass AHP). 
   
  I love my mac, but sometimes, I hate it too.


----------



## darcyb62

I have the same problem.  In working with support we realized that the beta only supports 64 bit plugins.  They have to do some type of bridge to support 32 bit.  Fortunately for me, my main plugin was just released as a 64 bit plugin last week so I am good.
   
  Darcy


----------



## liamstrain

Lucky. 
   
  Were you also having issues with plugin presets? I am missing some of the usual in-plugin menus.


----------



## darcyb62

I'll take another look tonight but I am pretty sure the pre-sets were working fine.


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

I use BitPerfect, but I've been wanting to try Fidelia just so I could try a plug-in EQ.  Is there a good one that others are using with Fidelia?


----------



## liamstrain

Darcy -
   
  Additional question - have you had trouble getting the beta to show your AU plugins at all? I'm assuming it has something to do with the autovalidation, but I can't even override it the way I could with the old version (turn off validation, then delete the original au_db.plist from application support, and restart). 
   
  I found an alternate to my preferred vst in AU format, but having fidelia ignore things without options to add, or rescan, or otherwise manage the plugins is very frustrating.


----------



## WarriorAnt

I have Fidelia 1.1.2 and I can access 172 AU's with it and 157 VST's with it.  I'm glad I didn't try the beta at 64 bits yet.


----------



## darcyb62

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Darcy -
> 
> Additional question - have you had trouble getting the beta to show your AU plugins at all? I'm assuming it has something to do with the autovalidation, but I can't even override it the way I could with the old version (turn off validation, then delete the original au_db.plist from application support, and restart).
> 
> I found an alternate to my preferred vst in AU format, but having fidelia ignore things without options to add, or rescan, or otherwise manage the plugins is very frustrating.


 

 The 64 bit plugins work fine.  Initially it only showed the Apple and Line6 plugins but when I added the 64 bit Voxengo plugin it recognized it at start up just fine.  IT just plain ignores the 32 bit plugins.
   
  What kink of VST you looking for and what was the alternative you found.  I might be able to help there.  How much you willing to pay?  Remember that the plugin needs to be 64 bit and if it isn't the beta just ignores it.
   
  Darcy


----------



## darcyb62

Just an FYI.
   
  This is the response I got back from support:
   
   
   


> Okay - spoke with the developers about this. At the moment, the beta is running in 64 bit mode, which means all 32 bit VSTs won't run since we haven't built a bridge to allow 32 bit VSTs to run in 64 bit mode. This is something we'll consider for future development with Fidelia, based on demand.


 
   
  So if you're thinking of running the 64 bit version and want to use 32 bit plugins you might want to make the request.


----------



## liamstrain

I've been using a parametric eq and crossfeed from Redline on a beta license - which I love, but am having a hard time justifying the $250 price tag for the two combined. These do not appear in the beta (the AU does in 1.1.2 - but I cannot access my presets) - I cannot tell if they are 64 bit or not. 
   
  I have downloaded a 64-bit beta from Voxengo (HarmoniEQ) as a possible alternative, I cannot get it to show up either. All it shows are my apple plugins.
   
  I was hoping to get TB Isone to work as well - but that is vst only, so I know it's a non-starter.


----------



## darcyb62

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I've been using a parametric eq and crossfeed from Redline on a beta license - which I love, but am having a hard time justifying the $250 price tag for the two combined. These do not appear in the beta (the AU does in 1.1.2 - but I cannot access my presets) - I cannot tell if they are 64 bit or not.
> 
> I have downloaded a 64-bit beta from Voxengo (HarmoniEQ) as a possible alternative, I cannot get it to show up either. All it shows are my apple plugins.
> 
> I was hoping to get TB Isone to work as well - but that is vst only, so I know it's a non-starter.


 

 I am pretty sure HarmoniEQ is still 32 bit.  I use the GlissEQ which is the one that was updated to 64 bit last week that now works with the beta.
http://www.voxengo.com/product/glisseq/
   
  I've been thinking of giving this one a try but haven't had the time:
http://www.dmgaudio.com/products_equick.php
   
  This one might be worth looking at as well:
http://www.bluecataudio.com/Products/Product_StereoParametrEQ/
   
  Here is a search I did for 64 bit eq from the kvr web site (a pretty good resource for plug-ins).
=mac64&ty[]=e&tg[]=22]http://www.kvraudio.com/q.php?search=1&os[]=mac64&ty[]=e&tg[]=22
   
  Darcy


----------



## rogan

Im using the amarra trial and i like it but its not worth the money IMO so im gna try something else when its up..


----------



## DarknightDK

Quote: 





rogan said:


> Im using the amarra trial and i like it but its not worth the money IMO so im gna try something else when its up..


 


  As I posted before, you can try Fidelia. Its SQ is closer to that of Amarra although not as good. But at $20 compared to $200 (for Amarra mini) might be just what you're looking for.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I've been using a parametric eq and crossfeed from Redline on a beta license - which I love, but am having a hard time justifying the $250 price tag for the two combined. These do not appear in the beta (the AU does in 1.1.2 - but I cannot access my presets) - I cannot tell if they are 64 bit or not.
> 
> I have downloaded a 64-bit beta from Voxengo (HarmoniEQ) as a possible alternative, I cannot get it to show up either. All it shows are my apple plugins.
> 
> I was hoping to get TB Isone to work as well - but that is vst only, so I know it's a non-starter.


 
  Since you are using Fidelia in your productions as an audio tool you might want to ditch it for this. http://www.icedaudio.com/     Iced Audio's AudioFinder.  Give it a look, it's excellent.  It's what I use for my audio compositions and manipulations of my audio loops and the audio I create.   It also gives me complete access to my combined 306 AU's and VST's.  You can run your audio through it and even save it processed as a new loop or audio segment, plus a whole lot more.  I've been using it as a production tools since 2004.


----------



## liamstrain

Thanks Darcy - I'll take a look at those. I thought the product page for HarmoniEQ stated it was 64, but maybe it hasn't been updated yet. I was a bit put off by GlissEq's auto adjustment feature, but I'll take a look. $50 saved is still $50. 
   
  WarriorAnt - thanks for the tip. For production, I've been pretty happy with our current workflow - I'm trying to get a basic playback system that lets me still borrow some of the production tools to match my monitors, without having to fire up several applications to pass through for the filters (I can, for instance, just run fidelia through audio hijack pro) - but this is an interesting tool as well.


----------



## darcyb62

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Thanks Darcy - I'll take a look at those. I thought the product page for HarmoniEQ stated it was 64, but maybe it hasn't been updated yet. I was a bit put off by GlissEq's auto adjustment feature, but I'll take a look. $50 saved is still $50.
> 
> WarriorAnt - thanks for the tip. For production, I've been pretty happy with our current workflow - I'm trying to get a basic playback system that lets me still borrow some of the production tools to match my monitors, without having to fire up several applications to pass through for the filters (I can, for instance, just run fidelia through audio hijack pro) - but this is an interesting tool as well.


 

 The auto adjust feature is what I like most about this eq.  You can it off if you want by setting "dyn" to 0.  HarmoniEQ might be 64 bit for Windows but not OSX yet.


----------



## liamstrain

It looks like Gliss EQ with a 0 setting would work - thanks, testing now... now I'm just on the hunt for a 64 bit crossfeed AU. The Headphones component of fidelia (in the 1.2 beta) really just doesn't do it.


----------



## rogan

Quote: 





darknightdk said:


> As I posted before, you can try Fidelia. Its SQ is closer to that of Amarra although not as good. But at $20 compared to $200 (for Amarra mini) might be just what you're looking for.


 


   
  doesnt intergrate with itunes though?


----------



## liamstrain

It can use your itunes library. I do not think it will let you manage existing library items, though you can create a fidelia specific library in addition.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Thanks Darcy - I'll take a look at those. I thought the product page for HarmoniEQ stated it was 64, but maybe it hasn't been updated yet. I was a bit put off by GlissEq's auto adjustment feature, but I'll take a look. $50 saved is still $50.
> 
> WarriorAnt - thanks for the tip. For production, I've been pretty happy with our current workflow - I'm trying to get a basic playback system that lets me still borrow some of the production tools to match my monitors, without having to fire up several applications to pass through for the filters (I can, for instance, just run fidelia through audio hijack pro) - but this is an interesting tool as well.


 


  Give the site a look.  It's a production tool a lot of folks turn to.  Certainly better suited for that than Fidelia.


----------



## liamstrain

Yah, looks it. I'm not using fidelia in my production workflow.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





rogan said:


> doesnt intergrate with itunes though?


 


  It will access iTunes library but does not have real data integration which is the main reason I do not use it.  I need an app that can register how many plays a track gets.      Audirvana Plus does that.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

warriorant said:


> I need an app that can register how many plays a track gets.




I'm in no way trying to question your need for play count. However, I'm curious about why that's a necessary feature for you (or anybody else). I've never understood the usefulness of that feature, though some people obviously have.


----------



## darcyb62

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> I'm in no way trying to question your need for play count. However, I'm curious about why that's a necessary feature for you (or anybody else). I've never understood the usefulness of that feature, though some people obviously have.


 

 I have some smart playlists that are set up to play songs that haven't been played in some time or are less frequently played.  It brings up songs that I may not have heard in a long time and may have forgotten about.


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> I'm in no way trying to question your need for play count. However, I'm curious about why that's a necessary feature for you (or anybody else). I've never understood the usefulness of that feature, though some people obviously have.


 

  
  Good question!  It's probably very esoteric for everyone else but me anyway.  I load a lot of CD's and production loop tracks into iTunes, about 30 CD's per week.  I keep the tracks I like and toss the rest so I need to see if I have listened to the track yet.  Also  my library has around 10,000 tracks now and I often look through iTunes to see which tracks I have listened to the least. That helps me discover many tracks that have gotten lost in the sea of tracks which I would have otherwise not realized.  I'm always finding tracks that I have only listened to just a few times that way.  So for me it is actually one of the few features I really count upon.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## MatsudaMan

anyone have issues using Airport Express with Pure Music?  Downloaded the free trial and couldn't get it to work with streaming to my home stereo - so i uninstalled it.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Can't be done, only iTunes can use Airplay, none of these players can.
  You can use the players for listening to your phones on the computer and shut them down when you want to use Airplay.
   
  EDIT:
  I just gave Decibel a try and found it not good at all. It sounds the most digital of any of the players I've heard.
  I compared it to Fidelia and the difference is really obvious.
  If you hear Fidelia right after Decibel it's like going from a CD to vinyl.


----------



## darcyb62

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> If you hear Fidelia right after Decibel it's like going from a CD to vinyl.


 
   
  This could be a confusing analogy.  People have differing opinions on what is the better medium.  
   
  Personally I think that you can get a better sounding system with cd when working with a limited budget.  As your budget opens up vinyl can edge out cds but it can be get expensive.


----------



## AppleheadMay

The analgy can be confusing indeed.
   
  But as for the budget: this isn't real vinyl or turntables we're talking about, just two low priced software players that can even be tried out for free.
  I can only recommend doing so.


----------



## darcyb62

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> The analgy can be confusing indeed.
> 
> But as for the budget: this isn't real vinyl or turntables we're talking about, just two low priced software players that can even be tried out for free.
> I can only recommend doing so.


 

 agreed.  Just saying that some people might feel going from a cd sound to a vinyl sound as a good thing and some might see it as bad.


----------



## sachu

so i tried audionirvana and Decibel.
   
  Ended up buying Decibel. SUch an improvement over itunes and plays Monkey audio and FLAC to boot. Integration with APple remote is very cool as well. Only wish it had an app for android to control with and it would be perfect!


----------



## liamstrain

Random fidelia question...
   
  I've noticed that while it shows my iTunes playlist to access - it doesn't show it completely. Some playlists only have a few of the items appear (which if I open up iTunes I can still clearly see and play the others). Entire albums do not appear at all. 
   
  It's very puzzling. I have not yet figured out a pattern. Whether it was items purchased via iTunes (as opposed to files I made from CDs) that do not appear, or something else. 
   
  Has anyone else run into that behavior?


----------



## ManchildProdigy

Quote:


sachu said:


> so i tried audionirvana and Decibel.
> 
> Ended up buying Decibel. SUch an improvement over itunes and plays Monkey audio and FLAC to boot. Integration with APple remote is very cool as well. Only wish it had an app for android to control with and it would be perfect!


 

 I've actually considered buying Decibel, myself.  I was checking it out one day and thought it sounded pretty cool, but didn't pull the trigger.  Sounds like it's worth the money.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Random fidelia question...
> 
> I've noticed that while it shows my iTunes playlist to access - it doesn't show it completely. Some playlists only have a few of the items appear (which if I open up iTunes I can still clearly see and play the others). Entire albums do not appear at all.
> 
> ...


 

 I haven't had this problem yet. I am running the beta version and it's stable.
  I'd suggest fully uninstalling it and trying the beta as well? You will need to comntact them for beta keys though.
  If all else fails ask support from within the app. They’re pretty responsive and a friendly bunch.


----------



## liamstrain

I should have specified, I am running the 1.2 beta currently. And given my fun with plugins, am probably on a first name basis with support 
   
  Mostly i wanted to see if this was a known issue before I contacted them. Cheers!


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I should have specified, I am running the 1.2 beta currently. And given my fun with plugins, am probably on a first name basis with support
> 
> Mostly i wanted to see if this was a known issue before I contacted them. Cheers!


 


  LoL!
   
  I guess they know me by now as well, I'm basically their primary resource for now features.
  Can't seem to keep my hands of that feature request button.


----------



## MatsudaMan

Why isn't VLC player on the list?  It's a small, unobtrusive program that will play practically any file format including high rez files....listening to a 96khz/24bit as I type.


----------



## moses195

Hello Everyone. I just joined after reading a LOT of this thread!
  I didn't know software like Fidelia existed until this past Monday. I downloaded it and immediately my jaw dropped. Most of my library is 320kbp/s and I'm using Grado SR 80's. I had just (kinda) finished my 8,000 track library after working on it for 3 years. Then I had to go and find this! I bought the full version yesterday. There is a lot I don't like but It sounds SO much better what could I do? 
  I just submitted a req. for 'Playcount' updating and Fidelia crashed LOL! Only the 2nd time in 5 days.
   
  I would like to see some kind of instructions as to what each setting does, dithering, etc.
   
  Hope I didn't hi-jack the thread too much.
   
  Thanks to the Thread starter too.
   
   
  Dana


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





matsudaman said:


> Why isn't VLC player on the list?  It's a small, unobtrusive program that will play practically any file format including high rez files....listening to a 96khz/24bit as I type.


 


 Hmm my guess is that first of all, it doesn't have a library feature.
   
  It also doesn't have all the other features available that could potentially improves upon the SQ - hog mode, memory playback, izotopes filtering, etc.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Isn't VLC known better for its video playback?


----------



## MatsudaMan

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Isn't VLC known better for its video playback?


 


  Just because it's known more for it's video doesn't mean it's not a good audio player.  To my ears, it's better than iTunes and you can play high resolution flac files.  It'll play anything you can throw at it and it's FREE.  Hog mode shmog mode, can't really hear the difference.  Can you guys believe that Pure Music is 130 bucks?!  What a rip off.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





matsudaman said:


> Just because it's known more for it's video doesn't mean it's not a good audio player.  To my ears, it's better than iTunes and you can play high resolution flac files.  It'll play anything you can throw at it and it's FREE.  Hog mode shmog mode, can't really hear the difference.  Can you guys believe that Pure Music is 130 bucks?!  What a rip off.


 


  We all own different equipments and hear things differently. Can't really enforce one's experience over the others by a sweeping generalisation.
   
  Thus, the trial is an opportunity for us to try out and decide which is the best (or if we should stick to free audio playback softwares instead).


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





matsudaman said:


> Just because it's known more for it's video doesn't mean it's not a good audio player.  To my ears, it's better than iTunes and you can play high resolution flac files.  It'll play anything you can throw at it and it's FREE.  Hog mode shmog mode, can't really hear the difference.  Can you guys believe that Pure Music is 130 bucks?!  What a rip off.


 

 I'm going to give the recent VLC a try next time I fire up the headphones because I just noticed it has some headphone effects in it.  It doesn't seem to have any worth while library features though.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

matsudaman said:


> Why isn't VLC player on the list?  It's a small, unobtrusive program that will play practically any file format including high rez files....listening to a 96khz/24bit as I type.




VLC is a great video player. For many people (me included), their audio player must have an integrated database for library management, which VLC lacks. VLC isn't a credible alternative to iTunes for those people.

Just for playback, VLC is fine, except for the fact that it doesn't support gapless playback. The absence of that feature takes away from the experience of listening to some albums (e.g., Dark Side of the Moon, electronica mixes, etc.).


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





moses195 said:


> Hello Everyone. I just joined after reading a LOT of this thread!
> I didn't know software like Fidelia existed until this past Monday. I downloaded it and immediately my jaw dropped. Most of my library is 320kbp/s and I'm using Grado SR 80's. I had just (kinda) finished my 8,000 track library after working on it for 3 years. Then I had to go and find this! I bought the full version yesterday. There is a lot I don't like but It sounds SO much better what could I do?
> I just submitted a req. for 'Playcount' updating and Fidelia crashed LOL! Only the 2nd time in 5 days.
> 
> ...


 

 Welcome to Head-Fi!  
  I find Fidelia to be the player that gives the most sound quality improvement, or at least have a sound that I like.
  I've been talking back and forth with their support team and they seem to keep count of feature requests to implement in later release. For instance they are considering further developing the headphones extension, full iTunes style sorting and network playback. I told them they need to update their feature requests tab in preferences though.
  Same on the description of the settings, I'd like to know more about them too.


----------



## moses195

Thanks for the welcome and the info AppleheadMay, I appreciate it. Spent 5 hours last nite with Fidelia and headphones! It's like having a brand new library isn't it. Everything sounds so good. Just the Album art pictures makes me feel more at home.
   
  Dana


----------



## AppleheadMay

Yep, sounds pretty good and even their new headphone mode is something I enjoy.
  It's only in the beta version though, I don't know which version you are using?
  If you want to use the beta version you will have to ask support for the three beta codes.
   
  One thing that puzzles me, you have all MP3 and AAC? Why not uncompressed AIFF or ALAC?
  You'll get more extra SQ out of that than out of any of these players IMO.


----------



## moses195

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Yep, sounds pretty good and even their new headphone mode is something I enjoy.
> It's only in the beta version though, I don't know which version you are using?
> If you want to use the beta version you will have to ask support for the three beta codes.
> 
> ...


 

 I'm using 1.2.0b2. I tried the headphone module too. Sounds different but then theres MORE settings to tweak!
   
  I've literally re-built my library 15 times in the last ten years. 10 in the last 2 years. I started from DAT copies of vinyl and cassette recordings at 128 kbp/s lol. As I learned about higher qualities I had to re-build each time. Then, 3 years ago I discovered Grado headphones and my library sounded bad again. So I upgraded to 256/320. That sounded better than I had by far. Then Fidelia made it sound even better. I have been trying to get all my music to sound good without changing settings for every album, etc. Not easy when I have stuff from 1962-2011. I'm a big fan of very little EQ at the 125 and 8k levels. I have most of my library sounding good with headphones with only about 3 EQ settings. I like to put it on shuffle and sit back and enjoy without a lot of tweaking. But inevitably I find myself tweaking the EQ.
   
  Dana
   
  My ex-wife took all 700 CD's with her so I can't acquire them to rip in FLAC, etc. And I'm not going to re-buy 700 CD's lol!


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





> My ex-wife took all 700 CD's with her so I can't acquire them to rip in FLAC, etc. And I'm not going to re-buy 700 CD's lol!


 
  Take the ex back in for a few months 'till you re-ripped them?


----------



## moses195

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Take the ex back in for a few months 'till you re-ripped them?


 






 LOL!


----------



## darcyb62

I really like Fidelia but it would be nnice to see a bit more integration with the iTunes engine as opposed to just being able to link to the iTunes playlist.
   
  I find myself being drawn back to iTunes with the SRS iWOW plugin.  I found that once I stepped away from some of the default settings and did a bit of tweaking with the SRS settings I can get a sound that I find to easily be as good as what I was hearing in Fidelia with a couple of plugins.
   
  Has anybody else tried the SRS plugin and what are your thoughts on it?
   
  Darcy


----------



## MatsudaMan

Anyone compare some of the expensive players like Fidelia, Amarra, and Pure Music to something more reasonable like Bitperfect (4.99 in appstore).


----------



## darcyb62

Quote: 





matsudaman said:


> Anyone compare some of the expensive players like Fidelia, Amarra, and Pure Music to something more reasonable like Bitperfect (4.99 in appstore).


 


  I tried Bitperfect (actually bought it) but prefer the sound of Fidelia and iTunes with the iWOW plugin.  I haven't tried Amarra but have tried Pure Music and Audirvana. I did like Audirvana but it's lack of plugin support was a no go for me. If (when) Audirvana supported plugins I might give it another try.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





darcyb62 said:


> I really like Fidelia but it would be nnice to see a bit more integration with the iTunes engine as opposed to just being able to link to the iTunes playlist.
> 
> I find myself being drawn back to iTunes with the SRS iWOW plugin.  I found that once I stepped away from some of the default settings and did a bit of tweaking with the SRS settings I can get a sound that I find to easily be as good as what I was hearing in Fidelia with a couple of plugins.
> 
> ...


 

 No, had never heard of it. Or I might have very long ago, hasn't this been bundled with the Soundblaster 16 or 64 cards as a Windows version back then?
  It seems more like it adds effects to the sound though, which is opposite to what most of these players are trying to do.
  Wouldn't mind to see some other people's thought on it though.


----------



## rosgr63

Has the problem with Fidelia not recognizing VST plugins have been solved?


----------



## liamstrain

In a manner of speaking. The Beta and upcoming new version, no longer support VST. Audio units only - which is a bit unfortunate since it looks like Apple will not be continuing to develop/support the Audio Unit protocol very long either.


----------



## rosgr63

Fidelia does not recognize some of the AU's either.
   
  Mind there is a work around for Fidelia to work with both VST's and AU's using Audio Hijack.


----------



## MatsudaMan

any difference in sound between the 20 dollar fidelia and the "advanced" 70 dollar version?  I don't want to spend more than I have to you know...in this economy and all.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





rosgr63 said:


> Fidelia does not recognize some of the AU's either.
> 
> Mind there is a work around for Fidelia to work with both VST's and AU's using Audio Hijack.


 

  
  The beta only recognizes 64-bit AUs
   
  Audio Hijack pro also has limited VST support. Some work fine, but the vast majority of advanced VSTs are not supported. But AHP does let you use 32 bit Audio Units if you need to, which is nice. 
   
   


  Quote: 





matsudaman said:


> any difference in sound between the 20 dollar fidelia and the "advanced" 70 dollar version?  I don't want to spend more than I have to you know...in this economy and all.







  Pure sound output? no. It does have some other features and additional options, but as far as I know, the quality of the output is not affected.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





darcyb62 said:


> I really like Fidelia but it would be nnice to see a bit more integration with the iTunes engine as opposed to just being able to link to the iTunes playlist.
> 
> I find myself being drawn back to iTunes with the SRS iWOW plugin.  I found that once I stepped away from some of the default settings and did a bit of tweaking with the SRS settings I can get a sound that I find to easily be as good as what I was hearing in Fidelia with a couple of plugins.
> 
> ...


 

 Just tried the SRS plugin. I get distortion whenever I move the volume slider up or down. Also, when setting it higher than standard I get distortion all the time.
  I listened to it a bit at low volume and it's just an effects thingy, as I said before, the opposite of what the other players try to accomplish.


----------



## noahp

Anybody looking to "send" digital audio using Airplay with a non-iTunes app should look at Rogue Amoeba's Airfoil (there's a windows version too, if that's the kind of stuff you're interested in).  For example, you could use this to send uncompressed digital audio to an Airport Express that uses SPDIF optical out to a dedicated, high quality DAC and on to your ears via your favorite amp/headphones.  I use a setup like this to enable a single storage location for all my audio files and have multiple listening stations spread around my residence.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Doesn't everything get downsampled to 44/16 when streamed to an Airport Express?
  Some of us do use high res files. 
  I'm acquiring more and more 96/24 tracks and even some 192/24.
  When I play them I want to use the full quality, hence the purchase of Dacs that can handle it.


----------



## noahp

It does.  Here are the details.  http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/505apple
  
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Doesn't everything get downsampled to 44/16 when streamed to an Airport Express?


----------



## AppleheadMay

That would be quite interesting then!
  I know using Apple's Airplay from within iTunes converts everything to ALAC 44/16, which is quite good for ripped CD's but not for highres downloads.
  I know Rogue Amoeba, just never used it because I thought it only was for streaming non iTunes stuff which I have no need for. Didn't know about the highres music though. That would give 96/24 capability as the output from the AE can't handle 192/24, but there is very little material at that resolution still.


----------



## noahp

Yes, you're right.  Good enough to match CD-quality.  If you have better source audio, you will be losing both in terms of total information and probably an encoding loss as well.
  
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> That would be quite interesting then!
> I know using Apple's Airplay from within iTunes converts everything to ALAC 44/16, which is quite good for ripped CD's but not for highres downloads.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Yep, twice loss, that's what I thought.
   
  The only way I have found so far (for Alac at least since that's the only format I use) is an iMac with iTunes library on my desk and a Mac Mini with a copy of the same library on it for my speaker setup in the living room.
  Then use Supersync to sync the libraries, don't use normal backup/sync programs as that can mess up the library.
  Then USB out to a dac in each setup and you have highres which your choice of OSX player.
  For the rest of the house Airtunes is fine though, or Airfoil.
   
  Another way would be the same setup without copying the libraries and access the remote library via Home Sharing.
  That gives you highres as well but can't be played thtough the players we're discussing here, only iTunes itself.
  Support for that is promised to be coming in Fidelia though.
   
  Network players will bring resolution in the future I'm sure.
  For now I'm watching the W4S Music server and Classe CP-800.
  PS Audio promised to support Alac since the beginning but can't make it happen as far as I'm informed.
  Their Dac might be ok but the streaming part sucks IMO, at least for a Mac user, I've owned a PWD.
  And seen the price of their MkII PWD it's really not worth it as you can get a Classe CP-800 for that.
  I've heard both (PWD MkI and CP-800) and the PWD is a toy compared to the CP-800, in both build quality and SQ.


----------



## KraftD1

Guess I'll mention it here.  I tried out Decibel and ran it on my E10 and HDP via USB.  The E10 had a small glitch near the beginning of each song, and my whole computer crashed twice while switching tracks (MBA), no such issues with the HDP.  Switching to Audirvana free no issues with the E10.  Not sure what is up with Decibel, but it seemed to have some conflict with the E10.


----------



## thrak

Quote: 





matsudaman said:


> Why isn't VLC player on the list?  It's a small, unobtrusive program that will play practically any file format including high rez files....listening to a 96khz/24bit as I type.


 


  the main usability issue is the lack of library management as has already been stated.  in addition, it is worth noting that VLC simply uses quicktime to playback audio and so it is identical to iTunes output.  no real benefit or even a difference in terms of SQ.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

thrak said:


> the main usability issue is the lack of library management as has already been stated.  in addition, it is worth noting that VLC simply uses quicktime to playback audio and so it is identical to iTunes output.  no real benefit or even a difference in terms of SQ.




That seems strange, since VLC plays file types that Quicktime doesn't support.


----------



## thrak

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 it does indeed!  but it uses quicktime to play apple specific formats, namely AAC and Apple Lossless.  possibly FLAC as well.  yes, quicktime 'supports' FLAC.  what that means and why iTunes won't play it natively is beyond me....


----------



## Jaywalk3r

thrak said:


> it does indeed!  but it uses quicktime to play apple specific formats, namely AAC and Apple Lossless.  possibly FLAC as well.  yes, quicktime 'supports' FLAC.  what that means and why iTunes won't play it natively is beyond me....




The current version of QuickTime Player (10.1) does not support FLAC. VLC uses the libavcodec library from FFmpeg for encoding and decoding codecs. It seems extremely unlikely that VLC would decode codecs independently of QT, then play back using QT when Apple have already provided the necessary API's to do that independently as well.

AAC (Advanced Audio Coding) is not Apple specific and never has been. Apple Lossless is now free and open source after being developed by Apple. Encoding and decoding both codecs have long been supported by FFmpeg.


----------



## WarriorAnt

iTunes will play FLAC files after installing Fluke.  But you probably already knew this.
   
  http://fluke.en.softonic.com/mac


----------



## Silent One

MPD/GMPC
   
  One alternative would be to install a music server/client on OS X - Music Player Daemon & Gnome Music Player Client. 
   
http://mpd.wikia.com/wiki/MPD_on_OSX
   
  Need FLAC? Plenty of love to go around! Need streaming? With the aforementioned setup, not only could you stream ALL over the house; property, _you could stream up and down the street. _And you can have Clients ALL over the house as well - computers; iPhone; iPad; Android and other mobile devices.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Player_Daemon
   
  Additionally, there are other choices in Clients to control MPD if one desired.


----------



## AppleheadMay

While this info may cerainly be useful to other people it doesn't solve my problem.
  Let me explain:
  I have no need for FLAC support, I use Alac and Alac only, and there lies the problem.
  While this server probably cans stream Alac on the sending end it's hard to find a network player that accepts it on the receiving end.
  GMPC or its alternatives like you suggest need a Mac on the receiving end, so I'm no further than with iTunes since that works fine via Home Sharing as well.
  What I'm in need of is a dedicated network player like the Marantz NA7004 that I have for example that plays Alac.
  PS Audio for example promised to do that among other things and they never succeeded. That's why I'm keeoing an eye on W4S and Classe.


----------



## thrak

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 thanks for the heads-up.  it seems my misconception came from VLCs ability to play qt video but it turns out it does this through the NPAPI plugin.  we learn something every day


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> While this info may cerainly be useful to other people it doesn't solve my problem.
> Let me explain:
> I have no need for FLAC support, I use Alac and Alac only, and there lies the problem.
> While this server probably cans stream Alac on the sending end it's hard to find a network player that accepts it on the receiving end.
> ...


 

 Perhaps, I should explain I wasn't at all addressing your problem specifically or even aware. My post was in general to the thread topic. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 But, while you're here... what makes you think the server/client cannot work for you? Got a Mac? Great! That MPD doesn't need a Mac, that's great too! It can do it's thing on Mac/Windows/Linux and there's a wide variety of clients to control MPD. Which can play/stream ALAC.
   
  If you look further, you'll see that once the server is started, the stored Playlists will be in complete memory not operating from a hard drive. If it were me, I'd look closer. Because following the path of discovery, while examining this solution you may figure out another. Hope this helps!


----------



## AppleheadMay

The server and client would work fine for me, I tried a setup like that with the PSAudio eLyric server.
  I can do it with iTunes as well when using home sharing.
  The only problem that remains is I need a computer at both ends.
  I'd be happy to run a server on the computer that holds my library but would love to access it with a network player, meaning a network enabled Dac and thus eliminating the need for a second computer.
  None of those devices seem to support streaming Alac though. The W4S and Classe might be able to do that according to the rumours.
  PS Audio marketed the ability to stream Alac with their eLyric server to their PWD Dac on the forums in the beginning but haven't been able to accomplish it.
  Now that Alac is open source, one would expect that manafacturers will start to adopt it.


----------



## AppleheadMay

That said, I used to use AirPlay as well and it worked nicely as a lesser SQ solution.
  But since the release of iTunes 10 they have messed with the volume control.
  Basically, if you stream to an AirPlay compatible device the iTunes volume control doesn't control the digital volume control in iTunes anymore but the analog control of the device itself. If that is an amp or receiver that is. If you have a streamer only without volume control you're simply out of luck since volume control does nothing and output volume is really low meaning you have to cranck the volume of the connected amp way up.
  Way to go Apple!


----------



## Silent One

Apple's drive to control all of the software/hardware on its platform never really bothered me... until I pursued a music server using OS X.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Since their latest AirPlay joke, I know the feeling!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Random fidelia question...
> 
> I've noticed that while it shows my iTunes playlist to access - it doesn't show it completely. Some playlists only have a few of the items appear (which if I open up iTunes I can still clearly see and play the others). Entire albums do not appear at all.
> 
> ...


 


  Figured it out. Fidelia doesn't support DRM protected AAC files. So those items I've got in my library from way back and not "upgraded" to DRM free or my own CD rips I'll still need iTunes to listen to.


----------



## johnwmclean

I'm using Pure Music in memory mode via iTunes, using a vst plugin called Isone Pro for some realistic cross feed.


----------



## audemarsp

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *AppleheadMay* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Network players will bring resolution in the future I'm sure.
> For now I'm watching the W4S Music server and Classe CP-800.
> ...


 


  I concur.  Paired w/an iPhone (loaded w/AIFFs), the CP800 absolutely walks circles around my previous PWD/Bridge combo, driven direct to a MC452, ML Vantages.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

liamstrain said:


> Fidelia doesn't support DRM protected AAC files. So those items I've got in my library from way back and not "upgraded" to DRM free or my own CD rips I'll still need iTunes to listen to.




If you ripped your own CD's in iTunes, they are not DRM protected. Apple only ever used FairPlay on songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





audemarsp said:


> I concur.  Paired w/an iPhone (loaded w/AIFFs), the CP800 absolutely walks circles around my previous PWD/Bridge combo, driven direct to a MC452, ML Vantages.


 

 Ah, great, some else who knows that awesome piece of gear! Have you already got a CP-800?
  I'm about to buy one once my Luxman dac gets sold. How do you like the headphone output?
   
  I contacted Classe by the way and a 24/192 is coming this year, async they already have now.
  The network card will be coming this year as well.
  They give no info about it yet though which is what they usually do, get the gear working perfectly first and then release the info.
   
  The SQ is unbelievable indeed, as it should be at the price.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> If you ripped your own CD's in iTunes, they are not DRM protected. Apple only ever used FairPlay on songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store.


 


  Yes. Some of these were purchases from the iTunes store back in 05 and 06 or so... those are considered locked and don't show up in Fidelia. My own rips from CDs are fine, as are newer purchases.


----------



## audemarsp

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Ah, great, some else who knows that awesome piece of gear! Have you already got a CP-800?
> I'm about to buy one once my Luxman dac gets sold. How do you like the headphone output?
> 
> I contacted Classe by the way and a 24/192 is coming this year, async they already have now.
> ...


 
   
  Yes, I've been enjoying mine (stateside) since late August 2011.    Sorry, I've yet to try the headphone out.
   
  By chance did you speak w/Robert Adam @ Classe?


----------



## Jaywalk3r

liamstrain said:


> Yes. Some of these were purchases from the iTunes store back in 05 and 06 or so... those are considered locked and don't show up in Fidelia. My own rips from CDs are fine, as are newer purchases.




I see. I misunderstood your post. Sorry about that!


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I'm about to buy one once my Luxman dac gets sold. How do you like the headphone output?


 
   
  I don't own the CP-800, but I've spent lots of time with it at a friend's place. It is fantastic for speakers (I'm hearing it through B&W 802Ds), but headphone output was disappointing. It can barely drive my LA7000s to a sufficient level.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





audemarsp said:


> Yes, I've been enjoying mine (stateside) since late August 2011.    Sorry, I've yet to try the headphone out.
> 
> By chance did you speak w/Robert Adam @ Classe?


 

 I deleted the mail from last week already, but I believe that was the name, yes.
  I had an extensive listen to the CP-800 at the local dealer who happens to be a friend of mine.
  We used it with the new CA-2300 amp and a pair of B&W 802 Diamonds.
  I was impressed to say the least. 

  Quote: 





agentsim said:


> I don't own the CP-800, but I've spent lots of time with it at a friend's place. It is fantastic for speakers (I'm hearing it through B&W 802Ds), but headphone output was disappointing. It can barely drive my LA7000s to a sufficient level.


 
  Thanks for the info, I'll pay him a visit again this week and bring some cans this time.
  This is pretty common for headphone outputs from preamps it seems, though it would be a little dissapointing from a Classe.
  It wouldn't be much of a problem though because I plan to feed my 4 headphone amps with its 4 outputs.  
  The thing is highly configurable, you can make different presets specifying which outputs you want to use and if you want to use one or more subs in that preset.
  You can also disable the preamp function per preset and output, handy if you want to drive a power amp as well as a phones amp with volume control.
  As far as I have tested, there wasn't anything I wanted to do that wasn't possible.


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





johnwmclean said:


> I'm using Pure Music in memory mode via iTunes, using a vst plugin called Isone Pro for some realistic cross feed.


 


  This works well with headphones too or limited to speakers? May take a closer look.


----------



## crumpler

Quote: 





johnwmclean said:


> I'm using Pure Music in memory mode via iTunes, using a vst plugin called Isone Pro for some realistic cross feed.


 


  Mind sharing how u got vst plugins to work in Pure Music?


----------



## liamstrain

I know via the Audio Set up menu, you can use sequential AU plugins. I do not know if it supports VST in that manner though.


----------



## rosgr63

I have been playing around with the SplineEQ.
  I use it with iTunes and Fidelia via Audio Hijack Pro.


----------



## crumpler

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I know via the Audio Set up menu, you can use sequential AU plugins. I do not know if it supports VST in that manner though.


 


  Yeah, that's the problem i've been having too, getting VST to work in Pure Music. Would love to have the Isone Pro plugin working in Pure Music tho.


----------



## johnwmclean

Quote:


crumpler said:


> Mind sharing how u got vst plugins to work in Pure Music?


 
   
  First put your VST files into your Library/Audio/Plug-Ins/VST
   
  Then install this VST/AU manager:
  http://www.kvraudio.com/product/vstau_manager_by_vstau
  The softwares is self explanatory, basically install all VST files.
   
  Go to Pure Music preferences under the Pure Music menu, click the Audio Setup button...
   

   
   
  In the Audio Setup click the Audio-Plug-Ins button...
   

   
  Then load your VST from the 14 available slots;
   

   
  Enjoy!


----------



## crumpler

Quote: 





johnwmclean said:


> Quote:
> 
> First put your VST files into your Library/Audio/Plug-Ins/VST
> 
> ...


 


  Thanks so much for that!
   
  Cheers mate!


----------



## crumpler

Oh and i'm EUR 20.00 poorer!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





johnwmclean said:


> Quote:
> 
> First put your VST files into your Library/Audio/Plug-Ins/VST
> 
> ...


 
   
  Well that's a helpful thing. Thanks!
   
  Now if we can get Fidelia to implement a 32 bit bridge, then I'm in great shape.


----------



## MtnSloth

Quote: 





johnwmclean said:


> I'm using Pure Music in memory mode via iTunes, using a vst plugin called Isone Pro for some realistic cross feed.


 

 Did you also try the Redline Monitor plugin? Any thoughts on it?


----------



## liamstrain

I know you were not asking me, but I am a big fan of the redline monitor plugin (I also love their parametric eq). The very high sound quality and ease of use (while maintaining a lot of customizability) really make it great to use. The only drawback to it, aside from its price, is that it is not yet 64-bit, and there is some uncertainty about when, if ever, it will be.


----------



## MtnSloth

Thanks for chiming in! I gather that Redline tragically lost one of their team, and that has knocked them off-stride. As to cost, these plug-ins are far less expensive than the hardware it would take to duplicate the effect, no?


----------



## WarriorAnt

Quote: 





mtnsloth said:


> Thanks for chiming in! I gather that Redline tragically lost one of their team, and that has knocked them off-stride. As to cost, these plug-ins are far less expensive than the hardware it would take to duplicate the effect, no?


 


  I tried the Redline but couldn't get much out of it.   If I had a choice I'd always go with a piece of hardware.  I had a few plugins for LOGIC & GB that claim to emulate tube sound but it just wasn't happening because the only way to get tube sound is through a tube.  I'm still not sold on cross feed from a pice of software.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





mtnsloth said:


> Thanks for chiming in! I gather that Redline tragically lost one of their team, and that has knocked them off-stride. As to cost, these plug-ins are far less expensive than the hardware it would take to duplicate the effect, no?


 


  Yes. Still, $160 for an EQ and another $100 for a crossfeed, and it does begin to add up... but for me the results are worth it. I can very accurately match the sound I get from my mixing monitors to allow for me to work mobile with my headphones. 
   
  The ToneBoosters Isone and their EQ are much less expensive, but VST only - and I was having trouble getting Audio Hijack pro to use them properly. If you have a different VST host, or find a VST to AU wrapper that works for you, those would be a sub $100 option (for both).


----------



## crumpler

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Yes. Still, $160 for an EQ and another $100 for a crossfeed, and it does begin to add up... but for me the results are worth it. I can very accurately match the sound I get from my mixing monitors to allow for me to work mobile with my headphones.
> 
> The ToneBoosters Isone and their EQ are much less expensive, but VST only - and I was having trouble getting Audio Hijack pro to use them properly. If you have a different VST host, or find a VST to AU wrapper that works for you, those would be a sub $100 option (for both).


 


  From what i've been hearing with the Isone Pro VST installed, i can safely say i will probably never listen to music without the plugin again. With the crossfeed on, it seems to add so much layer and realism to the music. Can't believe i've gone so long without it. But as always, what has worked (beautifully) for me, might not for u, YMMW.


----------



## MtnSloth

Thank-you for all the responses. Much appreciated. 
   
  There are some recordings where, with regular loud speakers, an effect smoothly tracks from the left to the right channel. However, with headphones, it feels like the sound is teleporting back-and-forth; and that is most distracting . . . or at least it is to me. However, as I think about it more, the simplest solution is to just not listen to those tracks with headphones.
   
  If I could selectively save a plugin (with its settings) as a preset in my music player software; and activate it only when I need/want it . . . that might be more interesting to me.  Or I suppose I could buy something like SPL Phonitor (Jude presented in video review) or an amp or DAC from Meier-Audio, but those options seem like overkill for my purposes_._


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> If I could selectively save a plugin (with its settings) as a preset in my music player software; and activate it only when I need/want it . . . that might be more interesting to me.


 
   
   
  Fidelia lets you use 64 bit audio units as part of the basic player, most of those will allow you to save presets. However, I have not found a 64 bit AU crossfeed yet. Redline is only 32, and most of the others are VST only. If they implement a 32 bit bridge for fidelia, we'd both be in headphone heaven.


----------



## mrspeakers

Interesting footnote, sorry if somebody noted this already, but when Izotope came up in one of warriorant's posts, I followed it and noted that PureMusic uses the 64-bit SRC Izotope upsampler.  Nice...  The aliasing images are also very interesting.  I'd recalled I'd seen those a while back and lost the plot on where.  Good stuff.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





thrak said:


> thanks for the heads-up.  it seems my misconception came from VLCs ability to play qt video but it turns out it does this through the NPAPI plugin.  we learn something every day


 

 As an interesting note, PureMusic solved the format issue for FLAC a different way: they import a file with metadata that points to the actual FLAC file, so you don't have to bother with converting to ALAC.  I would guess other players that call the iTunes dB could do the same.  Do others?


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Just tried the SRS plugin. I get distortion whenever I move the volume slider up or down. Also, when setting it higher than standard I get distortion all the time.
> I listened to it a bit at low volume and it's just an effects thingy, as I said before, the opposite of what the other players try to accomplish.


 

 Could't stand it.  Met them at MacWorld and they kind of implied that it was meant for people with not-so-awesome headphones (not that they didn't try to sell to me anyhow).  I tried it with my JH16s and felt the sound was kind of gimmicky.


----------



## AppleheadMay

As an aside: I just found a great little app for people with multiple macs like a dedicated Music Server for example.
   
  It's called "Music Control" and is available from the App Store for a few bucks.
   
  What it does is:
  - It lets you control volume and, more important, playback from your menu bar.
  - It works with iTunes, Spotify and Rdio and lets you switch between them as well as search for music across all three of them
  - it does this from your Mac for your Mac or any remote Mac, like a Music Server without a screen
  Now if that isn't handy!
   
  You'll need *this* little bit of info to make it work across your network and you're set. Here is the *homepage*.
   
  Enjoy!


----------



## miceblue

I haven't been monitoring this thread, but I was wondering if anyone could suggest me a free music library manager similar to iTunes for FLAC files. I know Fluke exists, but whenever I import a FLAC file with Asian media tags, it imports with a "?" instead of the Asian characters, making it impossible to navigate through music files easily. I really like iTunes for its ability to organize all of your music files with simplicity, but I dislike the non-support of FLAC files and the extra features I don't need (Airplay, shared music, iTunes Store, etc.).




I've tried Songbird before, but I'm not a big fan of it. I've tried Clementine before but it sorts my music oddly (ie. categorizing a Lady Gaga album under 'unknown artist' even though all of the tags have an artist label of "Lady Gaga")

For playing FLAC files, my main media player is Audirvana Free, otherwise it's either VLC or Vox.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Maybe Songbook will work?
  It can act as a music server as well, but you can disable that.
  It will let you access your iTines libray as well.


----------



## geoffroyi

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> I was wondering if anyone could suggest me a free music library manager similar to iTunes for FLAC files.


 


  There's Enqueue and Sonora (which is still in development).
   
  (EDIT: Didn't notice you said _free _






)


----------



## AppleheadMay

Heh, neither did I apparently.
  Thanks for the tips, I'll check them out geoffroyi, might be interesting as well.
   
  For anyone interested, I'm using EyeConnect from Elgato as well.
  It's a non-intrusive server app for on your Mac that lets you stream to a network player.
  Works really well for music, video and photos and can convert the file formats not recognised by your player.
   
  Another program I use is AirFoil so I can stream music from Spotify around the house as well.
  Together with Music Control I mentioned above it's a blast.
   
  Any other iTunes/music related software out there not mentioned in this thread before?


----------



## moses195

So I got my money back for Fidelia(I needed play counts, etc.). Very simple process.
  I bought Bitperfect but need to EQ.
  Ordered a Nuforce Icon 2. Received it today. Plugged it in. Set it for 96/24. Fired up a song in iTunes. Checked EQ. And It WORKS perfectly. 
   
  For me with 320 kbp/s the Nuforce sounds just as good or better than Pure Music. And I've heard after burn in it'll sound better.
  So for what I needed $129 is an OK price for a product that doesn't interfere at all with iTunes and sounds really good to me. Plus I can run 2 speakers off the Nuforce for free.
   
  Up until 3 weeks ago I was happy with my music and Grado 80's. After finding Fidelia, my whole world has changed. I have spent 3 weeks learning. I now think I can enjoy listening instead if fiddling!
   
  Time will tell?
   
   
  Dana


----------



## liamstrain

I've had to revert to the 1.2.0b2 beta version of Fidelia - the more recent 3 versions have all been too unstable on my MacBook Pro running 10.6.8. 
   
  Still liking it though, even with the temporary need to keep running AHP for my plugins.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I just installed 1.0.2 r5 and it works fine.
  Running Lion though, latest version.


----------



## liamstrain

Yah, I have a feeling they are optimizing just for Lion in the new versions.


----------



## otinkyad

Hi all.  I've been following this thread and found it incredibly useful -- thanks to all!
   
  In another thread, I just posted my impressions of using Pure Music + Redline Monitor to make an Audeze LCD2 sound like a Hifiman HE-500 (I think).  After posting that thread, I realized that this thread might have been a better home for it.  If anyone would be interested in looking at that thread and giving comments either there or here, that would be great.  I hope I'm not breaching protocol, I didn't want to just replicate those posts here..
   
  The other thread is:
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/596408/audeze-lcd2-pure-music-redline-monitor-hifiman-he-500-sound#post_8154404
  Looking forward to any comments..


----------



## liamstrain

I love Redline's Monitor Crossfeed plugin (though I use it with Fidelia). I can't speak to it making the LCD 2 sound like another pair of headphones (in my experience, it makes headphones all sound like themselves, only with crossfeed *shrug*).


----------



## AppleheadMay

Thanks for the tip on the Redline crossfeed.
  Since it has a 60 day demo I downloaded it.
  I wonder how it compares to Fidelia's built in crossfeed.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Do I need the VST, DPM or Component plugin? For the DPM I don't even have the matching folder.
  It would be for use with Fidelia, Audirvana Plus and iTunes or standalone. Whatever is possibble.
  First time I use an audio plugin.


----------



## otinkyad

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Do I need the VST, DPM or Component plugin? For the DPM I don't even have the matching folder.
> It would be for use with Fidelia, Audirvana Plus and iTunes or standalone. Whatever is possibble.
> First time I use an audio plugin.


 

 I didn't have the DPM folder either, but copied both the VST and Component Redline plugins to their respective folders as indicated in the Redline dmg-mounted window.  It showed up in Pure Music.  Not sure about Fidelia but I think when I tried Fidelia some time ago (before I had Redline) it did find the Apple plugins, so hopefully it would find Redline as well.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Hmmm, I guess Fidelia should be VST.
  I can't find the plugin in Fidelia though, it only shows me Apple plugins when I click on the plugin buttons in the bottom.


----------



## liamstrain

Redline is still using 32bit - so Fidelia doesn't see it (64 bit only in the beta). I am hoping they implement a bit bridge. The AU is what you would be looking for. 
   
  I've been using Audio Hijack Pro to implement my plugins (since I use it for everything else anyway), rather than Fidelia's plug in rack. 
   
  I find Redline's monitor to be much better than the Fidelia Headphones crossfeed (more natural), and much more intuitive than Isone Pro or Canz3D (which I never really found satisfactory settings for).


----------



## otinkyad

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Hmmm, I guess Fidelia should be VST.
> I can't find the plugin in Fidelia though, it only shows me Apple plugins when I click on the plugin buttons in the bottom.


 

 Hmm, yes, I just tried with Fidelia again, and it didn't see Redline, although it does see the Apple plugins.  Not sure why it can't see Redline -- I'm not very experienced with plugins either.
   
  Edit: I also tried using the VSTAU installer but that didn't enable Fidelia to see Redline either.  I did use VSTAU successfully to install Isone Pro (now TB Isone).
   
  About the VSTAU installer: does anyone know how download it from google code?  I tried repeatedly, but google code wouldn't let me log in to download it.  I eventually used a cached copy I found elsewhere on the web.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Ah, ok, thanks for the info. I'll drop them a mail to find out when/if they're going to implement 64-bit.


----------



## liamstrain

Redline is supposedly working on 64 bit versions, but one of their core team members died this year and put many projects behind. An email would probably be a good thing to remind them we want it. 
   
  I think a bit bridge in Fidelia is probably the better bet in the short term.
   
  Another complicating factor - there is a rumor that apple will stop developing/supporting the Audio Unit component at some point... so the plugins world might get a bit crazy for a little while.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Hmmm, not always good new when it's coming from Apple.
  The new Mountain Lion does seem to have some nice features though, but nothing to do with audio.


----------



## otinkyad

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Redline is still using 32bit - so Fidelia doesn't see it (64 bit only in the beta). I am hoping they implement a bit bridge. The AU is what you would be looking for.
> 
> I've been using Audio Hijack Pro to implement my plugins (since I use it for everything else anyway), rather than Fidelia's plug in rack.
> 
> I find Redline's monitor to be much better than the Fidelia Headphones crossfeed (more natural), and much more intuitive than Isone Pro or Canz3D (which I never really found satisfactory settings for).


 

 +1 for preferring sound and intuitiveness of Redline over Isone Pro/TB Isone.  I did try using AHP + Redline but felt Pure Music worked better (some stuttering in AHP?)


----------



## liamstrain

Hmm - I've  never had any stuttering with Fidelia, AHP or any of my other sound programs (Soundbooth, ProTools, etc.), but I've never tried it with pure music... 
   
  But I'm running a Mb Pro with the i7 and 8gb ram, so it tends to plug on through most things anyway...


----------



## pigmode

I've twice has stuttering with Pure Music (trial). If they can't get a simple thing like that right, it didn't seem worth troubleshooting. Delete.


----------



## otinkyad

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> I've twice has stuttering with Pure Music (trial). If they can't get a simple thing like that right, it didn't seem worth troubleshooting. Delete.


 

 Interesting.  I've had PM (trial) running fine on one computer.  Today (since my last post) I installed on another computer (trial again) and got stuttering.  The I realized I was using the Anwida EQ that comes bundled with PM.  I turned it off, and used Apple's Graphic EQ instead, and no stuttering since then.
   
   
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Hmm - I've  never had any stuttering with Fidelia, AHP or any of my other sound programs (Soundbooth, ProTools, etc.), but I've never tried it with pure music...
> 
> But I'm running a Mb Pro with the i7 and 8gb ram, so it tends to plug on through most things anyway...


 

 My MBP config is actually identical to that.  Not sure why AHP was stuttering for me.  I'll try again.  I'd be interested in your opinion of PureMusic + Redline if you feel inclined to try the PM demo version.  (As you have AHP, you probably wouldn't buy PM, so I realize it may not make sense for you to even trial it.)


----------



## liamstrain

I just checked my applications folder and found Pure music (demo) - now expired. I remember now I hated the interface. And I did get what I assumed were memory related playback issues if I tried to use other memory intensive (photoshop/illustrator/indesign) software at the same time - which I must. 
   
  I don't think I'll retry with AHP, but my guess is Pure music hogs memory and running another background intensive application (like AHP) would only multiply that. 
   
  I will say, having demo'd Amarra as well as most all the other less expensive players (Play, Pure Music - apparently) - while all have offered _*very*_ _*slightly*_ better playback for me over iTunes, few have convinced me they are worth the cost and hassle - especially since I don't have a huge flac library, and alac or 320k mp3 are fine for 99% of my listening. Fidelia struck a good balance for me (cost/performance) without taking over my machine - since I need it to be a productive work machine as well as playback. 
   
  Just my $.02


----------



## AppleheadMay

No stuttering here as well which is normal since I'm using a full option top of the bill iMac, 16Gb, latest version.
  I always switch the load into memory option on.
  The only player I had problems with is Pure Music which gave me terrible distortion.


----------



## pigmode

2011 MBP with 8 GB ram. In my system Amarra usually does not run well with Safari. With Safari on top Amarra gives loud artifacts, the worst sounding like a .25" tape piling up on the rollers and heads before the last minute increase in speed before jamming. Chrome solves most of the issues, although
  its still crappy software.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I just checked my applications folder and found Pure music (demo) - now expired. I remember now I hated the interface. And I did get what I assumed were memory related playback issues if I tried to use other memory intensive (photoshop/illustrator/indesign) software at the same time - which I must.
> 
> I don't think I'll retry with AHP, but my guess is Pure music hogs memory and running another background intensive application (like AHP) would only multiply that.
> 
> ...


 


   
  Agree on all counts:
  - hating PM interface, but add distortion to that
  - very slightly SQ improvement, but audible nevertheless
  - Fidelia's p/p balance, though I still find it the better of all regardless price. And it's the first time I can really appreciate crossfade, even after having owned a Phonitor. And I hate apps that tend to take over my machine as well.
  - No Flac here, all Alac except from a very small number of AAC from the ITunes store.
   
   
  So ....  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   
   
   
  Edit: haven't ran Amarra yet, only installed and deleted it right away because of the 32-bit problem.
  Will not try it before it has 64-bit support.


----------



## otinkyad

So after reading the positive impressions of Fidelia, I've been trying it out again.  This time it pulled in the Redline plugin (possibly because I had installed the trial WaveEditor software from the same manufacturer, which seemed to do some plugin checking when it started up, and perhaps Fidelia reads that info).
   
  In any case, how do you enable Fidelia's crossfeed?  I think someone (liamstrain?) mentioned Fidelia having its own headphones crossfeed, but I haven't been able to figure out where it is (or perhaps I don't know what to look for).  I thought I'd compare it with Redline monitor.  Any info much appreciated!


----------



## AppleheadMay

It's in preferences under the FHX tab.
  You will only see it if you use the Beta version though, the regular version doesn't have it yet.
  You will also need to ask for Beta registration codes, the normal codes don't work.


----------



## liamstrain

And when you go to the beta, the 32bit processing that is letting you use Redline monitor, will go away.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Ah, good to know, I never had the regular version.


----------



## liamstrain

I prefer the beta, personally. But i did have to revert back to the Dec. 30th update for stability with my system.
   
  One warning, once I installed the beta, I was never able to fully revert to the full previous version - some files and prefs apparently wouldn't uninstall. So now I'm permanently on the beta track. Good thing I like it.


----------



## otinkyad

Thanks for the information, AppleheadMay and liamstrain!


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I prefer the beta, personally. But i did have to revert back to the Dec. 30th update for stability with my system.
> 
> One warning, once I installed the beta, I was never able to fully revert to the full previous version - some files and prefs apparently wouldn't uninstall. So now I'm permanently on the beta track. Good thing I like it.


 


   
  Maybe a tip on uninstalling stuff in OSX.
   
  First check if the app has an uninstaller. (usually in the dmg package the app came with, sometimes as a separate download on the website.)
  The I always uninstall apps by using an uninstaller like "CleanApp".
  After that is done I search in spotlight for both the app name and developer name in this way:
  - type the app or developer name in the spotlight search in the taskbar.
  - there, choose show all in finder
  - below the search field in finder click on the "+" button
  - in the fields that appear choose "system files" and "are included"
  - scroll through the list and manually delete any file associated with the name or developer
   
  That should delete all plist and other system files associated with the app, except for some rare apps that place truly hidden files in the root directory or base of library folders. In that case you would need an app like "Forklift" to reveal those, but that is not needed for Fidelia, I checked it.


----------



## Naim.F.C

So I've been comparing the hell out of iTunes, Pure Music, Amarra, Fidelia and Audirvana for a big software comparison thread I plan to write up. I'll just say that the differences are _extremely_ subtle. Highly finite and you almost wouldn't notice them unless you split second A/B'd like I've been doing lately, but still, differences do exist imo. You just have to concentrate _very_ hard to find them. I won't give too much away (don't want to spoil the fun!), but I'll just say that the results don't really necessarily correlate with the cost of these programmes. Even then, which you prefer may also come down to preference and audio set up (whether you're using tubes, solid state, warm, sharp etc).
   
  My favourite sort of depends on the music and my mood. One does seem to be the one that has the most realistic vocals, air, separation etc the majority of the time, in testing anyway, as a trade off, in place of some musicality and richness of the others. 
   
  A brilliant testing track is *Rene Aubry - Salento*. At the 20-30 second mark, the thicker strings on the right, I find there's an ever so very slight variance in the way the decay and detail in resonance is handled with the different software. Perhaps some of you would like to try for yourselves and see if you too notice any difference.


----------



## pigmode

Interesting. Although I haven't spent much time with Audirvana Plus, its earlier versions gave me the opposite impression. I find iTunes slightly bloated and given to a level of smearing.


----------



## DarknightDK

Looking forward to that comprehensive review.


----------



## floydstyle

sonora is a nice app as well.  My favorite to listen to music on my Macbook Pro


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> Interesting. Although I haven't spent much time with Audirvana Plus, its earlier versions gave me the opposite impression. I find iTunes slightly bloated and given to a level of smearing.


 


   
  Same here, of the ones I tested I found Audirvana Plus to be the second best after Fidelia.
  I do want to test Amarra Junior still, waiting for the 64-bit support.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Still going strong with Pure Music... I find it's sound to be at least on par with all the rest; and its feature set to be above most of the rest. It's probably the most solid code of all the products (imho).


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Distortion? That's very strange. Did you contact Rob at PM? He might have some ideas about that, although you might want to watch the db meter. If the track plays above 0db (shows red) you might be overdriving the inputs on your preamp/DAC. I've found some lesser quality CD's and even HD downloads to be recorded too high (i.e. the loudness issues/wars). 
   
  To see if that is the case, just lower the level (and lose a bit of resolution). If it's a HD recording, it's probably not a big deal, and I doubt you'd notice a difference with CD quality either. In most cases one or two db is all that's needed to fix it. 
   
  Just my .02 cents. 
  
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> No stuttering here as well which is normal since I'm using a full option top of the bill iMac, 16Gb, latest version.
> I always switch the load into memory option on.
> The only player I had problems with is Pure Music which gave me terrible distortion.


----------



## Mortone

I have been listening to various Demo of alternatives to the iTunes, and found *Amarra* to have the best layering of sound, but Fidelia in its basic form matches it closely sonically, but no layering. However, Audirvana has a more define detailed bass on some difficult music, but a mushy high end. I am using an iMac loaded with WAV files played through a NuForce udac-2, or a Benchmark on loan from a friend, and listening on Beyer 770 and Sen 600. I listen to mostly world music (Celtic, Turkish, North African, Middle Eastern, and Japanese) English folk revival groups, and Russian and Romanian (women) choir  music.
   
  I am still listening and testing, and want to know if anyone using these programs can suggest settings I might try. Also, has anyone listen to the Fidelia with the fifty dollar add on? What does it do?


----------



## MatsudaMan

Just started listening to my music collection through Decibel.  So far, it's by far my favorite non-iTunes player.  IMO, much more transparent and detailed than PureMusic and way better than in all aspects to Bitperfect.  BTW, I'm using Nuforce Icon-2 with Energy Veritas Mini speakers and listening primarily to Classical (symphonic and chamber) and some Jazz and Bluegrass.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Quote: 





mortone said:


> I have been listening to various Demo of alternatives to the iTunes, and found *Amarra* to have the best layering of sound, but Fidelia in its basic form matches it closely sonically, but no layering. However, Audirvana has a more define detailed bass on some difficult music, but a mushy high end. I am using an iMac loaded with WAV files played through a NuForce udac-2, or a Benchmark on loan from a friend, and listening on Beyer 770 and Sen 600. I listen to mostly world music (Celtic, Turkish, North African, Middle Eastern, and Japanese) English folk revival groups, and Russian and Romanian (women) choir  music.
> 
> I am still listening and testing, and want to know if anyone using these programs can suggest settings I might try. Also, has anyone listen to the Fidelia with the fifty dollar add on? What does it do?


 
   
  I have both Fidelia with the Advanced module and Audirvana Plus.  My pathway is Macbook optical out > Nuforce HDP > HD 600
   
  I had originally bought Fidelia and really enjoyed it until I got Audirvana Plus.  To me it sounds much more organic.  Fidelia seems to have a better soundstage but it does not compare to the smoothness of Audirvana.  
   
  To Mortone, Fidelia Advanced seems to add give more air to each of the pieces creating a more succinct soundstage.  Tonal balance doesn't seem to be affected except for slightly tighter bass.  It also adds features such as Hog Mode, and Memory play.  Hog Mode "hogs" the computers audio so while your listening notifications or sounds will not interrupt the music, it supposedly improves sound quality as well but I can't hear a difference with my setup.  Memory play is a nice feature, this one definitely increases the quality of sound providing a smoother sound.  There are also settings for the isotope dithering if that interests you.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I tried them all and settled on PureMusic. With my DNA Sonett, W4S DAC-2 and AP2 S/PDIF transport/PurePower battery supply, the results are simply musical.


----------



## AppleheadMay

For me I am still using BitPerfect, Audirvana Plus and Fidelia Advanced.
   
  PureMusic: didn't like the interface at all and as said before I had quite heavy distortion, don't know what's the cause but I like stuff to work right out of the box. Didn't look into i t any further since I don't like the interface anyway.
   
  Amarra: no 64-bit support yet, seriously Sonic Studio? If I buy that and have to wait for a year every time a new version of OSX is out I'd go nuts. And no, I see no good reason why I should run my 64-bit iTunes in 32-bit mode.
   
  BitPerfect: pretty good sound for it's price but on occasion the music starts stuttering. I try it again whenever there is an update though.
   
  Audirvana: best overall I think, wider soundsatge, nicely clear and detailed.
   
  Fidelia: my previous favorite, smoother sound than Audirvana which is quite pleasing to me actually. I loved their FHX headphone processing untill it got screwed up somewhere in the Beta. Today the first full release of the FHX processor came out, I bought it right away but it's still messed up. It used to give better positioning and made the mids a bit more prominent. Now it does exactly the opposite and actually messes up the soundstage completely.
   
  I seem to have the same favorite player as Jmstrmbn but hear the opposite sound from the last two players.
  My setup is iMac USB - Vaunix Lab Brick - Teac UD-H01 - Luxman P-1u or Zana Deux.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Too bad about the distortion... it sounds like the output was overdriving the inputs on your pre/amp. 
   
  Was thinking about trying the Vaunix on the supply side of the AP PurePower battery PS, so that the rest of the system--not just the clocks--was as clean as possible. Not sure if it would make a difference since the lil' hub I use (the newertechnology USB hub) is powered by the BPT 3.5 Signature Plus isolation transformer. I'm probably near diminishing returns... 
   
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> For me I am still using BitPerfect, Audirvana Plus and Fidelia Advanced.
> 
> PureMusic: didn't like the interface at all and as said before I had quite heavy distortion, don't know what's the cause but I like stuff to work right out of the box. Didn't look into i t any further since I don't like the interface anyway.
> 
> My setup is iMac USB - Vaunix Lab Brick - Teac UD-H01 - Luxman P-1u or Zana Deux.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Too bad about the distortion... it sounds like the output was overdriving the inputs on your pre/amp.
> 
> Was thinking about trying the Vaunix on the supply side of the AP PurePower battery PS, so that the rest of the system--not just the clocks--was as clean as possible. Not sure if it would make a difference since the lil' hub I use (the newertechnology USB hub) is powered by the BPT 3.5 Signature Plus isolation transformer. I'm probably near diminishing returns...


 
   
  I guess you are yes. TBH I don't hear a difference with or without the hub. I bought it because I had 2 dacs at that time + the SB Recon. It's pretty well built for a hub though.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Amarra: no 64-bit support yet, seriously Sonic Studio? If I buy that and have to wait for a year every time a new version of OSX is out I'd go nuts. And no, I see no good reason why I should run my 64-bit iTunes in 32-bit mode.


 
   
  Please do yourself a favour by running the Amarra in the independent mode (without iTunes) and add tracks to the Amarra playlist and play solely via Amarra itself. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  The sound far bests any other players I have - I have Audirvana Plus, Fidelia and Decibel and they cannot come close to the Amarra SQ when songs are played via the Amarra playlist.
   
   
  When songs are played on Amarra with iTunes integration, the SQ takes a deep plunge.
  With iTunes integration, I find Audirvana Plus to be better than Amarra but no way close to when Amarra is running independently.
   
  A downside to the Amarra playlist is that it is still very clunky and slow. Lack of library management is a big minus as well. But they can be forgiven when music starts playing =)


----------



## mrspeakers

rdr. seraphim said:


> Too bad about the distortion... it sounds like the output was overdriving the inputs on your pre/amp.
> 
> Was thinking about trying the Vaunix on the supply side of the AP PurePower battery PS, so that the rest of the system--not just the clocks--was as clean as possible. Not sure if it would make a difference since the lil' hub I use (the newertechnology USB hub) is powered by the BPT 3.5 Signature Plus isolation transformer. I'm probably near diminishing returns...




No guarantee but it may be this...

Pure Music's volume control can increase signal output above 0db reference, which overloaded my Dac and caused distortion. Just set the volume to 0db and all will probably be well.

There's a toggle that limits peak output to 0db, which I use, problem solved permanently.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> No guarantee but it may be this...
> Pure Music's volume control can increase signal output above 0db reference, which overloaded my Dac and caused distortion. Just set the volume to 0db and all will probably be well.
> There's a toggle that limits peak output to 0db, which I use, problem solved permanently.


 
   
  I remember that slider yes. Is there any way to disable the volume control in Pure Music?
   
   
  Quote: 





uelover said:


> Please do yourself a favour by running the Amarra in the independent mode (without iTunes) and add tracks to the Amarra playlist and play solely via Amarra itself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I think only the full version has the playlist, not Amarra Mini?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I think only the full version has the playlist, not Amarra Mini?


 
   
  Never use the mini before but from the website it says that it has the playlist (Drag/Drop to playlist without iTunes)
   
  Even the one in the screenshot shows the playlist function button (center button below the LED display):
   

   
  http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarramini.html


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I remember that slider yes. Is there any way to disable the volume control in Pure Music?


 
   
  No idea what I did to do that. Nothing jumped out.  But just remember not to go over 0, and you are golden.  I upsample to 176.8 for all my lossless CDs and it's just amazing on a good DAC.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Never use the mini before but from the website it says that it has the playlist (Drag/Drop to playlist without iTunes)
> 
> Even the one in the screenshot shows the playlist function button (center button below the LED display):
> 
> ...


 
   
  Ok, I will ask for a new trial then since I used mine up already.
   



mrspeakers said:


> No idea what I did to do that. Nothing jumped out.  But just remember not to go over 0, and you are golden.  I upsample to 176.8 for all my lossless CDs and it's just amazing on a good DAC.


 
   
  I might have messed with that slider indeed. I always put very software volume control on maximum which would have been over 0 in the case of PM. Another one to try out then. Will be in a day or 10 before I can do that in a serious way though, a bit too much on my plate atm.
   
  I am between Dacs for the moment, Marantz will be releasing a lot of new stuff at the High-End show in Munich over the next 3 days so I am waiting what they will come up with. There will probably be a version of the NA7004 in their Premium Range and something called "Consolette" which is said to be the interface between a high-end amp and the new media types. Really curious as I am rather fond of Marantz gear.
   
  Right now I am using a cheap Dac, the TEAC UD-H01 which is amazingly good I must admit.


----------



## rosgr63

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Right now I am using a cheap Dac, the TEAC UD-H01 which is amazingly good I must admit.


 
   
  Cheap does not necessarily mean bad IMHO.


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Ok, I will ask for a new trial then since I used mine up already.
> 
> 
> I might have messed with that slider indeed. I always put very software volume control on maximum which would have been over 0 in the case of PM. Another one to try out then. Will be in a day or 10 before I can do that in a serious way though, a bit too much on my plate atm.
> ...


 
   
   Amarra MINI has an integrated playlist, while Amarra (Full) has a separate playlist window. I have the latter. Hope this helps!


----------



## drunkn

Just a sanity check, but if one uses a usb or optical output does the music player really matter? Am I missing something?


----------



## liamstrain

The player software still includes a layer of decoding/processing - especially with any of the compressed formats (mp3/aac/alac/flac) - so you want one that does its best to push the audio data out cleanly.


----------



## drunkn

Ah got it thanks for info, yeah I guess I should look into an alternative if does make a difference .


----------



## liamstrain

In my experience, it is a subtle (but noticeable with better recordings) difference.
   
  For most listening (especially while at work and running a lot of memory intensive graphics programs), I still use iTunes and feed through audio hijack pro, to control any eq and crossfeed. I have no complaints about this set up. 
   
  For my better recordings (high resolution files and really well mastered recordings), and dedicated listening time, I'll run through Fidelia. For me, Fidelia was the trifecta - better sonic performance, stable programming with a great interface, more than reasonable price.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Ok, I will ask for a new trial then since I used mine up already.


 
   
  Quote: 





silent one said:


> Amarra MINI has an integrated playlist, while Amarra (Full) has a separate playlist window. I have the latter. Hope this helps!


 
   
  AppleheadMay, why don't you request for a trial for the full version instead? I am not sure what an integrated playlist is but if that implies a detriment to the SQ, going for the full version trial may be more meaningful.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





rosgr63 said:


> Cheap does not necessarily mean bad IMHO.


 
  Certainly not and the TEAC proves that.
  There's another mid-level Dac people seem to be fond about, the Onkyo DAC1000. Slightly higher priced but still affordable.
  Quote: 





uelover said:


> AppleheadMay, why don't you request for a trial for the full version instead? I am not sure what an integrated playlist is but if that implies a detriment to the SQ, going for the full version trial may be more meaningful.


 
   
  Quote: 





silent one said:


> Amarra MINI has an integrated playlist, while Amarra (Full) has a separate playlist window. I have the latter. Hope this helps!


 
   
  Well, I would like to see how the integrated playlist works.
  And there's the huge price different for not all that much extra.
  If Amarra is indeed the endgame player for me and if they had quick updating whenever a new version of OSX came out the price would be less of a concern to me.
  I think if I go for Amarra I would start with the Mini and I can always upgrade to full at a later time.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> In my experience, it is a subtle (but noticeable with better recordings) difference.
> 
> For most listening (especially while at work and running a lot of memory intensive graphics programs), I still use iTunes and feed through audio hijack pro, to control any eq and crossfeed. I have no complaints about this set up.
> 
> For my better recordings (high resolution files and really well mastered recordings), and dedicated listening time, I'll run through Fidelia. For me, Fidelia was the trifecta - better sonic performance, stable programming with a great interface, more than reasonable price.


 
   
  Have you tried the Fidelia FHX upgrade?
  I wonder if I am the only one having a problem with the headphone processing since it used to be really good before.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Have you tried the Fidelia FHX upgrade?
> I wonder if I am the only one having a problem with the headphone processing since it used to be really good before.


 
   
  No. I was having stability issues with the beta's so I've been sticking with my previous full version and using an external crossfeed plugin via AHP (redline monitor).


----------



## Jmstrmbn

During the beta I thought the FHX seemed to boost the mids too much for my liking, now it appears they tried to fix that and reduced them too much.


----------



## devkerr

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> During the beta I thought the FHX seemed to boost the mids too much for my liking, now it appears they tried to fix that and reduced them too much.


 

 Hi Jmstrmbn,
   
  I just wanted to assure you that the sonics of FHX have not changed from the beta to the release version. There was a change made to ensure that no digital clipping could occur regardless of the 'Crossfeed' or 'Equalization' settings, so I suspect what you are hearing is simply the change in volume when FHX is enabled.
   
  If you want to hear what the crossfeed is doing in a level-matched way, I suggest moving the 'Amount' slider from 0% -> 100%, instead of toggling FHX On/Off. Assuming you have the 'Equalization' set flat, FHX has no effect at 0%.
   
  Also, website is now updated with more info on FHX: http://aeng.me/fidelia
   
  Hope this helps!
  - Devin


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Thanks for clearing that up.  I just tried to match the settings you posted above and its a very natural sound.  Definitely an improvement over the settings I had been using.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I downloaded the new 2.4 version a few weeks ago and it works while iTunes is running in 64-bits now.
  The SQ is indeed really good though I haven't done any real comparing lately.
  I like it's versatility of iTunes integration or playlist and the ability to play and convert from and to FLAC.
  I got the new version of Amarra at $200 by the way, with two extra seats at $60.
  I'm pretty happy with my purchase and only hope they'll have fast upgrades when a new OS comes out and they'll develop a 64-bit version of Amarra as well in the future.
   
  One thing I miss though is the FHX I had in Fidelia, at least the way it used to work before the full version and last few Beta releases. I still get the reverse effect of what I used to get when I enable it in the full version I bought. But since others don't have it I think I'll need to delete it completely, reboot and reinstall it, maybe that'll solve the problem. Didn't really get to it yet.
   
  So I'll try that over the weekend and maybe compare a little between the three the next weekend.
   
   
  Quote: 





uelover said:


> Please do yourself a favour by running the Amarra in the independent mode (without iTunes) and add tracks to the Amarra playlist and play solely via Amarra itself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I downloaded the new 2.4 version a few weeks ago and it works while iTunes is running in 64-bits now.
> The SQ is indeed really good though I haven't done any real comparing lately.
> I like it's versatility of iTunes integration or playlist and the ability to play and convert from and to FLAC.
> *I got the new version of Amarra at $200 by the way, with two extra seats at $60*.
> I'm pretty happy with my purchase and only hope they'll have fast upgrades when a new OS comes out and they'll develop a 64-bit version of Amarra as well in the future.


 
   
  Amarra full version at $200!! *bangs head against wall*
   
  I love iTunes integration but I don't find its SQ anywhere near fantastic. That is after you have heard it in the independent mode.
   
  I agree that practically, it is a painful way to listen to music, which is why I use Audirvana Plus more often when I am lazy. Lol.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Yep, you now have Amarra Hifi at $49, Amarra at $189 (for one license, add $60 per extra license) and Amarra Symphony at $495 with 2 licenses included and some extra EQ or meters I don't need. You can upgrade for free to the latter one I think. The last two versions all have up to 384k.
   
  It's great though to have both iTunes integration and the playlist in one app. One for casual listening, one for serious listening. I'll try to compare the three apps a bit in a week or two over the weekend.


----------



## fordski

I'm currently evaluating the trial version of Fidelia vs the Amarra setup I bought a couple of moths ago (Thankfully I got the Mini version on a promotion rate and then was able to upgrade to full Amarra when they changed their pricing!)
   
  What has attracted me to Fidelia is the FHX feature for headphone listening and after much time comparing was finding that I was leaning towards Fidelia with FHX enabled as my favourite when compared to Amarra. Part of me was in denial about that as I really don't want to spend another at $70 (20 for the basic plus 50 for the FHX option).
   
  So I thought I'd enlist my wife to help me out and had her listen to both the Amarra and the Fidelia.  Interestingly the first words out of her  mouth were, "This sounds just like your old stereo room" when listening to the FHX enabled Fidelia. (I  sold all my gear as we recently moved out of the country) She definitely preferred the Fidelia with FHXnwhen it came to the emotional impact of the music. She basically confirmed my own feelings without any bias as she didn't even know what she was comparing.
   
  Related equipment is MAC Book Air, M2Tech Hiface 2, Red Wine Isabellina with pro DAC and balanced out, LCD-2 Headphones. Files were Apple Lossless 44/16...
   
  I am only able to evaluate these players for headphone listening so cannot offer any comments re speakers.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Amarra 2.4 sounds great - my Macbook Pro > Optical > Pefectwave DAC is now pretty close in sound to the NAS > Bridge > Perfectwave DAC.  As before, some songs or material responds better to Amarra than others, but overall I'm impressed.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Why not via USB? Might beat the bridge.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Why not via USB? Might beat the bridge.


 
   
  My USB Cable might be bad, but I was getting no sound from it - I haven't used USB in like a year.  Blutarsky was over visiting to listen to my KGBH > SR-009 and I had to get something working right away for him, before he left for Washington DC. So we switched to optical.  Plus, mine is a Mk1 and if I'm reading things correctly, people feel that Mk2 USB is better?  I can't upgrade it for another couple of months (college tuition is kicking my butt).


----------



## AppleheadMay

Wasn't the MkI 96/24 USB and the new one 192/24? Don't remember anymore, it has been a while since I had one. I bought it for streaming via the Bridge as Alac compatibility was promised but never came so I sold it.
  For the rest I have only used my Dacs via USB. From what I read this should be the best connection method.


----------



## Curly21029

Just a quick note, the addition of direct mode (albeit still in beta form) has prompted me to give Audirvana another shot.  Without direct enabled, I prefer both Amarra (in playlist) and Pure Music. (integer mode)  With direct mode, Audirvana beats both of them in terms of instrument separation and soundstaging.  I've been using Audirvana Plus with direct/integer/memory for the majority of my listening over the past week and switching back to either Amarra or PM causes a noticeable loss in overall clarity.  I do still have an affection for Amarra's warmth, but Audirvana's other sonic advantages combined with much better functionality means that it's quickly becoming my primary music player.


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





curly21029 said:


> I do still have an affection for Amarra's warmth, but Audirvana's other sonic advantages combined with much better functionality means that it's quickly becoming my primary music player.


 
   
  The Audirvana Plus can sound as warm (if not warmer) with the appropriate audio filtering settings.


----------



## Curly21029

Quote: 





uelover said:


> The Audirvana Plus can sound as warm (if not warmer) with the appropriate audio filtering settings.


 
   
  Interesting.  I can't say that I've ever dug into that portion of the settings.  Since I've found that these types of "enhancements" can often do more harm than good in these software-based players, do you have any recommendations?


----------



## fordski

Quote: 





curly21029 said:


> Just a quick note, the addition of direct mode (albeit still in beta form) has prompted me to give Audirvana another shot.  Without direct enabled, I prefer both Amarra (in playlist) and Pure Music. (integer mode)  With direct mode, Audirvana beats both of them in terms of instrument separation and soundstaging.  I've been using Audirvana Plus with direct/integer/memory for the majority of my listening over the past week and switching back to either Amarra or PM causes a noticeable loss in overall clarity.  I do still have an affection for Amarra's warmth, but Audirvana's other sonic advantages combined with much better functionality means that it's quickly becoming my primary music player.


 
  Your post has prompted me to try it again as well. Thanks. One of the benefits of a new computer is I can restart the trial period as mine had expired. I'm currently in the process of evaluating Fidelia with the FHX headphone processing as well, something I've come to enjoy quite a lot compared to Amarra, which i currently own. 
   
  I do quite like the direct mode and agree with your comments re sound staging, which was also one of the things I liked about Fidelia with FHX enabled. I currently own Amarra so I keep wanting to like it more, but I am drawn to Fidelia for the headphone processing as it seems more natural and Audirvana has now earned a spot in the evaluation with direct mode. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## Curly21029

Quote: 





fordski said:


> Your post has prompted me to try it again as well. Thanks. One of the benefits of a new computer is I can restart the trial period as mine had expired. I'm currently in the process of evaluating Fidelia with the FHX headphone processing as well, something I've come to enjoy quite a lot compared to Amarra, which i currently own.
> 
> I do quite like the direct mode and agree with your comments re sound staging, which was also one of the things I liked about Fidelia with FHX enabled. I currently own Amarra so I keep wanting to like it more, but I am drawn to Fidelia for the headphone processing as it seems more natural and Audirvana has now earned a spot in the evaluation with direct mode. Thanks for the tip.


 
   
  I've also been tinkering with Fidelia since they've introduced the FHX processing.  It's plenty competent without it enabled utilizing exclusive/hog mode and memory playback, and an audible step up from previous versions that I found to sound too... digital. (best way that I could describe it)  However, I admittedly couldn't settings with FHX that I found pleasing and the way that it cuts a track short that has near-silence at the end can be intrusive to the flow of an album.  Any settings to share that you found particularly pleasing with FHX?


----------



## uelover

Quote: 





curly21029 said:


> Interesting.  I can't say that I've ever dug into that portion of the settings.  Since I've found that these types of "enhancements" can often do more harm than good in these software-based players, do you have any recommendations?


 
   
  You can explore around when you are free. =)
   
  Oh a side note, thanks to your information I have just updated my Audirvana Plus to the beta version with direct mode and I have to agree that it indeed sounded great! Not sure if it is placebo but whatever it is, it sounds great and that is what that matters.
   
  Been wanting to try out Fidelia with FHX but it is pretty costly.


----------



## fordski

Quote: 





curly21029 said:


> I've also been tinkering with Fidelia since they've introduced the FHX processing.  It's plenty competent without it enabled utilizing exclusive/hog mode and memory playback, and an audible step up from previous versions that I found to sound too... digital. (best way that I could describe it)  However, I admittedly couldn't settings with FHX that I found pleasing and the way that it cuts a track short that has near-silence at the end can be intrusive to the flow of an album.  Any settings to share that you found particularly pleasing with FHX?


 
  I'm using these setting, speaker angle 3degrees and amount of 50%.  I haven't changed the bass or treble settings at all. The jury is still out as to which I prefer.  I did have my wife try it as well and her reaction was that the Fidelia FHX sounded more like listening to my old stereo system with speakers. I'm really liking the Audirvana with the Direct and Integer modes enables with my Hiface 2. With some recordings I do find the Fidelia seems a little laid back but I think that's a result of the headphone processing creating a more open sound field. For me right now it seems to be music dependent as to which I prefer (I also own Amarra), although I could live with and enjoy any one of these processors. How's that for a committed answer.....


----------



## Curly21029

...and now all versions of Amarra have been updated.  More comparative listening to do, I suppose.


----------



## AppleheadMay

If I ever get to it. Summertime, bad time for headphones.


----------



## jjacq

Just installed Clementine. Love it more than audirvana for some reason. I'm so glad I found this thread .


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





jjacq said:


> Just installed Clementine. Love it more than audirvana for some reason. I'm so glad I found this thread .


 
   
  Clementine is more like iTunes whereas Audirvana is more like [the old version of] VLC (for music at least).
   
  I prefer Audirvana just because I found it to have better sound quality than Clementine, but I can see the appeal for Clementine. I keep all of my music in organized folders, so Clementine isn't as useful for me as it is for some people.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I had never heard of Clementine.
  Now we're taking about iTunes replacements, has anyone ever tried Plex for music?
  How's the SQ?
  I'm thinking of starting with a Mac Mini as media server when the new ones come out so it would be nice if Plex can do it all.
  I wouldn't use iTunes for that since I'm ripping all my DVDs as Video_TS folders.


----------



## miceblue

I know this isn't the right thread, but I have a quick question.
   
  I've been using Exact Audio Copy for ripping music CD's. Today, in Mac OS X, I opened the CD in Finder and noticed that one can just copy/paste the AIFF files from the CD to the hard drive.
   
  What's the difference between accurately ripping a CD (via EAC on Windows or XLD on Mac), which can take a while depending on the settings, and just copying/pasting the files from the CD itself?


----------



## MtnSloth

Typically one rips a CD to a compressed lossless (e.g. ALAC, FLAC) or lossy (AAC, MP3) audio file. The CD native AIFF files are uncompressed. In theory, there should be no difference between the decoded lossless file and the original uncompressed AIFF. I don't think I hear a difference on any of my systems.
   
  AAC/MP3 encoded files may sound different from the original AIFF as the encoding process for AAC/MP3 does throw out data. AAC/MP3 proponents argue that nothing noticeable is lost in the process. Some hear no difference; others do.
   
  Apologies if you are only asking about Accurate Rip as I am not sure how EAC does that. I use dBpoweramp and it has an identical (or at least similarly named feature), but I don't recall the details of how it works - and I'm too lazy to look it up.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





mtnsloth said:


> Typically one rips a CD to a compressed lossless (e.g. ALAC, FLAC) or lossy (AAC, MP3) audio file. The CD native AIFF files are uncompressed. In theory, there should be no difference between the decoded lossless file and the original uncompressed AIFF. I don't think I hear a difference on any of my systems.
> 
> AAC/MP3 encoded files may sound different from the original AIFF as the encoding process for AAC/MP3 does throw out data. AAC/MP3 proponents argue that nothing noticeable is lost in the process. Some hear no difference; others do.
> 
> Apologies if you are only asking about Accurate Rip as I am not sure how EAC does that. I use dBpoweramp and it has an identical (or at least similarly named feature), but I don't recall the details of how it works - and I'm too lazy to look it up.


 
   
  Ah okay, thanks.
   
   
  Relating back to Mac OS X music players, why is it that different music players have different sound-qualities even with external DAC/amps? Shouldn't the external DAC/amp bypass all of the processing done in the computer? :S
   
  For example, Audirvana + FiiO E7 still sounds much better than VLC + FiioE7.


----------



## liamstrain

Resource allocation is one factor.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Resource allocation is one factor.


 
   
  Sorry, could you elaborate on this.


----------



## liamstrain

Any program needs certain resources from the computer - audio ports, memory, processing power, etc. How a program manages that, can affect its performance and sound - for instance, a program designed to play nicely with a lot of other programs running, may not take full advantage of the computers resources (since it wants to share with your web browser, and image editor, and word processor, etc without causing anything to bog down) - this program is convenient, but may not sound as good as one with really grabs resources and devotes them to the task (at the expense of other computer processes).


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Any program needs certain resources from the computer - audio ports, memory, processing power, etc. How a program manages that, can affect its performance and sound - for instance, a program designed to play nicely with a lot of other programs running, may not take full advantage of the computers resources (since it wants to share with your web browser, and image editor, and word processor, etc without causing anything to bog down) - this program is convenient, but may not sound as good as one with really grabs resources and devotes them to the task (at the expense of other computer processes).


 
   
  I see. I guess that makes sense. Thanks for the info.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I just got a mail from Amarra. They're doing a "Bring a friend" action.
  I can give someone a link so that they can buy the $189 Amarra player for $59. Nice savings if you ask me.
  If someone is interested drop me a PM with your email so I can forward the mail with link to you.
   
  Only one condition: no brand new members please.
   
   
   
  EDIT: Gone ...


----------



## snapple10

PM sent. I will love to try it out.


----------



## AppleheadMay

It's yours.


----------



## paradoxper

That would be nice until your friend gets pissed at you over the frustrations of Amarra's constant bugs.


----------



## snapple10

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> It's yours.


 
  Thanks!


----------



## AppleheadMay

Works flawelssy over here on Lion since version 2.4 and SQ wise it beats the other three I have by a margin.
  Wasn't a fan of v2.3 either though.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Works flawelssy over here on Lion since version 2.4 and SQ wise it beats the other three I have by a margin.
> Wasn't a fan of v2.3 either though.


 
  Stil on SL here, just despise Lion. Will wait for ML though. Funny thing is plenty of people complain about how buggy it still is on Lion.
  Wish Amarra would step up their game!


----------



## snapple10

playing FLAC on my MAC, sweet!


----------



## OmarCCX

I use Fidelia when I really want to sit back and just listen to music, if I only want to listen to a quick song I'll switch to Decibel. I upgraded to ML and both work flawlessly.
  Also tried the latest version of amarra and it was very buggy.


----------



## gilency

How do you install plugins in Fidelia using Mountain Lion?


  The Library folder is not visible the usual way.
  Never mind. From the mouth of children I learn...
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTGVNH7N7uk


----------



## AppleheadMay

Click on "Go" in the finder menu bar and press option, you'll see "Library" appear.


----------



## jsplice

Just downloaded the trials of both Amarra and Fidelia.  Amarra's interface is atrocious, so that one is out of the question.  Fidelia seems fairly nice, especially for the price.  I wish this "player" wasn't so huge though; I've only got a MacBook 13 inch, and it takes up almost half the screen.  I don't see a way to resize it either.
   
  As far as sound quality, I don't really notice a difference between any of them.  I was using Audirvana free, but apparently it's busted after I upgraded to Mountain Lion.


----------



## gilency

You should be able to resize Fidelia under the view menu


----------



## Jmstrmbn

try the audirvana plus beta that's currently out.  IMHO it beats fidelia in every now including soundstage which, to me, has always been fidelia's strong point
   
  I do own both btw.


----------



## miceblue

Speaking of Audirvana, what exactly does Integer Mode do? I've read that Lion doesn't support it. Is that a bad thing?


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> Speaking of Audirvana, what exactly does Integer Mode do? I've read that Lion doesn't support it. Is that a bad thing?


 
   
  http://www.amr-audio.co.uk/large_image/MAC%20OSX%20audio%20players%20&%20Integer%20Mode.pdf


----------



## jsplice

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> try the audirvana plus beta that's currently out.  IMHO it beats fidelia in every now including soundstage which, to me, has always been fidelia's strong point
> 
> I do own both btw.


 
   
  Audirvana and Fidelia both use Integer Mode, so I would think the sound would be practically the same, unless you're using some of the equalization or crossfeed functions of Fidelia.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

integer mode is supported again and you can download the beta for free
   
  fidelia and audirvana plus imho sound totally different with the latter providing a smoother sound.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





currawong said:


> http://www.amr-audio.co.uk/large_image/MAC%20OSX%20audio%20players%20&%20Integer%20Mode.pdf


 

 Ah thank you for the resource *Currawong*, that was really useful. Now I understand, at a much more detailed level, why Audirvana [free] sounds so much better than other music players I use (Clementine and iTunes).


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> integer mode is supported again and you can download the beta for free
> 
> fidelia and audirvana plus imho sound totally different with the latter providing a smoother sound.


 
   
  Might have to give this a go. In case anyone can't find the link for the Audirvana Plus beta with direct mode: http://audirvana.com/?p=304


----------



## Jmstrmbn

let me know what you think.  Unitl I tried the most recent beta I thought fidelia and audirvana plus were about the same.  Now the only reason I switch over to fidelia are the plugins, which are coming in 1.4 or 1.5 of audirvana plus


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> Speaking of Audirvana, what exactly does Integer Mode do? I've read that Lion doesn't support it. Is that a bad thing?


 
  First you have to ensure your dac supports it.


----------



## sferic

Thanks to this thread I've gone whole hog into Fidelia. You can try out the whole thing free for 15 days, but wallets beware...
   
  First off, ANYTHING is better than iTunes. Have been using Audirvana, and then Aurdirvana Plus for ages. GREAT upgrade, and a great deal. However, the iTunes integration is a bit clunky, and for the past several versions, if you "disable completely" iTunes playback, it will hose QT movie playback. Maybe not a big deal for most, and you just disable that and its fine. But it's a problem if you like to watch video and listen to unrelated music (a weird habit I've had since I was a teen). I do think Audirvana Plus is fantastic, and an incredible bargain.
   
  Fidelia, though, hooked me. The SQ does sound better to me. I did a lot of ABing with Audirvana and there are more details. And the iPhone remote is killer for me. That said, basic ($20) plus Advanced ($50) plus FHX ($50) plus the remote ($10), if you get bitten, your talking $130 for the full package. That said, in audiophile terms, I can't remember the last time $130 got me such a nice upgrade to my computer audio setup. 
   
  Fidelia's iTunes integration is very elegant. The player is elegant. The FHX is subtle but quite amazing. It adds a natural feel to the sound that's hard to describe, definitely takes the edge off.
   
  And the iPhone app means I don't have to click on windows to find new music, skip tracks, etc. 
   
  I have no need to add in AU effects, but if you're into that, there are 4 busses available. Awesome.
   
  I really like their model of being able to try it, and add features ala carte. 
   
  I'm running Mt. Lion, Schitt Lyr/Bifrost, and LCD-2 rev2 / PS 1000's. 
   
  I'm hooked.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Quote: 





sferic said:


> Thanks to this thread I've gone whole hog into Fidelia. You can try out the whole thing free for 15 days, but wallets beware...
> 
> First off, ANYTHING is better than iTunes. Have been using Audirvana, and then Aurdirvana Plus for ages. GREAT upgrade, and a great deal. However, the iTunes integration is a bit clunky, and for the past several versions, if you "disable completely" iTunes playback, it will hose QT movie playback. Maybe not a big deal for most, and you just disable that and its fine. But it's a problem if you like to watch video and listen to unrelated music (a weird habit I've had since I was a teen). I do think Audirvana Plus is fantastic, and an incredible bargain.
> 
> ...


 
  I also enjoy Fidelia, I have yet to take the FHX plunge but based on the 2 week trial it will be my main player when/if I drop the dough.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





sferic said:


> Thanks to this thread I've gone whole hog into Fidelia. You can try out the whole thing free for 15 days, but wallets beware...
> 
> First off, ANYTHING is better than iTunes. Have been using Audirvana, and then Aurdirvana Plus for ages. GREAT upgrade, and a great deal. However, the iTunes integration is a bit clunky, and for the past several versions, if you "disable completely" iTunes playback, it will hose QT movie playback. Maybe not a big deal for most, and you just disable that and its fine. But it's a problem if you like to watch video and listen to unrelated music (a weird habit I've had since I was a teen). I do think Audirvana Plus is fantastic, and an incredible bargain.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Hm, you've got me interested now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I'm using Audirvana [free] at the moment and I think it's a pretty fantastic player for playing less than 10 songs at a time (I'm using an old 2008 MacBook).


----------



## paullindqvist

What excellent thread!!!
   
  Iv been testing quite a few players and without having my newly ordered DAC (Audinst HUD MX1)  i must say i prefer the sound, UI, and functionality of Audirvana plus.
   
*Question:*
  Im testing the latest beta with direct mode, and im pretty sure ill purchase it once the trial period is over. I have one question though, i read earlier in this thread that one had to make sure that the DAC support direct mode ?
   
  Does the Audinst HUD-MX1 support that ?
   
  Again thanx for this thread!


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> *Question:*
> Im testing the latest beta with direct mode, and im pretty sure ill purchase it once the trial period is over. I have one question though, i read earlier in this thread that one had to make sure that the DAC support direct mode ?


 
   
  I'm actually not sure about that myself. In Audirvana [free], there is a check-box for integer mode. If your device doesn't support it, maybe the box will be greyed out.
   
   
   
  In my brief comparison between Fidelia versus Audirvana [free], I've found that Fidelia does improve the soundstage and brings a little more warmth to my music (I'm using a FiiO E7 and Shure SRH940). Fidelia makes my music seem little more lively because of that added warmth. This actually sounds really good.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  What kind of magic is this? Fidelia seems to sound better than Audirvana [free] while using less of my computer's resources. When I load a song into Audirvana [free], my CPU usage shoots up really high to pre-load the song (CPU gets as high as 180%!). In Fidelia, my CPU is hardly bothered at all (less than 10%) and uses only 83 MB of RAM compared to Audirvana [free]'s 129 MB for the same song.
   
  Audirvana [free] settings:
  Exclusive Access Mode
  Integer Mode
  User max I/O buffer size
  Maximum memory allocated for tracks pre-load: 896 MB
  Converter: Apple CoreAudio
  Quality: Best
  Forced Upsampling: Maximum sample rate upsampling
  ^When the last 2 settings are switched to the opposite settings, Audirvana [free] still takes up 210 MB of RAM, but very little impact on the CPU. There is a noticeable difference in sound quality too.
   
  Fidelia settings:
  Dither enabled (16-bit MBIT+)
  Output converter: Apple High Quality (best quality)
  Exclusive Access
  Load audio file into physical memory
  Dither shape/amount: Ultra/high


----------



## paullindqvist

Thanc Miceblue, well i guess i will found out soon enough. .-) It will probably get the DAC early next week.
   
  I think you should compare audirvana plus with Fidelia and not the free version as the plus and free version does not perform the same. (especially not compared to the latest beta of the plus version)
   
  http://audirvana.com/site/?page_id=143
   


   
   
  As i haven't found fidelia to sound better, the price and UI is the two most negative things for me. UI is simply to big to be practical. (especially on a MBA 13")
   
  Again i haven't tested with the DAC so this is just based on listening to with the internal soundcard on my iMac.


----------



## paullindqvist

The worst of the players iv tried is the Amarra which UI looks outdated (like ten years) it also told me i was running out of memory all the time ? I have 16GB which should be more then enough.
   
  SQ was not better then any of the Audirvana version or fidelia imo. The price is[size=x-small]* *simply not justified for a product that looks it was written for windows 98, and with no apparent SQ advantage to my ears, i would not use it even if it was free.[/size]


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Thanc Miceblue, well i guess i will found out soon enough. .-) It will probably get the DAC early next week.
> 
> I think you should compare audirvana plus with Fidelia and not the free version as the plus and free version does not perform the same. (especially not compared to the latest beta of the plus version)
> 
> ...


 
  Unfortunately I have already tried the trial paid version and the beta is linked to that, which is linked to my computer. I should have paid more attention to how it sounded rather than messing around with the settings and volume knob. >.>
   
  And yes I agree with the Fidelia's UI being huge for a 13" MacBook (I'm using a 13" MacBook with a 22" external monitor).
   
   
  Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> The worst of the players iv tried is the Amarra which UI looks outdated (like ten years) it also told me i was running out of memory all the time ? I have 16GB which should be more then enough.
> 
> SQ was not better then any of the Audirvana version or fidelia imo. The price is[size=x-small]* *simply not justified for a product that looks it was written for windows 98, and with no apparent SQ to my ears i would not use it even if it was free.[/size]


 
   
  Ugh Amarra's interface..is SO confusing to me. I recall having to open 3 different windows for Amarra to work as I wanted.


----------



## niic

I have tried the trial versions of Amarra and Amarra HiFi, Decibel and Audirvana Plus, and ended up purchasing Audirvana Plus.
  Before using those players I used Songbird for about a month, and although it offers the same amazing song management as iTunes, it doesn't offer its controls nor could I find the amazing bump in sound quality I was hoping for.
   
*Decibel* was OK, but starting-up and quitting took a long, long time, as did loading new .flac files. The sound-quality was a major step-up from iTunes though, and the app is generally very stable, apart from sometimes - for unknown reasons - pruning my entire playlist. The interface is very clean and intuitive, but the lack of music management like in iTunes was a bummer, which is a problem that could have been fixed by offering an iTunes integrated mode, which unfortunately isn't present.
   
*Amarra and Amarra HiFi* were nice players, but as a lot of you have already mentioned: their interface looks very outdated, and it just couldn't get used to it. I also have a distinct feeling I'm using a toned-down, not-all-you-can-get-version when using HiFi. But their sound quality was very nice, and although I am definitely not audiophile enough to hear major differences between Decibel and Amarra I could tell it was slightly more to my liking.
  Apart from the crappy interface, the app did start quickly and closed down quickly, and runs smoothly.
   
  I then auditioned *Audirvana Plus*, and for some reason I really like the user interface, which really gives me the feeling of dedicating myself to listening to music, rather than just using it - like iTunes - to play in the background while I'm doing other things on the computer. The iTunes integrated mode takes a few seconds to start-up, but once it is playing it is very stable and runs smoothly. Importing new .flac files is very fast, but unfortunately it only keeps alphabetical order per import, rather than for the whole playlist, so I now have to scroll down to the end for the other Coldplay-songs I've imported. This is really the only thing that bugs me, but to overcome the problem I prune the playlist and re-import all .flac files on my computer again.
  Between Amarra and Audirvana I couldn't hear a discernable difference in sound quality, and just like Amarra, I really like how Audirvana presents some of my favourite songs to me.
  Furthermore the app seems to be very stable, and starts-up and closes down very quickly.
   
  After about a week, I purchased a license for Audirvana Plus, and I have not regretted it since. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  For $49 it is a stable, great-looking player, and you never get the feeling there are any compromises in features or sound quality. Furthermore I feel the iTunes integrated mode is just a tad easier to get used to than that of Amarra.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> Unfortunately I have already tried the trial paid version and the beta is linked to that, which is linked to my computer. I should have paid more attention to how it sounded rather than messing around with the settings and volume knob. >.>
> 
> And yes I agree with the Fidelia's UI being huge for a 13" MacBook (I'm using a 13" MacBook with a 22" external monitor).
> 
> ...


 
   
  I simply load Amarra and leave it in the background, then play my music via iTunes with my usual playlists like normal.


----------



## Rumbleripper

Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> I simply load Amarra and leave it in the background, then play my music via iTunes with my usual playlists like normal.


 
   
  I find the audio quality of Amarra better if I load the music into Amarra's playlist and then play from there as opposed to just running it off of iTunes and having Amarra in the background. 
  Although it is much easier that way, the sound is not as good.


----------



## Currawong

From my understanding, Amarra is using a code base that originally wasn't Apple native and I imagine it is still being written using tools other than X-Code, hence the terrible interface. The only contact I had with them was through a company paid to do beta testing so I never got a straight answer why they don't move everything over to X-Code, which would allow them to solve the interface issue.
   
  niic: Agreed about the sound of each. The difference is extremely subtle, but I prefer Amarra, even after trying the new direct mode in the Audirvana Plus beta.
   
  As for compatibility, there are only a handful of USB audio chipsets and only a couple of those use custom firmware so the compatibility of direct mode in Audirvana Plus will depend on the chipset and firmware. I will have devices with most of them here so at some point I'll test and see which ones work.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





rumbleripper said:


> I find the audio quality of Amarra better if I load the music into Amarra's playlist and then play from there as opposed to just running it off of iTunes and having Amarra in the background.
> Although it is much easier that way, the sound is not as good.


 
   
  That's how I was loading music when I used the Amarra trial. I don't use iTunes, so loading iTunes when Amarra started up was a nuisance for me.
   
  Say, speaking of iTunes, is there an easy way to properly import .flac files into its library? I have used Fluke before, but it doesn't import Asian unicode characters correctly and only imports the track title, artist, album, and track number tags (yes my music is properly tagged).


----------



## lmf22

A couple of week ago I bought a Mac Mini to use as a dedicated transport, and have been trying Audirvana Plus, Pure Music, and Amarra.  I ended up buying Audirvana and Pure Music because I had a hard time deciding which sound I really like.  In my system, these two sounded the best.  Amarra for some reason made vocals sound deeper (very unlike how the actual artist/singer would sound like in real-life) and also covers up some micro-details in the music.  Because of this and with its limited number of features (e.g., no real-time upsampling, hog mode/exclusive access) compared to Audirvana and Pure Music I could not justify spending $190 on it.  
   
  Both Audirvana and Pure Music has very nice smooth and detailed sound.  I like Pure Music's upsampling (I upsample 44.1KHz to 88.2KHz and leave the high-resolution >96KHz at its native sample rate).  Audirvana also has a good upsampler, but I do not like its default settings (sounds somewhat harsh) and I had a hard time adjusting the Advanced Parameters to suit my system.  Any one have any suggestions for the best Advanced Parameter filter settings? 
   
  In my system, Audirvana is the more stable than Pure Music.  Pure Music's little quirks is more of an annoyance than a real problem.  I use the Mac Mini in a headless (no monitor) setup and I like to put it to sleep after listening.  One big annoyance with Pure Music after I wake the computer for the next listening session Pure Music would lose the connection to the DAC, and I would have to restart Pure Music.  This is a bit difficult to do with a headless setup.  Normally with Audirvana I could just load the Apple Remote app on my iPad and select songs to play.  With Pure Music, I have to log into the computer using a VNC, restart Pure Music, and then go back to the Apple Remote app to select songs.  Anyone know how to solve this little problem?


----------



## sferic

Audirvana Plus is amazing. Great software. Never tried Amarra & Pure because back when I was looking the pricing was outrageous. I think they have versions that are more reasonable. 
   
  Fidelia copies Audirvana's "virtual" component interface, and in the default setting it's HUGE. Change it to small, and it's actually smaller than Audirvana. 
   
  I think these are both very fine programs, and glad people are still developing "pro" software for the Mac at reasonable prices. These are good times for audiophile Mac people, it's been slim and overpriced pickings before these two showed up.
   
  It would be nice if Apple would pay attention to iTune's grainy sound engine and fix it, but given the revenue from mobile, I wouldn't count on it any time soon. At the very least, you must get Audirvana free.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





sferic said:


> ...
> 
> Fidelia copies Audirvana's "virtual" component interface, and in the default setting it's HUGE. Change it to small, and it's actually smaller than Audirvana.
> 
> ...


 
  Oooh, I didn't see the option to make it smaller. Large is huuuuuge (larger than my 22" monitor), small is the default size, and smaller is a lot smaller than Audirvana [free].
   
  I agree, for starters Audirvana [free] is a fantastic upgrade over iTunes at no cost.


----------



## Austin Morrow

Been using the FHX processor on Fidelia and have fallen in love with the customization.


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





austin morrow said:


> Been using the FHX processor on Fidelia and have fallen in love with the customization.


 
  FHX is basically their way to say DSP ?


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





sferic said:


> Fidelia copies Audirvana's "virtual" component interface, and in the default setting it's HUGE. Change it to small, and it's actually smaller than Audirvana.


 
   
  Ah didn't know that, they should make the default setting small... i bet that would attract more people especially people that have smaller monitors.


----------



## kstaken

It's a software crossfeed which actually sounds pretty good. Fidelia is a really cool app and FHX makes it really great for headphone users but I always find the sound a little flat compared to Amarra. That makes me sad as from an imaging perspective FHX works some magic and I love the Fidelia UI.
   
  Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> FHX is basically their way to say DSP ?


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





kstaken said:


> It's a software crossfeed which actually sounds pretty good. Fidelia is a really cool app and FHX makes it really great for headphone users but I always find the sound a little flat compared to Amarra. That makes me sad as from an imaging perspective FHX works some magic and I love the Fidelia UI.


 
   
  Thanx for the explanation! I only own a pair of cheap sennhieser headphones and don't use them enough to warrent Fidelia for the FHX feature.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Here's a question for those who are truly tech-saavy.  Does changing out your computers ram effect the sound, especially given most of the audio players discussed in this thread have options to load the songs to ram in the first place?


----------



## AppleheadMay

Won't affect the sound but if you don't have enough ram you can get interruptions when playing from memory.
  So as usual, the more the better.


----------



## paullindqvist

A question regarding Fidelia is there guide to all the settings available in it ? Compared to audirvana it has a plethora of settings, most which i don't have a clue about. .-)
   
  After receiving my DAC (Audinst hud-mx1) im evaluating Audirvana and Fidelia again. Im not touching Amarra though, honestly i dislike it more and more for every time i start it up.


----------



## OmarCCX

I got Audirvana recently and it's my favorite, mostly because it's itunes integration is much better than Fidelia's. I still use Fidelia as my default player if I want to listen to something on the go.


----------



## kstaken

Adding RAM can definitely make a difference if you have a short supply already, especially if you use the computer for tasks other than just playing music. The exact impact will depend on the software you're using. 
   
  Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> Here's a question for those who are truly tech-saavy.  Does changing out your computers ram effect the sound, especially given most of the audio players discussed in this thread have options to load the songs to ram in the first place?


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





omarccx said:


> I got Audirvana recently and it's my favorite, mostly because it's itunes integration is much better than Fidelia's. I still use Fidelia as my default player if I want to listen to something on the go.


 
  I wished one could merge these two players. I actually prefer Fidelias itunes integration as you don't need intunes open. But i very much prefer Audirvanas playlist opposed to Fidelias library.


----------



## mtkversion

Did Fidelia ever fix that horrible size issue with the player?
   
  Here is the 'large' setting on a 1920x1080 monitor for reference.
   

   
   
  I used to use it on the 'small' setting but that was still too big, but 'smaller' was too tiny to read the display.
   
  Are they still trolling us on their newer versions?


----------



## Silent One

I'm hoping that Sonic Studio is secretly revamping navigation of their prized audio players for a late autumn debut.


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





mtkversion said:


> Did Fidelia ever fix that horrible size issue with the player?
> 
> Here is the 'large' setting on a 1920x1080 monitor for reference.
> 
> ...


 
   
  I think Fidelia have a good selection of sizes to choose from. Im not sure how you can find "smaller" to small on 1920x1080 ?


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





silent one said:


> I'm hoping that Sonic Studio is secretly revamping navigation of their prized audio players for a late autumn debut.


 
  High prized is the word...


----------



## paradoxper

I've given up on Amarra for the time being (will sorely miss their parametric EQ) Audirvana Plus is a pretty seamless substitute.


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> I've given up on Amarra for the time being (will sorely miss their parametric EQ) Audirvana Plus is a pretty seamless substitute.


 
  I never got the EQ to work on Amarra demo, is there something you need to turn on/off in the preferences to get it to work ? I pressed the EQ button on/off and chose preset but it made no difference on the output ?


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> I never got the EQ to work on Amarra demo, is there something you need to turn on/off in the preferences to get it to work ? I pressed the EQ button on/off and chose preset but it made no difference on the output ?


 
  The EQ will highlight in yellow, then a side window pops out showing the actual EQ. I believe it's off by default.
  So choose a preset from the drop down menu and you should be all set.
   
  Be sure in your Amarra preferences that LINK AMARRA EQ TO ITUNES EQ IS OFF*


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> The EQ will highlight in yellow, then a side window pops out showing the actual EQ. I believe it's off by default.
> So choose a preset from the drop down menu and you should be all set.
> 
> Be sure in your Amarra preferences that LINK AMARRA EQ TO ITUNES EQ IS OFF*


 
  Yes i got the EQ window and button was highlighted yellow and i choose different presets but the output was not affected at all, i also tried turning on/off the eq but no changes to the output.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Yes i got the EQ window and button was highlighted yellow and i choose different presets but the output was not affected at all, i also tried turning on/off the eq but no changes to the output.


 
  What do you mean no change to output?


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> What do you mean no change to output?


 
  Meaning that no matter how i positioned the sliders in the EQ it made no difference to the output (music coming out of my headphones/speakers)


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Meaning that no matter how i positioned the sliders in the EQ it made no difference to the output (music coming out of my headphones/speakers)


 
  Can you take a screen cap of Amarra?
   
   
   

  Where it says Audeze LCD2 is the current EQ being used.


----------



## paullindqvist

Re-installed it and cleared the preferences and now the EQ works! No memory warnings either! 
   
  Still it looks like crap and the sound is no better then Audirvana or Fidelia.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Re-installed it and cleared the preferences and now the EQ works! No memory warnings either!
> 
> Still it looks like crap and the sound is no better then Audirvana or Fidelia.


 
  That's quite a fast judgement there. I think Amarra without a doubt sounds different (better) than every other player out there.
  It brings a fullness and natural presentation that the others lack. I know Pure Music is suppose to have all the bells and whistles
  and be the most comparable to Amarra, but to my ears there was no discernable difference. Audirvana is quite good
  and has a natural sound, but most importantly it's simple, clean, (but big) and just works. Amarras parametric EQ is quite nice though.
   
  Give it some time before making up your mind.


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> That's quite a fast judgement there. I think Amarra without a doubt sounds different (better) than every other player out there.
> It brings a fullness and natural presentation that the others lack. I know Pure Music is suppose to have all the bells and whistles
> and be the most comparable to Amarra, but to my ears there was no discernable difference. Audirvana is quite good
> and has a natural sound, but most importantly it's simple, clean, (but big) and just works. Amarras parametric EQ is quite nice though.
> ...


 
  Well that's probably the case.... even though i'v spent a few hours comparing them (audirvana, fidelia and amarra)  and on my setup and to my ears Amarra haven't offered anything substantial in terms of SQ over the other two. But as you pointed out it may be a bit hasty to draw that conclusion just yet, all the testing iv have done have been without the EQ and with the onboard soundcard. ( i got my DAC this tuesday and mainly tested Audirvana and Fidelia with it)
   
  So ill keep Amarra and will evaluate it some more, thanx!
   
  BTW is there any special settings or EQ setting you can recommend me to try out ?


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Well that's probably the case.... even though i'v spent a few hours comparing them (audirvana, fidelia and amarra)  and on my setup and to my ears Amarra haven't offered anything substantial in terms of SQ over the other two. But as you pointed out it may be a bit hasty to draw that conclusion just yet, all the testing iv have done have been without the EQ and with the onboard soundcard. ( i got my DAC this tuesday and mainly tested Audirvana and Fidelia with it)
> 
> So ill keep Amarra and will evaluate it some more, thanx!
> 
> BTW is there any special settings or EQ setting you can recommend me to try out ?


 
  I just hope the damn demo actually works for ya. Amarra is...challenging.
   
  Not in particular, don't really know what headphones you've got nor what your preferences to change or improvements would be.
  I always find it best to tinker around...see what your like or don't like.


----------



## paullindqvist

Yea tell me about it! LOL 
   
  The low memory warning just got back...  
   
  Ill tinker a little with it.
   
  The sound/device setup is a bit confusing compared to audirvana and Fidelia. 
   
  I.E If chose the max rate my DAC supports the music speed ups and id swear it's alvin and the chipmunks singing...


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Yea tell me about it! LOL
> 
> The low memory warning just got back...
> 
> ...


 
  You can go read up on the Amarra thread
   
  And I didn't know this, but it's confirmed, parametric EQ and other filters
  as well as Direct mode + integer are coming to Audirvana.


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> You can go read up on the Amarra thread
> 
> And I didn't know this, but it's confirmed, parametric EQ and other filters
> as well as Direct mode + integer are coming to Audirvana.


 
  Thanx!
   
  Direct mode+integer mode is present in the latest beta (the one iv been testing)


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Thanx!
> 
> Direct mode+integer mode is present in the latest beta (the one iv been testing)


 
  Hence the I didn't know part. I am just now coming over to Audirvana
  from being a full fledged Amarra user for years.
   
  I'm guessing you're using 1.4? Is it buggy? I am really looking for a "working"
  music player here, so maybe I'll just show my patience. haha


----------



## paullindqvist

Im using 1.3.9.7 beta which can be found here http://audirvana.com/?page_id=216
   
  It's stable for me, a lot more stable then amarra that's for sure! 
   
  What i like with Audirvana is that it's fast and responsive, adding tracks to the playlist is done under a second, unlike amarra and fidelia which needs to think a bit.
   
  I will be looking forward to EQ function on it.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Im using 1.3.9.7 beta which can be found here http://audirvana.com/?page_id=216
> 
> It's stable for me, a lot more stable then amarra that's for sure!
> 
> ...


 
  I might dabble into that a bit then.
   
  Yea, Amarra has been a long standing PITA all across the board, no matter what your system is or what OS version ya got.
  It just consistently crashes and or doesn't work. Audirvana is quick, I haven't experiences any lag
  between loading playlist or handling the integrated playing through Itunes. Refreshing to say the least!


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I keep trying to put the cup of kool-aid down. But Amarra just has a certain blend of spice...really coming apparent after listening to the other players. Yes, I have the handful of other suspects. Although, I will say Amarra 2.4 is a little too kicked up for me via headphone listening. 2.3 (4344) would render nicely.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





silent one said:


> I keep trying to put the cup of kool-aid down. But Amarra just has a certain blend of spice...really coming apparent after listening to the other players. Yes, I have the handful of other suspects. Although, I will say Amarra 2.4 is a little too kicked up for me via headphone listening. 2.3 (4344) would render nicely.


 
  What do you mean by kicked up regarding headphones?


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





silent one said:


> I keep trying to put the cup of kool-aid down. But Amarra just has a certain blend of spice...really coming apparent after listening to the other players. Yes, I have the handful of other suspects. Although, I will say Amarra 2.4 is a little too kicked up for me via headphone listening. 2.3 (4344) would render nicely.


 
  In reality there is simply to many factors playing in to compare these players objectively. I mean if even if we take out the gear differences (source, dac, speakers/headphones) we still have our personal preferences.
   
  Tried FHX on Fidelia and found it to be quite good, i got a noticeable difference even with my el cheapo HD20.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> In reality there is simply to many factors playing in to compare these players objectively. I mean if even if we take out the gear differences (source, dac, speakers/headphones) we still have our personal preferences.
> 
> Tried FHX on Fidelia and found it to be quite good, i got a noticeable difference even with my el cheapo HD20.


 
  I've played with the Phonitor and it just confused the hell out of me. FHX was wonky, or I just blatantly muffed the kick.


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  But, being unable to evaluate these audio players objectively is a good thing. Those reading this comment, think about that for a moment. Then make it an effort to revisit this comment long after this post. This speaks to us as humans living dynamically, than a static piece of gear's impression upon us. 
   
  True, some of us are moved more emotionally than others. Still, who we are and where we are in life emotionally matters. Which explains preferences - why you'll like, enjoy or be moved by something in one moment of your life and not the next. Or will feel a bit different about something even if the "pref" remains. Love Songs, anyone? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That recordings don't change is but one example.
   
  I found FHX to work as advertised; sound nice. I've enjoyed Fidelia for a long time inside the listening room. However, I like the sound returned by Amarra better. Not making objective claims Amarra sounds better - it's what I want to hear. Same goes for the other players. Usually, when I make a change in the audio rig from tube selection, music selection, cable selection or simply how I have the audio rig wired, the rankings can and do change. And for a session I can see them slotted differently. Perhaps, Pure Music was #2 and now down to #4 for example. Amarra is always slotted #1 on sound with the remaining audio players jockeying for position.
   
  General info - I have music servers on Win7; Linux; OS X and the most software audio players under Linux, then OS X and the fewest on Win7. I simply don't care much for the way Mr. Softie expresses himself (MSFT). I've some really good players under Linux but keep returning to Amarra. I also strive to keep an open mind and once in a blue moon, I'll revisit several things about my system. It's a fun hobby!


----------



## mtkversion

I'm trying out the Audirvana demo and it's really nice so far but not being able to sort the playlist is a bummer.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





silent one said:


> But, being unable to evaluate these audio players objectively is a good thing. Those reading this comment, think about that for a moment. Then make it an effort to revisit this comment long after this post. This speaks to us as humans living dynamically, than a static piece of gear's impression upon us.
> 
> True, some of us are moved more emotionally than others. Still, who we are and where we are in life emotionally matters. Which explains preferences - why you'll like, enjoy or be moved by something in one moment of your life and not the next. Or will feel a bit different about something even if the "pref" remains. Love Songs, anyone?
> 
> ...


 
  Great post! Full circle back to the music being most important. I got a good reminder of that throughout this entire day.


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Thanks for pointing that out, I should have explained what I meant by that. The tweaks made by Sonic Studio to the sound engine from one version to the newer version. I didn't care for the new mix, too saucy, too much of whatever they changed. Sometimes, these changes between versions can sound equally good or bad on both speakers and headphones. And occasionally, there's a break - may sound good on either one but not both at the same time. 
   
  I encountered the same experience when making the leap to Lion form Snow Leopard. The same version of Amarra sounded completely different between the two cats. Amarra's presentation on Snow Leopard remained better over the newer Lion. Now walking with Mountain Lion, the best playback yet for my system!
   
  21 September - we should do a poll "Name that cat!" to predict the next kitty from Apple on the last day of summer...


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





silent one said:


> Thanks for pointing that out, I should have explained what I meant by that. The tweaks made by Sonic Studio to the sound engine from one version to the newer version. I didn't care for the new mix, too saucy, too much of whatever they changed. Sometimes, these changes between versions can sound equally good or bad on both speakers and headphones. And occasionally, there's a break - may sound good on either one but not both at the same time.
> 
> I encountered the same experience when making the leap to Lion form Snow Leopard. The same version of Amarra sounded completely different between the two cats. Amarra's presentation on Snow Leopard remained better over the newer Lion. Now walking with Mountain Lion, the best playback yet for my system!
> 
> 21 September - we should do a poll "Name that cat!" to predict the next kitty from Apple on the last day of summer...


 
  Thanks for the clarification. I have yet to experience such variance. But I've stuck with SL, Lion was initially too buggy.
   
  Has ML cleared the random crashes, persistent bugs. And just in general offer a smooth experience?


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  As we approach sunset, hope you're able to 'neak in a listening session later tonight. When pairing memories to music..._a whole lotta magic._


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





silent one said:


> As we approach sunset, hope you're able to 'neak in a listening session later tonight. When pairing memories to music..._a whole lotta magic._


 
  I'm drunken with tunes, but hell, I could do a few more!


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> I might dabble into that a bit then.
> 
> Yea, Amarra has been a long standing PITA all across the board, no matter what your system is or what OS version ya got.
> It just consistently crashes and or doesn't work. Audirvana is quick, I haven't experiences any lag
> between loading playlist or handling the integrated playing through Itunes. Refreshing to say the least!


 
   
  You're not talking about my copy of Amarra 2.4, which has worked with 2008 Macbook Pro, 2009 Macbook and 2012 Macbook Pro retina with Lion and Mountain Lion.  No crashes ever, only skips until I went to 8GB RAM.


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> You're not talking about my copy of Amarra 2.4, which has worked with 2008 Macbook Pro, 2009 Macbook and 2012 Macbook Pro retina with Lion and Mountain Lion.  No crashes ever, only skips until I went to 8GB RAM.


 
  Yep he does and if you read on this forum you find he is not the only one.


----------



## Silent One

Perhaps, if only Sonic Studios would consider outside help (audio engineering consultant) to redesign the interface/navigation...


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Yep he does and if you read on this forum you find he is not the only one.


 
   
  He said, "Amarra has been a long standing PITA all across the board, no matter what your system is or what OS version ya got.
 It just consistently crashes and or doesn't work".
   
  I said, "not mine", and gave examples of 3 Macs and 2 OSX that didn't do that for me. 
   
  I forgot I must be a liar.


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> He said, "Amarra has been a long standing PITA all across the board, no matter what your system is or what OS version ya got.
> It just consistently crashes and or doesn't work".
> 
> I said, "not mine", and gave examples of 3 Macs and 2 OSX that didn't do that for me.
> ...


 
  Easy tiger no need to get so defensive. First i didn't call you a liar, secondly I'm sure not that naive to think that your own experience is the ultimate benchmark.
   
  In short it's great you got Amarra to work for you on you systems, that doesn't detract from the fact there is A LOT of users who had/have problem with it running on multiple OS's.


----------



## rosgr63

Headphone Addict, you are not a liar.
   
  Different people have different experiences.
   
  I never had any problems running Amarra, just didn't notice any improvement with my high end systems so I switched to Fidelia and Decibel.


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





silent one said:


> Perhaps, if only Sonic Studios would consider outside help (audio engineering consultant) to redesign the interface/navigation...


 
  You don't need a audio engineer to get a suitable UI, there are professionals better suited for the task. But i agree Sonic Studio would probably benefit from getting someone from the outside revamping the program. 
   
  As can be seen from the current state of the application their in house team is stuck in windows 98 mode...


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Two things: they don't need anyone, let alone an audio engineer. However, they could benefit from outside help where ever it comes from. And unbeknownst to you, I wrote the previous post with a specific audio engineer in mind who is well known from RMAF for taking best in show from using Amarra. And I know he could get it done! My thinking is, if you're going to collaborate...


----------



## paullindqvist

Ah gotcha! That went over my head.


----------



## Silent One

I was trying not to blurt out his name...


----------



## paullindqvist

Question regarding Fidelia, it doesn't seem to handle cue files to well ? If you have album in one flac file (with cue) how can you get into fidelia as separate songs ?
   
  Thanx!


----------



## liamstrain

You might have to use a splitter and break out the individual files. I've never had a single file for an entire album, so I cannot say.


----------



## paullindqvist

Thanx for the reply!
   
  Hmm that would be very unfortunate... Audirvana have no problem reading cue files. Thought it was kind of basic function for flac players ?


----------



## liamstrain

I could be wrong. I'll dig around in the documentation.


----------



## paullindqvist

Thanx!
   
  It seems it can handle it, the manual doesn't mention it. Not big issues since it's only a few albums that is one track with cue file.
   
  Im getting a bit mad about these players i ultimately decided to get fidelia as i think i get a little more depth with it compared to audirvana plus, and that it has FHX which potential will make  my newly ordered Sony MDR ZX700 sound better.
   
  There however small stuff that drives me crazy 
   
   
  * Can't use the OSX keyboard media key's (doesn't seem to be able to map them to functions in Fidelia either.
   
  * "Next" button won't work at the end of the playlist 
   
  * Lack of a simple playlist like (adding files to the library is slow and clunky) Audirvana, i would prefer a audirvana playlist and the Fidelia Itunes playlist integration
   
  * Having the option to have the player "always float" on top 
   
  I'll probably get it anyway...


----------



## Silent One

I'd like to Frankenstein all the best attributes of other players into Amarra!


----------



## paullindqvist

Quote: 





silent one said:


> I'd like to Frankenstein all the best attributes of other players into Amarra!


 
  Hopefully the the originally Amarra isn't recognizable after your done...


----------



## fischerspooner

Is *iTunes* a *bad player* for lossless music, even if I raise the volume up to _max_.
   
  Then there should be no difference between "audiophile" apps like *Amarra* and iTunes, right?


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





fischerspooner said:


> Is *iTunes* a *bad player* for lossless music, even if I raise the volume up to _max_.
> 
> Then there should be no difference between "audiophile" apps like *Amarra* and iTunes, right?


 
  Oh, there is a difference. Raising Itunes volume to max and turning of its crap software will you give you bit perfect audio,
  but all of the mentioned music players offer increased fidelity.


----------



## uelover

Having had Amarra, Fidelia, Audirvana Plus, Decibel and iTunes (of course), the stock iTunes is by no means bad.
   
  Sure, these audiophile software improve upon the SQ. However, there are many times whereby I am running iTunes nakedly and wasn't aware that I did not turn on those software.The SQ difference, when scrutinized and concentrated, is 'big'. However, when not being actively compared, I may fail to discern whether I am listening through them or just the stock iTunes.


----------



## fischerspooner

So they act like an equalizer? What do you mean with "its crap software"?
   
  Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Oh, there is a difference. Raising Itunes volume to max and turning of its crap software will you give you bit perfect audio,
> but all of the mentioned music players offer increased fidelity.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





uelover said:


> Having had Amarra, Fidelia, Audirvana Plus, Decibel and iTunes (of course), the stock iTunes is by no means bad.
> 
> Sure, these audiophile software improve upon the SQ. However, there are many times whereby I am running iTunes nakedly and wasn't aware that I did not turn on those software.The SQ difference, when scrutinized and concentrated, is 'big'. However, when not being actively compared, I may fail to discern whether I am listening through them or just the stock iTunes.


 
   
  I to often use Itunes (When Amarra won't work) and using Bitperfect don't notice what Itunes is missing much.
  Quote: 





fischerspooner said:


> So they act like an equalizer? What do you mean with "its crap software"?


 
  Not exactly. What I mean by crap software is Itunes playback: Crossfade,enhancer, EQ, etc.
   
  Why don't you go ahead and download Amarra,Audirvana, Puremusic, Fidelia and use the trial period to evaluate each players
  sound and better inform yourself.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





paullindqvist said:


> Easy tiger no need to get so defensive. First i didn't call you a liar, secondly I'm sure not that naive to think that your own experience is the ultimate benchmark.
> 
> In short it's great you got Amarra to work for you on you systems, that doesn't detract from the fact there is A LOT of users who had/have problem with it running on multiple OS's.


 
   
  Read back through what I was responding to and where you jumped in to contest what I said about my experience, seeming to negate my experience with it.  Did I read that wrong?  If so I apologize.
   
  I've been using Amarra since RMAF 2009, with multiple software and OSX updates and various Macs, and the only problem I recall having had with Amarra was lack of gapless playback and skipping music when not enough RAM (esp in Lion).  I didn't say it was like this will all users - please don't put words in my mouth.  When I said "not with my copy" that could also be read as saying that my case is the exception.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> Read back through what I was responding to and where you jumped in to contest what I said about my experience, seeming to negate my experience with it.  Did I read that wrong?  If so I apologize.
> 
> I've been using Amarra since RMAF 2009, with multiple software and OSX updates and various Macs, and the only problem I recall having had with Amarra was lack of gapless playback and skipping music when not enough RAM (esp in Lion).  I didn't say it was like this will all users - please don't put words in my mouth.  When I said "not with my copy" that could also be read as saying that my case is the exception.


 
  That's one of the biggest problems with Amarra. Inconsistency in how it works. The Amarra thread is littered with frustrated people all across different OS versions.
  Amarra is just finicky with no solution in site, but it still does provide the "best" sound of all music players. Count your blessings and enjoy it!


----------



## middachten

I haven't been around on this topic for quite some time. I've been reading the last 10 pages or so to see if there was anything new & interesting happening on this front. Not much is my conclusion.
   
  I would just want to let you know that I'm still a very satisfied user of Decibel. Very stable, excellent sound quality and easy handling. My original comparison between the various packages showed that with all 'direct access/integer mode' players there was no noticeable difference in audio quality for me (playing on Stax/Senheiser/Etymotic phones and Audio-GD dacs). I play mainly FLAC files and the only thing I'm missing once in a while is a music browser. But since I have my entire collection structured quite well, this is not a real issue.


----------



## sferic

"I wished one could merge these two players. I actually prefer Fidelias itunes integration as you don't need intunes open. But i very much prefer Audirvanas playlist opposed to Fidelias library."
   
I agree - I actually ended up using the iPhone app instead of the playlist because it has all the usual artist, album, playlist choices.


----------



## saeyedoc

Have any of you used LMS/squeezeplayer for local Flac playback? It's the best free solution I've been able to come up with for easy navigation and playback. Would like to try Audirvana, but I'm stuck in Leopard.


----------



## Z 33

Quote: 





sferic said:


> "I wished one could merge these two players. I actually prefer Fidelias itunes integration as you don't need intunes open. But i very much prefer Audirvanas playlist opposed to Fidelias library."
> 
> I agree - I actually ended up using the iPhone app instead of the playlist because it has all the usual artist, album, playlist choices.


 
  Besides the HFX module., the iPhone app makes Fidelia an easy choice, and I use an old 3GS as a dedicated remote.
   
  SQ with a HUD-MX1 is very satisfying, both with K701s and an old SAE Mk31b/CSW Ensemble, AAC, ALAC & FLAC.
   
  Does it all, (pretty) cheap and easy.
   
  Z


----------



## iamoneagain

I finally freed myself from Amarra.  I always hated the interface but the sound always won out until now. I was previously using optical out directly into my DAC but while at the LA meet, found about the M2Tech Hiface 2 usb to coaxial converter.  It's plug-n-play and allows integer mode and direct play on Audirvana. It just arrived and with direct play enabled, Audirvana easily beats Amarra in every way.  Sounds clearer and more dynamic while staying musical.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> I finally freed myself from Amarra.  I always hated the interface but the sound always won out until now. I was previously using optical out directly into my DAC but while at the LA meet, found about the M2Tech Hiface 2 usb to coaxial converter.  It's plug-n-play and allows integer mode and direct play on Audirvana. It just arrived and with direct play enabled, Audirvana easily beats Amarra in every way.  Sounds clearer and more dynamic while staying musical.


 
  What is your system made of?  I am currently using a Nuforce HDP and HD 600.  I plan on getting the Hiface next but am currently running a trial of Amarra and found the same results.  I am hoping this isn't just system synergy.


----------



## Silent One

As I have an open mind, I'll have to revisit Audirvana+ in Direct Mode. I'm using the MHDT USBridge...


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> What is your system made of?  I am currently using a Nuforce HDP and HD 600.  I plan on getting the Hiface next but am currently running a trial of Amarra and found the same results.  I am hoping this isn't just system synergy.


 
   
  I have a rare setup.  Audio Technica L3000 and matching amp/dac DHA3000.
   
  Being able to now use direct mode made a very noticeable difference in my setup. Bigger soundstage, more dynamic, no veil, and no harshness.  I heard improvements in Amarra using the Hiface 2 but Audirvana + in direct mode shows much better results.  
   
  I have a beta of BitPerfection (offshoot of BitPerfect) that has direct mode but was giving performance problems and what I did hear wasn't as good as Audirvana +.  I haven't tried Pure Music since I don't own that program and never liked their interface. 
   
  Make sure you get the Hiface 2 if you want to be able to use direct mode.  I'm pretty sure the first one won't activate it since you need to load separate drivers but think Audirvana is looking into getting the first model working.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Interesting, I was planning on purchasing Amarra then getting the Hiface 2 but now I'll holdout for the Hiface and compare with A+ at that time.


----------



## iamoneagain

For Audirvana +, need to use this beta to get direct mode.  Think it's almost ready for general release.  I use integrated mode, deactivate all the iTunes stuff, and 64 bit SRC with no upsampling. Just my preference.
   
  http://audirvana.com/?p=304


----------



## Silent One

I trialed A+ Beta in DR mode recently (Jun/Jul) before our designer went off for vacation. Amarra edged out front (slightly) in sound quality. I just dislike the interface. But I have since made some changes to my system (Aug) so I may get different results. He's gonna roll his eyes getting my third request in three months but understands...


----------



## iamoneagain

I just gave Pure Music a test using direct, integer mode and I also think it sounds better than Amarra.  I still prefer Audirvana + since it has just a touch more detail.  Pure Music is just a bit warmer but the two are pretty close in sound.  If I already owned Pure Music, I'd stick with that.  But I also like how Audirvana doesn't have to load the whole album up to get gapless playback.
   
  Now Amarra has a great sound signature and I think if that can get direct mode setup it could win again but right now it sounds masked compared to the detail of Audirvana +.
   
  Keep in mind these are only my results and people may come away with a different opinion based on their system and tastes.


----------



## Silent One

This is understood, as all of our experiences could prove helpful if shared. I own PM but rarely use any longer. I do find the Direct Mode in A+ intriguing and can't wait to revisit it. But then, that's always the case in this hobby, make a change and one is left wondering. When my own evaluations become really involved,
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 only Take-Out will do! It's often gonna be a long night...


----------



## Miracle1980

Guys, just a quick question. I have created another partition with Leopard Snow installed because i want to try the integer mode with VOX. I own a Nuforce Icon Hdp DAC connected with usb to my mac. Is there any special option to activate integer mode in Leopard? i set up in the MIDI options: 96khz and 24 bit. In Vox i setup ''No resampling'', Synch bit rate...and what else? Is there something more to setup to have the integer mode active?
   
  Thanks


----------



## liamstrain

Audio Midi setup - in the Audio settings, under Built-in Output Digital Out - I have the sample rate and a drown menu next to it that gives me the 2ch-24bit Integer option. 
   
  (mine is under Mountain Lion though)


----------



## Miracle1980

Thank you, and in the player (in my case VOX) should i setup something? I see no options regarding integer mode...


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





miracle1980 said:


> Thank you, and in the player (in my case VOX) should i setup something? I see no options regarding integer mode...


 
   
  I've heard of VOX and fellow ComputerAudiophile members using it. But, I believe the audio player has to have the option in its Preferences. Though, your DAC is "Integer mode" capable, the audio player needs to have the option to select it, instead of sending things up to Core Audio.
   
  I'd contact the site offering VOX for more info.


----------



## Silent One

Follow-up: Audirvana Plus w/Direct Mode
   
  Amarra still edges out A+ in sound quality and preference for me at this time. However, A+ w/DM is still in Beta, so it still has a chance to get better.


----------



## qusp

does audirvana still have some issues with kernel panics? thats a complete show stopper for me, I run my ESS dac (DIY with multichannel 32bit/384khz PCM, i2s fifo and native DSD) in synchronous mode, so the dac chip/MCU has no ability to mute the output when something like this occurs, because it does not have communication or control of the clock. I also run a digital crossover for my speakers and DC coupled headphone amps and digital volume control, so the type of very nasty glitches/hash that result, could quite easily damage my headphones or tweeters, so I need reliable operation.


----------



## Silent One

Not sure. I'm nearly at the end of my third 15-day trial with Audirvana Plus (Beta) with Direct mode - Mac never panicked!


----------



## paullindqvist

No kernal panics here either, not with final version or the betas that been out.


----------



## paradoxper

No problems to report here either.


----------



## iamoneagain

I've never had problems with Audirvana Plus either.  I have a test copy of BitPerfection that also does direct/integer in ML and that did cause the system to suddenly say restarting.  No other warning.  I believe that is still in the early stages so I'm not trying again until I get a newer release.  Gives a different sound than Audirvana but is also very clean because of the integer mode. I prefer Audirvana over it.
   
  I retested Amarra again just to see if the newness of Audirvana's direct mode has worn off but I still find it a big improvement over Amarra.  Much blacker background and better separation.  Sound is much cleaner like another layer has been removed.  I can see how someone can find it too clean, but there is no harshness and it's still very musical. 
   
  The other thing to keep is mind is that you need to make sure your system is actually integer capable.  Even with the boxes checked, won't guarantee direct/integer mode.  You need to check the player and see if you see a green INT on the right of it's display.  I was using optical to my DAC before and that doesn't work.  The sound quality wasn't even close to what I get with Hiface 2 converter.


----------



## markc2

Been using PureMusic demo so far, haven't gotten any headaches yet. I really like the upsampling. Most digital gives me headaches, but this has been really nice so far. 
   
  Thanks for listing all of these options.. 99 pages back 
   
  Mark


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> I've never had problems with Audirvana Plus either.  I have a test copy of BitPerfection that also does direct/integer in ML and that did cause the system to suddenly say restarting.  No other warning.  I believe that is still in the early stages so I'm not trying again until I get a newer release.  Gives a different sound than Audirvana but is also very clean because of the integer mode. I prefer Audirvana over it.
> 
> I retested Amarra again just to see if the newness of Audirvana's direct mode has worn off but I still find it a big improvement over Amarra.  Much blacker background and better separation.  Sound is much cleaner like another layer has been removed.  I can see how someone can find it too clean, but there is no harshness and it's still very musical.
> 
> The other thing to keep is mind is that you need to make sure your system is actually integer capable.  Even with the boxes checked, won't guarantee direct/integer mode.  You need to check the player and see if you see a green INT on the right of it's display.  I was using optical to my DAC before and that doesn't work.  The sound quality wasn't even close to what I get with Hiface 2 converter.


 
  Sorry, are you saying integer mode is supported even through the Hiface 2?


----------



## fordski

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> Sorry, are you saying integer mode is supported even through the Hiface 2?


 
  I'm using the Hiface 2 with Audirvana + Beta and it works fine with direct and integer mode. I like it better than Amarra, which I also own, both in terms of sound quality and usability. Amarra seems to be quite flaky in iTunes mode when using a networked library on time capsule.


----------



## mtkversion

I've started using both Fidelia & Audirvana in tandem. I originally used Fidelia and shortly after replaced it with Audirvana but see that both have its benefits.
   
  Fidelia is for mainly when I listen to headphones with the FHX processor.  I've been messing with it for a couple nights and really like the effect on certain albums/styles.  I also like having the waveform meter for spot checks and the ability to add EQ'ing if needed.
   
  Audirvana handles .CUE files and is generally a bit more stable when I just want to throw some music on in the background.
   
  I haven't really compared the sound of each player against each other because they both sound good to my ears.  Lately I've started to care less about sound quality and focus more attention on music quality.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





fordski said:


> I'm using the Hiface 2 with Audirvana + Beta and it works fine with direct and integer mode. I like it better than Amarra, which I also own, both in terms of sound quality and usability. Amarra seems to be quite flaky in iTunes mode when using a networked library on time capsule.


 
   
   
  Yes, same as fordski said.  I always had problems with Amarra but it had best sound quality.  But with direct/integer mode on Audirvana Plus, this is first time I heard it sound better.  Hiface 2 is just plug-n-play and then just select it in Audirvana Plus and make sure direct and integer boxes are checked and you're done.  Very easy.
   
  Edit: This is first time it had best sound quality after extensive listening.  I've gone back and forth in the past when just using optical out but always ended up back with Amarra.  Not so with direct/integer mode.


----------



## Silent One

I just concluded my third 15 day audition with Audirvana Plus Beta - Direct mode. Out of another shootout with three players/versions, A+(Beta/Direct mode) comes in at the number two position. But ahead of Amarra 2.4.1.
   
  Amarra 2.3(4344) on Mountain Lion has yet to relinquish the top spot in my system.


----------



## Grev

I'm using Clementine, and am I the only one?   Anything wrong with it?


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





grev said:


> I'm using Clementine, and am I the only one?   Anything wrong with it?


 
   
  Never had it in the rotation. How do you like it so far? And have you experienced the other OS X players? If so, would like to get your thoughts.


----------



## eron

I'm loving Audirvana Plus, so much so I actually happily paid the full price for the app. 
   
  A side question. Audirvana on Mac vs Foobar DS on Windows, which has better SQ?


----------



## miceblue

grev said:


> I'm using Clementine, and am I the only one?   Anything wrong with it?




I use it as an alternative to iTunes, and the music library media player alternative to Foobar for Mac OS X (it's especially convenient for showing your entire library rather than the limited list in Audirvana Plus or Fidelia). It's a great program for those purposes, but for high-fidelity, critical listening I wouldn't use it. I do like the internet capabilities of it though.


----------



## Grev

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> I use it as an alternative to iTunes, and the music library media player alternative to Foobar for Mac OS X (it's especially convenient for showing your entire library rather than the limited list in Audirvana Plus or Fidelia). It's a great program for those purposes, but for high-fidelity, critical listening I wouldn't use it. I do like the internet capabilities of it though.


 
  So which one has the best sound quality?


----------



## eron

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> I use it as an alternative to iTunes, and the music library media player alternative to Foobar for Mac OS X (it's especially convenient for showing your entire library *rather than the limited list in Audirvana Plus* or Fidelia). It's a great program for those purposes, but for high-fidelity, critical listening I wouldn't use it. I do like the internet capabilities of it though.


 
  Audirvana Plus integrates with iTunes now, so you can play through iTunes as well.


----------



## miceblue

grev said:


> So which one has the best sound quality?




Audirvana has better sound quality.




eron said:


> Audirvana Plus integrates with iTunes now, so you can play through iTunes as well.




I don't use iTunes, but that is a valid point.


----------



## MorbidToaster

Figured this would be the place to ask. I've been using Aurdirvana Plus and Amarra HiFi and have been having some skipping issues with both after awhile of music playing.

Anyone else have this issue? Anyone kniw how to fix it? 

Juat to chime in though. I like Aurdirvana the moat as the iTunes integration is flawless. I want something to integrate well with iTunnes as I love the remote app on iDevices.


----------



## liqwidlord

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> Figured this would be the place to ask. I've been using Aurdirvana Plus and Amarra HiFi and have been having some skipping issues with both after awhile of music playing.
> Anyone else have this issue? Anyone kniw how to fix it?
> Juat to chime in though. I like Aurdirvana the moat as the iTunes integration is flawless. I want something to integrate well with iTunnes as I love the remote app on iDevices.


 

 I just bought Audirvana Plus as i was pretty impressed by the free trial. Had no problems with it at all over the two weeks until, last night it was skipping profusely. I tried restarting it and it was still doing it. I had a few applications running at the same time so i shut them down. Namely firefox, beatport app and utorrent and everything started working smoothly again. I haven't had the problem since. I can't be certain that those processes were chewing up the system. I would hope not, as i only bought my mac last month.
   
  Be interested to hear if anyone else out there has experienced something similar?


----------



## Jmstrmbn

The skipping issue is due to lack of resources, are you having Audirvana load to the RAM?  If so that is almost always what causes skipping, especially with high resolution downloads.  I had the same problem on my 2010 macbook until I loaded it with 8gb of ram.


----------



## odyssey2001

Who ever said iTunes does not give a bitperfect audio signal is a *liar*.
   
  I tested it with both iTunes and VLC and both players give a bitperfect signal.
  (Volume maxed, no EQ, etc.).
   
  Tested with audiolab m-dac's Bitperfect test.
   
  Don't buy any of these "audiophile" programs like Amarra.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





odyssey2001 said:


> Who ever said iTunes does not give a bitperfect audio signal is a *liar*.
> 
> I tested it with both iTunes and VLC and both players give a bitperfect signal.
> (Volume maxed, no EQ, etc.).
> ...


 
   
   
  Ok, I'm intersted.
  Although there are differences in sound between iTunes and all these different players amongst themselves as well (I own 4 of them) and one might like the sound of one better to the other, I would love to know which one has the output that is most true to the signal, thus the most bitperfect.
   
  So I would love to ask three things:
  - What is audiolab m-dac's bitperfect test?
  - Can you do the same test with trial versions of some of the players and post comparisons?
  - Is there any way you can post the results of the iTunes test you did as proof?
   
  But in any case, one does need an app like "BitPerfect" at least (just a few bucks) to get the automatic bitrate switching because iTunes dfoesn't do that and up/downsamples all files to the bitrate of the first song you played. Doing it manually and shutting down iTunes each time is just a hassle.


----------



## MorbidToaster

I only use them for high res switching...I hate having to switch to 192 manually.


----------



## Silent One

Also, the very first track played sets the sample rate for the rest, no matter the rez...until the program is closed and relaunched. With 2013 @ the front door, this is amusing...


----------



## MorbidToaster

silent one said:


> Also, the very first track played sets the sample rate for the rest, no matter the rez...until the program is closed and relaunched. With 2013 @ the front door, this is amusing...




Well my CDP sure is fooled then because the rate changes as soon as I put on a high res file with them running. As does the MIDI setting on my MBP. 

Neither of those happen with iTunes alone.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> Well my CDP sure is fooled then because the rate changes as soon as I put on a high res file with them running. As does the MIDI setting on my MBP.
> Neither of those happen with iTunes alone.


 
   
   
  Which is exactly what Silent One and I said, no?


----------



## MorbidToaster

appleheadmay said:


> Which is exactly what Silent One and I said, no?




I felt like SilentOne was implying they do nothing by saying it was amusing. I only use one for that feature. 

So it's what you said, yes.

Edit: If I misunderstood SilentOne that's my bad.


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  It's okay...we're all looking out for each other.


----------



## odyssey2001

You select the BitPerfect test in audiolab m-dac's menu.
  It asks you to play a file you can download here: http://wikkii.org/wiki/M-DAC
   
  I connected the m-dac with some very cheap USB cable to my Mac and launched iTunes, started the BitPerfect test on the m-dac and started playing the test file in iTunes.
  The m-dac will show if the signals are bitperfect or not on it's built-in display.
   
  I think the m-dac has the same test file on it's firmware and checks if the data from the USB input is equally to the data on the firmware.
   
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> - What is audiolab m-dac's bitperfect test?


 
   
   
  Yes, which players should I use?
   
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> - Can you do the same test with trial versions of some of the players and post comparisons?


 
   
   
  I could make a video showing the display of the m-dac saying "Accurate data".
   
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> - Is there any way you can post the results of the iTunes test you did as proof?


----------



## mackat

I downloaded the free trial of Audirvana yesterday. I like it, but it was skipping a bit with the HDtracks version of Jazz At The Pawnshop (88.2kHz, 24-bit). I'm using an iMac w/ 4GB ram, a PS Audio DL III, and a Bottlehead Crack/Senn 650 combo.
   
  Any solutions besides more ram?


----------



## MorbidToaster

Are you using it exclusivly for music? Or browsing at the same time?


----------



## mackat

Browsing too. Still have about half my ram left though!


Ben aka MacKat


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





odyssey2001 said:


> Who ever said iTunes does not give a bitperfect audio signal is a *liar*.
> 
> I tested it with both iTunes and VLC and both players give a bitperfect signal.
> (Volume maxed, no EQ, etc.).
> ...


 
  Old news!
   
  Just because a piece of software is bit perfect does not mean what you hear is the same.


----------



## odyssey2001

This is a thread about iTunes and "Audiophile" programs.
  I said iTunes does give a bitperfect signal. Some here in this thread think it doesn't.
   
  For sure one can upgrade to a better DAC / AMP but every hardware will get the same bitperfect signal from iTunes.
  What the piece of hardware will do with it is it's own decision; You don't have to use an other player than iTunes except you want automatic RAM buffering / Sample rate switching.
   
  Quote: 





bixby said:


> Old news!
> 
> Just because a piece of software is bit perfect does not mean what you hear is the same.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





odyssey2001 said:


> You select the BitPerfect test in audiolab m-dac's menu.
> It asks you to play a file you can download here: http://wikkii.org/wiki/M-DAC
> 
> I connected the m-dac with some very cheap USB cable to my Mac and launched iTunes, started the BitPerfect test on the m-dac and started playing the test file in iTunes.
> ...


 
   
  Quite a nice range AudioLab has, I just downloaded their brochure. How's the SQ and sound signature?
  Anywhere I can find some pricing info on the 8200 range?
   
  No need to make a video, I had no idea what the M-DAC and M-DAC test was, I see what you mean now.
   
  Well, for the test, any players you like to and find the time for.
  The one's I'm interested in are the ones I have: Amarra, Audirvana and Fidelia which all have free trials.
  But the one I'm most interested of seeing the results from is called "BitPerfect" which is very unintrusive and looks like it just changes the sample rate automatically although it might do more than that.
  That one isn't free however, it's only available on the App Store and costs 8€. I'd be happy to pay the cost back to you if you send me your PP address via PM.
   
  Thanks by the way, very interested to hear what the results of this tests are, that's objective info for once.
   
  I do still wonder how one can sound different from the other however, provided they are all bitperfect. Bitperfect should mean no EQ is being used as far as I understand so I wonder what could change the sound. Or it is just our heads messing with us?


----------



## odyssey2001

Fidelia: "Data is accurate" tough BitPerfect.
   
  Audirvana: "Data is accurate", BitPerfect.
   
  Amarra: "Data is accurate", BitPerfect.
   
  I think they all give a BitPerfect signal tough they sound absolutely identical.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





odyssey2001 said:


> This is a thread about iTunes and "Audiophile" programs.
> I said iTunes does give a bitperfect signal. Some here in this thread think it doesn't.
> 
> For sure one can upgrade to a better DAC / AMP but every hardware will get the same bitperfect signal from iTunes.
> What the piece of hardware will do with it is it's own decision; You don't have to use an other player than iTunes except you want automatic RAM buffering / Sample rate switching.


 
  You do want to use another piece of software if you want it to sound good


----------



## odyssey2001

No, if a software (iTunes) gives a bitperfect signal it's the signal identical to the original signal. Then you don't need any software.
   
  What you mean is an Equalizer which will modify the signal to make high / low frequencies louder. For some this might sound better, but it's not the "true" sound.
   
  Quote: 





bixby said:


> You do want to use another piece of software if you want it to sound good


----------



## Jmstrmbn

My understanding is how the data is processed and fed to the DAC after going through a given player changes the sound immensely.  If possible try integer mode with Audirvana and Bitperfect.  This option shortens the signal pathway between the player and the USB output to the DAC and IMO does a lot to improve the sound.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





odyssey2001 said:


> No, if a software (iTunes) gives a bitperfect signal it's the signal identical to the original signal. Then you don't need any software.
> 
> What you mean is an Equalizer which will modify the signal to make high / low frequencies louder. For some this might sound better, but it's not the "true" sound.


 
  No,  perhaps I can make myself more clear.  To my ears, itunes is a good player, but for critical listening on a good system, I do not use iTunes and prefer to use Audirvana Plus to play my files.  In years past I preferred Pure Music and I know many who prefer Amarra.  No equalizer or any other software added to my player software for me, but I suppose many find that sort of thing helpful in getting the sound quality they like.
   
  I just want my files to sound as natural as I think they should sound and itunes does not do it for me, sorry.  I do use it to organize my files, though and things like syncing to my iPod.


----------



## odyssey2001

On my setup (Mac (USB) -> audiolab m-dac -> Headphones) iTunes gives a bitperfect signal.
  So there is absolutely no need for a software like Audirvana because iTunes does give a absolutely perfect signal trough USB to the DAC.
  This is the most "natural" way you can imagine.
   
  Audirvana may sound better to you but that's because it modifies the "most natural" signal and then it is no natural signal anymore.
   


> No,  perhaps I can make myself more clear.  To my ears, itunes is a good player, but for critical listening on a good system, I do not use iTunes and prefer to use Audirvana Plus to play my files.  In years past I preferred Pure Music and I know many who prefer Amarra.  No equalizer or any other software added to my player software for me, but I suppose many find that sort of thing helpful in getting the sound quality they like.
> 
> I just want my files to sound as natural as I think they should sound and itunes does not do it for me, sorry.  I do use it to organize my files, though and things like syncing to my iPod.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





odyssey2001 said:


> On my setup (Mac (USB) -> audiolab m-dac -> Headphones) iTunes gives a bitperfect signal.
> So there is absolutely no need for a software like Audirvana because iTunes does give a absolutely perfect signal trough USB to the DAC.
> This is the most "natural" way you can imagine.
> 
> Audirvana may sound better to you but that's because it modifies the "most natural" signal and then it is no natural signal anymore.


 
  As to your first sentence, ok, if you like the sound, I have no problem with that.
   
  But as to the rest, I will have to disagree, since iTunes has a few other things going on that can and do impact that natural sound you are talking about.  As for Audirvana modifying the "most natural signal", we will have to disagree, I think they do rather a lot to have it not go through all the processes that iTunes does.  Direct mode is one of them.
   
  iTunes - uses the last sample rate of the file played, eg. standard CD res like 16/44 hence when you play the next song which may have be a high res 24/96 one, it uses the old sample rate and down-samples the native rate to 16/44 destroying your bit perfect signal.
   
  iTunes - uses a dithered volume control which loses resolution as you change it from anything other than 100% level - no more bit perfect, I'm afraid, you will lose bits if you set it low enough.
   
  Additional things that iTunes does that can affect that "bit perfect" signal and make it sound not as good as some other players out there.
   
  -Does not load an entire song or many songs into memory for playback and hence reads the data off of a spinning disk with all it's inherent and audible effects on the sound quality.
  -Uses Apple's high level framework to process audio with no way to minimize process load which can affect sound quality
  -Does not allow for exclusive device access to the audio  processes
   
  While the output can still be bit perfect, the sound quality can be impacted greatly when using iTunes vs some of the other players.  And all of the players can benefit from lots of other tuning one can do to a Mac to make it an even better music playing platform.
   
  FYI- Ever wonder why lots of audio manufacturers who use Apple computers to play files to demonstrate their fancy equipment at places like Rocky Mountain Audio Fest don't all use iTunes?  Now you do!


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Quote: 





bixby said:


> As to your first sentence, ok, if you like the sound, I have no problem with that.
> 
> But as to the rest, I will have to disagree, since iTunes has a few other things going on that can and do impact that natural sound you are talking about.  As for Audirvana modifying the "most natural signal", we will have to disagree, I think they do rather a lot to have it not go through all the processes that iTunes does.  Direct mode is one of them.
> 
> ...


 
  Well put, I would agree


----------



## odyssey2001

The points you mentioned may be true. But you can't argue with a better quality through Audirvana as from iTunes because iTunes already delivers a bitperfect signal.
  The only thing Audirvana (and all the other apps) do is Sample Rate switching and USB buffering.
   
  If you use iTunes at 100% volume all the time, equalizer and other silly things turned off, it delivers a perfect audio signal.
   
  Quote: 





bixby said:


> As to your first sentence, ok, if you like the sound, I have no problem with that.
> 
> But as to the rest, I will have to disagree, since iTunes has a few other things going on that can and do impact that natural sound you are talking about.  As for Audirvana modifying the "most natural signal", we will have to disagree, I think they do rather a lot to have it not go through all the processes that iTunes does.  Direct mode is one of them.
> 
> ...


----------



## mackat

Well, I got 8 extra gigs of memory in my iMac tonight, so I now have 12GB instead of a measly 4GB!
   
  I bet it won't skip anymore!


----------



## MorbidToaster

lol. I never had an issue with my 27" iMac before I sold it with 8gb RAM. My MBP has 4 and was just fine tonight as long as I was just listening. 
  
  Quote: 





mackat said:


> Well, I got 8 extra gigs of memory in my iMac tonight, so I now have 12GB instead of a measly 4GB!
> 
> I bet it won't skip anymore!


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

So far Amarra 2.4 doesn't skip on my 16GB/768GB retina Macbook Pro either.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> So far Amarra 2.4 doesn't skip on my 16GB/768GB retina Macbook Pro either.


 
  Extremely jealous of you retina Macbook Pro


----------



## eron

Sometimes it skips when my USB DAC isn't powered enough. So I have to connect it to the best USB port.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





odyssey2001 said:


> Fidelia: "Data is accurate" tough BitPerfect.
> 
> Audirvana: "Data is accurate", BitPerfect.
> 
> ...


 
   
  What do you mean by "Fidelia: "Data is accurate" tough BitPerfect."?
   
   
   
   


> Audirvana may sound better to you but that's because it modifies the "most natural" signal and then it is no natural signal anymore.


 
   
  If a signal is modified can it still be bitperfect? How does it get modified?


----------



## paullindqvist

Amarra claims to have to little memory even if you have 16gb....Time to revamp it, they are not alone on the market anymore.


----------



## odyssey2001

Sorry, "so" not "tough".
   
  If a signal is modified it is not bitperfect anymore. If iTunes + Amarra sounds better to you than just iTunes, either iTunes modifies the signal so it's not bitperfect or Amarra has some build in equalizer that modifies the signal so it's not bitperfect anymore, too.
   
  If both iTunes + Amarra and just Amarra sound different at least one of them does not give a bitperfect signal.
   
  On my rig iTunes already gives a bitperfect signal so there is no need for any of these applications. (Except I want USB file buffering, automatic sample rate switching, ...).
   
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> What do you mean by "Fidelia: "Data is accurate" tough BitPerfect."?
> 
> 
> If a signal is modified can it still be bitperfect? How does it get modified?


----------



## AppleheadMay

That's what I thought, thanks.
   
  So all in all, the App "BitPerfect" for 8€ on the App Store should suffice, it handles the file buffering and and automatic swtiching.


----------



## iamoneagain

Besides being bit perfect, timing has to be considered on all the programs. It has been proven all these are bitperfect but to my ears I can clearly hear a difference between them. Even Audirvana Plus direct/integer mode sounds better than without it. But I'm sure both settings are bitperfect. 

So I don't think just being bitperfect is the whole picture. Now if iTunes sounds the same, no reason to use anything else. But all the other programs have free trials so everyone can test in their own setup and hear for themselves. I use all these without oversampling, leaving bitperfect signal intact. 

I too thought this was all a bunch of crap until I heard for myself.

Here's an article on beyond bitperfect:

http://www.amr-audio.co.uk/large_image/MAC%20OSX%20audio%20players%20&%20Integer%20Mode.pdf


----------



## zettelsm

I was pretty skeptical about bit-perfect software players having audible differences, too. Then I compared Pure Music to Audirvana and darned if I couldn't hear a distinct and repeatable difference between the two.
   
  Note that the author of the paper quoted is the developer of A+.
   
  Steve Z


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





zettelsm said:


> I was pretty skeptical about bit-perfect software players having audible differences, too. Then I compared Pure Music to Audirvana and darned if I couldn't hear a distinct and repeatable difference between the two.
> 
> Note that the author of the paper quoted is the developer of A+.
> 
> Steve Z


 
   
  I was going to point that out and yes, you can say he could have an agenda.  
   
  For me the biggest difference had been enabling direct/integer mode.  Pure Music and Audirvana + did sound pretty close before using direct/integer . As mentioned, you need to have a device capable of this mode.
   
  I'll attach one other article talking about all these players.  I'm not trying to convince anyone but just trying to provide addition info for why some may be hearing differences.  In the end,I couldn't care less how someone setups their system.  But I feel I had success with Audirvana + integer/mode and Hiface 2, so I wanted to pass that on.
   
  http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/players/1.html


----------



## sferic

IMHO there is a significant difference between iTunes and specialty software. There are plenty of free or low cost alternatives you can try out for yourself. Audirvana free comes to mind. Graphs, measurements, and whitepapers will never replace your ears.
   
  iTunes is doing 1000 things at once, syncing your iPhone, downloading cover art, updating your "genius playlist", fornicating with iCloud etc. Even if you turn off "enhancement" and run it full volume, and restart it every time you start a new file with a different sample rate. And it's running everything full bore thru core audio which is also processing the audio for the porn you're watching, system sounds, and audio for pop up ads for Chinese Brides on Pirate's Bay while you're browsing. It's all pretty amazing software.That's why we love our Macs.
   
  If you're happy with iTunes, that's great. But this thread is about "ALTERNATIVES to iTunes." Who knows, maybe these other solutions are a "bit-less-perfect" ? I don't know and don't really care. Most of us have made up our minds after hearing other software thru OUR gear and thru OUR ears. 
   
  Can we move this discussion to an iTunes appreciation thread? If one doesn't exist already I'm sure it would be very lively and very popular.


----------



## liqwidlord

I've just bought my first Amp/Dac being the Audio Gd NFB 15.1 and recently purchased the full version of Audirvana Plus. I really have no idea what i'm doing with this thing at the moment. Is there a way to set up Audirvana with optimum settings? I'm having issues with the amps drivers as it is but thats a side issue at the moment. Just feeling a bit bombarded at the moment and not quite sure where to start. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## eron

The install came with a very detailed instruction manual. Follow that and you will be fine. Start from left to right on the config.


----------



## cn11

I just recently got Audirvana too. Sonically it is an appreciable step up from itunes, of course. I didn't expect to hear the amount of difference I do, I'm quite stunned really. This is running via Headstage DAC cable to O2 amp, feeding my modded T50RP orthos. The big differences are in clarity and soundstage space. Going back to itunes is pretty unthinkable now, and when I do it all sounds so constrained and less defined, more murky. For this kind of difference, I feel it's $50 well spent. I am quite happy, and it makes my work days more enjoyable.


----------



## omasciarotte

Quote: 





mackat said:


> I downloaded the free trial of Audirvana yesterday. I like it, but it was skipping a bit…
> 
> Any solutions besides more ram?


 
   
  Hey Mackat,
   
  More RAM would prevent your host from running out of unallocated RAM and resorting to virtual memory. With 4 GB, the simple solution is to restart the host which frees up, ahem “Free” memory, and don’t run other apps until your listening session is finished.
   
  You may want to set up Activity Monitor to display memory allocation for you so you know when you’ve run out of free RAM…


----------



## omasciarotte

Quote: 





odyssey2001 said:


> Sorry, "so" not "tough".
> 
> If both iTunes + Amarra and just Amarra sound different at least one of them does not give a bitperfect signal.


 
   
  Hey *odyssey2001*,
   
  The "bits is bits" argument is simply untenable. Even if you don’t believe any of the gazillion HeadFiers & others who have confirmed that leading audiophile software produces bit perfect output as advertised, one has to assume you haven’t tried the (free) demo version of any of the audiophile players to see if you do perceive a difference. Depending on your room, hardware and wetware (what’s between your ears), you may find that;
   
  a) you do hear a difference between iTunes in bit-perfect mode and one or more audiophile players, also in bit-perfect mode
  b) you actually prefer the sound of one of the audiophile players


----------



## mackat

Hi, as of a few weeks ago, I now have a total of 12GB.
   
  But of course my free trial expired today so I have to find the cash for that!


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





odyssey2001 said:


> Sorry, "so" not "tough".
> 
> If a signal is modified it is not bitperfect anymore. If iTunes + Amarra sounds better to you than just iTunes, either iTunes modifies the signal so it's not bitperfect or Amarra has some build in equalizer that modifies the signal so it's not bitperfect anymore, too.
> 
> ...


 
   Have you read the white paper from the maker of Audirvana? That explains what is supposedly going on.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> one has to assume you haven’t tried the (free) demo version of any of the audiophile players to see if you do perceive a difference. Depending on your room, hardware and wetware (what’s between your ears), you may find that;
> 
> a) you do hear a difference between iTunes in bit-perfect mode and one or more audiophile players, also in bit-perfect mode
> b) you actually prefer the sound of one of the audiophile players


 
   
   
  
 Don't forget:
 c) you do not hear a difference


----------



## omasciarotte

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Don't forget:
> c) you do not hear a difference


 
   
  Sure, that may be the case as well. My point is there can and, to my perception, are audible differences in bit-perfect data streams.
   
    -- OMas


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





omasciarotte said:


> Sure, that may be the case as well. My point is there can and, to my perception, are audible differences in bit-perfect data streams.
> 
> -- OMas


 
   
  Doing level matched, blind comparisons? Or comparing via your own sighted switching?


----------



## miceblue

I purchased Audirvana Plus about 20 minutes ago and I am really impressed with its resource management. The Free version took a while to pre-buffer/load songs, but Plus is extremely fast, taking muuuuuuuuuch less CPU to load than Free did. I haven't done critical listening yet, but from my brief listen, the soundstage seems wider and the treble is much smoother overall.


----------



## omasciarotte

Quote:  





> Doing level matched, blind comparisons? Or comparing via your own sighted switching?


 
   
  “Blind” [someone else, pencil & paper-equipped, doing the switching with their back to the listener], w/one DAC. Since it's the same DAC & same bitstream, there's no need to level match. Only the software (bit perfect, no processing) changes. Easy to try with an “assistant“ and demo versions of ’ware.
   
  Granted, tests like this are very dependent on listening skills, hearing mechanism, quality of gear, room acoustics (fancy headphone rigs make it much easier to hear subtle distinctions) but, it's an easy & fun test and only costs your time if one of the two participants owns a high quality rig already.
   
  If the listener fails to hear a difference, then he or she can say, “For me, I didn’t hear a difference.” It’s not right to say, “There is/can be no difference,” especially without trying a test. Sure, I don’t yet have a quantifiable cause(s) for the effect but, that doesn’t negate one’s experience.
   
  After all, as John Atkinson said the other night at our local ASM meeting (also at RMAF), “(Stereo) _is_ all in your head.” His point was that stereo audio reproduction is a psychoacoustic phenomenon and our ear/brain cannot be discounted when discussing listening experiences. I’ll add that, having worked in the audio industry for 30 years, I've been taught more than once that our hearing is a better measurement device than has yet been devised by engineers, and I _am_ an engineer!
   
  Anyway, just try it yourself, then you can be Liam “Doubting Thomas” to your heart’s content.


----------



## RBSund

I tried Audiovarna, Decibel, Fidelity and Bitperfect... I like Decibel and Bitperfect best and while they seem about equally good to me, soundwise, Bitperfect runs smoother, costs less, I can use the license on all my computers plus I don´t have to mess with two interfaces. Clear winner. I´m really enjoying this sudden change in quality, it feels just like a little hardware upgrade! Much more texture, especially in the lows!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





omasciarotte said:


> I’ll add that, having worked in the audio industry for 30 years, I've been taught more than once that our hearing is a better measurement device than has yet been devised by engineers, and I _am_ an engineer!


 
   
  I have been in the audio industry a good while too. I disagree with you - our ears are a good tool, but they are inherently flawed in many respects, not the least of which is the finicky processing engine between them. I am not suggesting we should throw out what we hear, but if what we hear does not jive with the objectively measured data, the error is more likely to be in us, than in the data. Just my $.02
   
   
   


> Anyway, just try it yourself, then you can be Liam “Doubting Thomas” to your heart’s content.


 
   
  I have. And I do level match anyway, since I discovered that "no processing" doesn't always mean that, and some software actually does kick out different pre-amp settings even when it says it is set to 0 (historically - it has not been the case with the latest round of programs I've tested).


----------



## omasciarotte

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I have been in the audio industry a good while too. I disagree with you - our ears are a good tool, but they are inherently flawed in many respects, not the least of which is the finicky processing engine between them. I am not suggesting we should throw out what we hear, but if what we hear does not jive with the objectively measured data, the error is more likely to be in us, than in the data. Just my $.02


 
   
  Agreed & agreed. I wrote “better” and I should have written “different” in that we can hear things that we haven’t yet been able to figure out how to measure. Yup, our wetware is highly adaptable and, we have no conscious control over it. That makes “measurement” with our hearing impossible but our hearing is useful [from an “objective” aspect] nonetheless.


----------



## albertzeyer

Hi,

I was also disappointed by the available music players for Mac. On Linux, I have used Amarok 1.4 earlier. When I switched to Mac, I have mostly used iTunes and Songbird but I had my problems with both.

What I wanted was basically a player which is simple, can handle an infinitely large music directory and has a PartyShuffle/DJ-mode function. It should also support all most important sound formats (flac, ogg, mp3, m4a, wma, ...) and maybe some other things.

Because I didn't found that, I started my own Open Source project: http://albertz.github.com/music-player/

It is simple and is all centered around a main queue (looks a bit like the old Winamp, XMMS or other simple players). The main queue is always in PartyShuffle-mode, though. I.e. it shows some of the recently played songs, the current songs and the upcoming songs. It plays always the songs from the top of the queue and then removes it from there. Once the queue becomes too empty, it intelligently adds new songs to it (based on context and ratings).

It is also powerful, e.g. it has its own volume loudness normalization algorithm. And is has Last.fm scrobbling support. And some other basic things.

It supports basically all existing sound formats.

Because it is Open Source, everyone can contribute and make it better. The code is simple and mostly Python, so it is easy to work on it.


----------



## liamstrain

albertzeyer said:


> It supports basically all existing sound formats.
> 
> Because it is Open Source, everyone can contribute and make it better. The code is simple and mostly Python, so it is easy to work on it.


 
   
  Sounds like a cool project. Good luck. 
   
   
   


> It is also powerful, e.g. it has its own volume loudness normalization algorithm.


 
   
  Will there be an option to disable this, and any other pre-amplifier type adjustments?


----------



## rosgr63

Very impressive, will try it soon.
  Thanks for letting us know.


----------



## Silent One

_Thanks, will have to give it a look e-a-r-l-y Saturday morning..._


----------



## ELCH

Hi Currawong,
  link to vox page is now: http://www.voxapp.didgeroo.com
  BR, ELCH


----------



## Silent One

Downloaded Pure Music 1.88a moments ago this morning. Listened some - last version I played was 1.82a so you know it's been awhile. While this version is an improvement on what I hear with the player, I would still slot it closely behind Amarra; Audirvana Plus w/Direct mode.
   
  I noticed the option "Integer mode" was greyed out. Not sure when Channel D may have changed a few things between cats (OS X). v1.9 comes out mid Decemeber, so I'll revisit the player at that time...
   
  Update: Reading the Support pages at Channel D, I've found they are not supporting Integer mode with Mountain Lion either. When they discontinued support with Lion, I simply ran PM off Snow Leopard. They also explained why they're withholding support for Direct mode at this time - too risky; subject to kernel panic attacks.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





elch said:


> Hi Currawong,
> link to vox page is now: http://www.voxapp.didgeroo.com
> BR, ELCH


 
   
  Thanks, updated. I'm due to update a few things in the original post, now I think of it.
   
  Quote: 





silent one said:


> Downloaded Pure Music 1.88a moments ago this morning. Listened some - last version I played was 1.82a so you know it's been awhile. While this version is an improvement on what I hear with the player, I would still slot it closely behind Amarra; Audirvana Plus w/Direct mode.
> 
> I noticed the option "Integer mode" was greyed out. Not sure when Channel D may have changed a few things between cats (OS X). v1.9 comes out mid Decemeber, so I'll revisit the player at that time...
> 
> Update: Reading the Support pages at Channel D, I've found they are not supporting Integer mode with Mountain Lion either. When they discontinued support with Lion, I simply ran PM off Snow Leopard. They also explained why they're withholding support for Direct mode at this time - too risky; subject to kernel panic attacks.


 
   
  I don't blame them. Sometimes Audirvana Plus has a bit of a fit and I have to reboot the computer to be able to get USB to work. On my main machine it has caused my mouse to stop working and other weird things. I think that's my main machine though as it works fine on my Air which I use for music playback.


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  For me, everything works with A+ without delays-pops-clicks. But I do experience panics and more often than I should. Some nights, I can  have two over an 8 hour period. Other times, I can go a week without incident. For clarity, of these incidents, in 90% of them the player will simply shut down and I'll relaunch it. In the remaining 10%, the Mac shuts down.
   
  I no longer even blink with the former. The latter, however, has me concerned that one day...


----------



## kskwerl

I'm new to Mac's and have had a long hatred for iTunes but instead I decided to embrace it with BitPerfect and so far I'm really liking it


----------



## iamoneagain

Looks like latest Audirvana + beta fixed dropouts. At least no problems so far. . Gave me a chance to try the other programs again while I had the issues but still think Audirvana + with direct/integer mode sounds best in my system.


----------



## SurfWax

I'm on a '09 Macbook Air with 2GB of RAM, do you think I can run Audirvana smoothly? I don't like using iTunes either, so far I just use VLC, but it sounds super bright to me


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Did anyone else notice a quieter background in the latest A+ rendition?  I only gave it a quick listen but it seemed to be blacker with a more 3D soundstage.


----------



## kskwerl

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> Looks like latest Audirvana + beta fixed dropouts. At least no problems so far. . Gave me a chance to try the other programs again while I had the issues but still think Audirvana + with direct/integer mode sounds best in my system.


 
  I'm not doubting that you think it sounds the best in your system but I just don't get the appeal of Audirvana unless I'm missing something. I'm also new to Mac audio players so...it just seems like there are all these programs with horrible interfaces that costs lots of money and although they may sound good where is the functionality? We need a foobar2000 for Mac


----------



## Jmstrmbn

To Surf,
   
  Your computer will handle normal files (.wav, .flac, .mp3) with no problem.  You get skips or dropouts if you use audirvana to play high res files.  I had this issue on my 2010 Macbook until I upgraded to 8gb of RAM.  Keep in mind this was only the case when my computer was multitasking with safari, word and A+ running playing high res.  If you stick to only audio while playing high res files I don't see you having a problem with 2gb of RAM.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Quote: 





kskwerl said:


> I'm not doubting that you think it sounds the best in your system but I just don't get the appeal of Audirvana unless I'm missing something. I'm also new to Mac audio players so...it just seems like there are all these programs with horrible interfaces that costs lots of money and although they may sound good where is the functionality? We need a foobar2000 for Mac


 
  I can see where your coming from (I've used Foobar and it is my favorite player for Windows) however I feel that Audirvana and the other Mac players have it beat.  Most if not all of these players take the simplicity and convenience of itunes and buff up the sound quality to a level more comfortable for those that browse these forums.  Overall, I pay for these players for the ability to organize my music easily and provide a higher quality sound to boot.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





kskwerl said:


> I'm not doubting that you think it sounds the best in your system but I just don't get the appeal of Audirvana unless I'm missing something. I'm also new to Mac audio players so...it just seems like there are all these programs with horrible interfaces that costs lots of money and although they may sound good where is the functionality? We need a foobar2000 for Mac


 
   
  I don't like their interface either but i use the iTunes integration mode.  So it just runs in the background while you use iTunes as you always have.  Audirvana + is much quicker than Amarra and does gapless without having to load up the whole album.  Now if you hate the iTunes interface, then I'm not sure what's out there.  You can wait a day or two and either hate iTunes more or less when the new overall comes out.  Hopefully these programs don't lose integration.


----------



## miceblue

currawong said:


> Thanks, updated. I'm due to update a few things in the original post, now I think of it.
> 
> 
> I don't blame them. Sometimes Audirvana Plus has a bit of a fit and I have to reboot the computer to be able to get USB to work. On my main machine it has caused my mouse to stop working and other weird things. I think that's my main machine though as it works fine on my Air which I use for music playback.




Someone on the Vox forums posted a link to a Mountain Lion modified version of Vox. I haven't had the time to look around its settings but maybe someone can figure out what's different.

From post 90 of this thread: http://www.voxapp.didgeroo.com/forums/thread-289-page-4.html
The download link is: http://rghost.net/39179299

Speaking of Macs and Mountain Lion, I wasn't expecting the Retina Macbook Pro to support integer mode (I had heard somewhere that Apple discontinued it in their newer computers).


Boy am I glad I have bassy headphones for mobile listening, the Retina MacBook Pro's speakers sound absolutely terrible compared to my 4-year old 1st generation aluminum unibody MacBook.


----------



## SurfWax

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> To Surf,
> 
> Your computer will handle normal files (.wav, .flac, .mp3) with no problem.  You get skips or dropouts if you use audirvana to play high res files.  I had this issue on my 2010 Macbook until I upgraded to 8gb of RAM.  Keep in mind this was only the case when my computer was multitasking with safari, word and A+ running playing high res.  If you stick to only audio while playing high res files I don't see you having a problem with 2gb of RAM.


 
  Cool, thanks man.

 I usually just play music and maybe surf with Chrome/Safari, nothing more than that. My MBA will overheat way too fast. I have a couple of 24/96 albums but I would only play those and not run anything else.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

AFAIK, Audirvana is the only player to support integer mode anymore after apple got rid of it in their latest OS updates.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> To Surf,
> 
> Your computer will handle normal files (.wav, .flac, .mp3) with no problem.  You get skips or dropouts if you use audirvana to play high res files.  I had this issue on my 2010 Macbook until I upgraded to 8gb of RAM.  Keep in mind this was only the case when my computer was multitasking with safari, word and A+ running playing high res.  If you stick to only audio while playing high res files I don't see you having a problem with 2gb of RAM.


 
   
  There was also a dropout problem with the direct/integer beta in the last build.  It you had integer capable DAC or bridge, that build gave random dropout when direct mode was activated.  A new build was release today that seems to fix it.
   
  http://audirvana.com/?p=304


----------



## kskwerl

Meh, I bought it black Friday and that's been my first Mac since like 2003-2004. I wanted to give it another try but I just don't think it's for me. Also 2,200 is a lot of money to a guy like me when I could get the same configure for half the price.


----------



## anoxy

Man, I really like the new iTunes 11, but I can't figure out how to show bit rate and sampling rate anymore. I really hope they didn't do away with that feature..


----------



## arnaud

Bit rate can be displayed in traditional list view (songs tab only atm it seems). Right click on the column header to show / hide specific attributes. The songs were sorted by added date first time I opened itunes11 just like the previous version.

Audirvana + seems to work just fine with itunes11. Tried with the "up next" listening playlist in full view and mini player mode ands it's all fine it seems! Really like the new interface, larger fonts / less clutter. It should also look pretty good on a 11' screen (am using a 15' mbp).


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





anoxy said:


> Man, I really like the new iTunes 11, but I can't figure out how to show bit rate and sampling rate anymore. I really hope they didn't do away with that feature..


 
   
  Still there...


----------



## anoxy

Ah yep, didn't see that songs was the "classic" display. I like the artists and album views more, as my entire library is full albums and meticulously organized. But thanks for that.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





anoxy said:


> Man, I really like the new iTunes 11, but I can't figure out how to show bit rate and sampling rate anymore. I really hope they didn't do away with that feature..


 
  I didn't even hear about iTunes 11 until I saw you post. Thanks for the update! I'll be checking it out once it's downloaded.
   
  MAN that is one ugly interface! I miss the old iTunes 10 already...and I've only used 11 for 5 minutes. 
   
  Bit rate:

   
  Ewww....


----------



## arnaud

Sounds like an allergic reaction to change rather that meaningful complain (like we all get with anything in life as we grow older ). 

If all you need is a column browser, just ditch itunes altogether and use simpler players like box or audirvana "stand alone".


----------



## Austin Morrow

Hmm, I'm enjoying the new interface quite a bit.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





arnaud said:


> Sounds like an allergic reaction to change rather that meaningful complain (like we all get with anything in life as we grow older
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I do use Audirvana Plus, but I have some iTunes downloads.
   
  There IS an option to bring back the sidebar! Yay, iTunes functionality/navigation = restored somewhat
  At least I don't need to move the mouse much to go to different media (movies, music, podcasts) and interfaces (iTunes Store, iPod, library). I don't know WHY they decided to put those 2 things on the opposite side of the screen.


----------



## Silent One

I'm with the graphic header up top. Can't get with the icon, though...


----------



## anoxy

Quote: 





austin morrow said:


> Hmm, I'm enjoying the new interface quite a bit.


 
  +1
  I think Apple did a marvelous job with this update. It's beautiful if you have a nice, organized library like me


----------



## Silent One

Maybe I should display my *A*lpha section. Sans Adele but I got Al Green - Anne Akiko Meyers - Astrud Gilberto - Abraham Laboriel, Sr ect..


----------



## anoxy

If only I could somehow display my entire library in an image. It all looks so nice. I love album artwork


----------



## rosgr63

Quote: 





silent one said:


> Maybe I should display my *A*lpha section. Sans Adele but I got Al Green - Anne Akiko Meyers - Astrud Gilberto - Abraham Laboriel, Sr ect..


 
   
   
  I like it, what about The *A*nimals?


----------



## anoxy

I've only got Retrospective..


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





rosgr63 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   





 Who? I've seen that name mentioned before - no idea. In other news, since the Head-Fi Maintenance that took place 2-3 hours ago, I'm experiencing constant Lock-ups (computer freezes; must reboot). Surfing lasts appx 10-12 minutes. 
   
  The fourth time I logged on, I stayed away from HF and went a full hour with incident. Logged back into to HF and...locked up again.




   
  Just got back here, let's see how long I can go!


----------



## Naim.F.C

Does Amarra work with iTunes 11? Not sure whether to update my iTunes yet...


----------



## snapple10

Amarra works fine, using it now. had to update Amarra also though


----------



## Silent One

I've got both updated.


----------



## miceblue

Actually I take back what I said about iTunes 11. The new available options in Album mode are pretty convenient. I'm still trying to figure out the playlist thing though. If I play music through Album mode, is there any way for iTunes to play through all of your music rather than all of the music in that particular album?


----------



## Silent One

In "Album" mode, Right-click > select "Up Next" mode, then you'll have continuous play from current album selection to the next...


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





silent one said:


> In "Album" mode, Right-click > select "Up Next" mode, then you'll have continuous play from current album selection to the next...


 
  Ah cool, that works. Thanks!
  I just realized that iTunes 10 had an "Album" icon mode too and I just never used it because "Cover Flow" list view was more convenient. In that sense, iTunes 11 really improves the usability of the "Album" mode.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

I'm still using Amarra 2.40 without issues - will that work with iTunes 11?


----------



## Silent One

In my view, Amarra 2.4.0 and the few previous versions were too busy; too tizzy. I find the latest version to be the best - they dialed it down in the mix. So, I went ahead have both Amarra & iTunes updated.


----------



## AppleheadMay

iTunes 11 works fine with 2.4.3 and 2.5. No idea about earlier versions though.
   
  The way I use iTunes I see nothing new. I always use list view with sidebar and column browser. I always considered the column browser to be the main strength of iTunes as a music manager/player.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Okay, I just updated to Amarra 2.4.4 and it does sound slightly richer to me.  But I would not have called 2.4.0 tizzy or anything like that.  I'm still on iTunes 10.7 for now, with OSX 10.8.2 on retina MBP.


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> Okay, I just updated to Amarra 2.4.4 and it does sound slightly richer to me.  But I would not have called 2.4.0 tizzy or anything like that.  I'm still on iTunes 10.7 for now, with OSX 10.8.2 on retina MBP.


 
   
  You're absolutely right to point that out. I should have thrown in the usual disclaimer, _"In my setup, I find Amarra to sound like..." _


----------



## AppleheadMay

Strangely the download says Amarra 2.4.4 and in the app it's called 2.5.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

headphoneaddict said:


> Okay, I just updated to Amarra 2.4.4 and it does sound slightly richer to me.




That doesn't raise any red flags for you?


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> That doesn't raise any red flags for you?


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

jaywalk3r said:


> That doesn't raise any red flags for you?




Yeah, it tells me that auditory memory is short. After listening to 2.4.0 and then taking the time to update and listening to 2.4.4 I thought it sounded slightly richer to me, but I can't go back and listen to 2.4.0 and switch back and forth with 2.4.4 to be sure. And everyone knows that. My point was neither one sounds tizzy to me, as previously described for 2.4.0. In general, I don't hear very much change in sound between versions of Amarra, and subtle changes can be tricks of the mind.

Other things raise red flags for me, are like when the PS Audio Perfectwave DAC is reported to sound different with every firmware upgrade, even when changes have nothing to do with the decoding process.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

headphoneaddict said:


> jaywalk3r said:
> 
> 
> > That doesn't raise any red flags for you?
> ...




That is one possible (and quite reasonable) explanation, but not the only one.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Well, another possibility is that my impressions are full of crap, or I don't know what I'm talking about, or something else is being implied. Wanna fill me in, because I'm feeling particularly dense tonight?


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Oh - the possibility that Amarra is manipulating the sound?


----------



## Jaywalk3r

headphoneaddict said:


> Oh - the possibility that Amarra is manipulating the sound?




That's another possible (and quite reasonable) explanation.


----------



## iamoneagain

I'm really liking the sound of the latest Amarra build.  Comparing it to the latest build of Audirvana + beta, it sounds richer, a little fuller, and has a little more depth.  Audirvana + sounds a little dry in comparison.   Now I still hate that Amarra takes up to a minute or so to load a full album, but seems to play perfect gapless.  It also seems quicker when set to load only one song that it did in the past.   I believe some of improvement were already in place in the last version but now really enjoying sound quality.


----------



## omasciarotte

HeadphoneAddict wrote: 





> Oh - the possibility that Amarra is manipulating the sound?


 
   
  Good point but, if it is, it's broken. At least that's the case for Amarra since their pro users are routinely looking analytically at the output, whether it's a procedure as simple as making sure the HDCD indicator is lit on playback or running the signal through Spectrafoo or some other multifaceted analytics tool. I'm sure the folks at Audiofile Engineering, Channel D, etc. all feel the same way; if the 'ware ain’t bit perfect, somethin’s broke.
   
  BTW, I just sent a note off to AE asking them about a bit-perfect test procedure in Spectre. I'll report back if anyone cares as to the outcome...'Foo already does that BTW.


----------



## Currawong

From another thread: 
   


sonicstudio said:


> Hello All,
> 
> This is great discussion and we wanted to offer a few points of clarification regarding Amarra.
> 
> ...


----------



## AppleheadMay

After all I read in this thread and having expirimented for over a year with (and having bought) most of the top players mentioned I come to this (admittedly very simplified) conclusion. OK, I'm taking a really short turn through the curve here but that doesn't make it any more logical and true.     
   
  Since we noticed the following:
  1) iTunes is bitperfect if all sound enhancments and volume control is turned off.
  2) BitPerfect sounds the most like (or the same as) iTunes.
  3) BitPerfect is a very lightwieght app so probably less sound fiddling (enhancements) is going on.
  4) The other players seem to add their flavor to the music so they can't be bitperfect anymore.
   
  We could conclude that BitPerfect is the ideal solution here: true bitperfect sound, auto switching of sample rates (which is the only thing iTunes lacks) and a lightweight, inobtrusive app you don't even notice. Just let it fire up on startup of your Mac and never think about it again. And it costs a few dimes.
   
  Sounds good to me, I'm gonna stick with this one.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Sounds good to me, I'm gonna stick with this one.


 
   
  Glad you like it


----------



## AppleheadMay

I sure do.
   
  Just silly I spent so much money on 3 Amarra, 1 Audirvana and 1 Fidelia licenses.
  Puremusic and 2 others I don't remember the name of I used via a trial.
   
  IMO you should keep the app as simple as it is now and charge a bit more, seen what the competition asks. OK, there's no playlist function but that's just the beauty of it for those who like the way iTunes works, like me.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I sure do.
> 
> Just silly I spent so much money on 3 Amarra, 1 Audirvana and 1 Fidelia licenses.
> Puremusic and 2 others I don't remember the name of I used via a trial.
> ...


 
   
  We'll have a version for direct purchase (no App Store) that does Integer Mode on Lion/Mountain Lion, but some internal projects are currently higher priority than that... too many ideas, not enough time


----------



## AppleheadMay

Will keep an eye out for it, thanks.
  I added your RSS and Twitter feeds so I can stay up to date.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Will keep an eye out for it, thanks.
> I added your RSS and Twitter feeds so I can stay up to date.


 
   
  We haven't got a Twitter feed 
  But you can follow us on facebook!


----------



## AppleheadMay

I did subscribe though, just in a rush, didn't see it wasn't you. =)
  https://twitter.com/BitPerfectAudio
   
  Sorry, but I hate FB more than politics.  
   
  So good ol' RSS it is!


----------



## Olias of Sunhillow

So... I had always had tracking problems with BitPerfect. Often, the first eight seconds of a track would play, then repeat over and over. It also had issues moving from track to track. Happened on both my 2009 MacBook Pro at home and my 2011 MacBook Pro at work.
   
  Happily, this latest release seems to have fixed both issues. I love the fact that BitPerfect runs so quietly in the background -- set it and forget it -- and now that I'm no longer having playback issues I expect it to become my preferred iTunes playback add-on.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





olias of sunhillow said:


> So... I had always had tracking problems with BitPerfect. Often, the first eight seconds of a track would play, then repeat over and over. It also had issues moving from track to track. Happened on both my 2009 MacBook Pro at home and my 2011 MacBook Pro at work.
> 
> Happily, this latest release seems to have fixed both issues. I love the fact that BitPerfect runs so quietly in the background -- set it and forget it -- and now that I'm no longer having playback issues I expect it to become my preferred iTunes playback add-on.


 
   
  I never had these tracking problems but I rememebr having had some kind of problems in the past which made me switch to one of the other players I had.
  Not sure what the problems were anymore, I probably mentioned them somewhere in this thread.
  But the latest few versions of BitPerfect have solved them in any case.
  As I said, really nice app, takes care of what I need and let's me use iTunes which is what I want.
   
  Give it a review on the app store if you like it so more people that aren't on this forum can benefit from it as well. It didn't have any reviews yet so I posted one. I really think this app is worth it and for what it costs a lot of people can try it out.


----------



## SurfWax

My 09 MBA died last night, looking at a $500 repair...will buy a new one instead when my financial aid kicks in a month from now. Not gonna spend close to half of what a new one costs for an oooold professor and just 2GB of ram. Getting 8GB of RAM on the new one, I should def. not have any problems playing anything on that!


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Good Choice! I had dropouts playing High res files on my 2010 macbook and recently added another 4gb of ram (8gb total) and i have no problems playing anything regardless of what else i have the computer do!


----------



## SurfWax

My school allows a one time, $2000 computer loan that can be added to your financial cost of attendance, which means they offer it to you in student loans, only reason I'll be getting it. If that didn't exist, I wouldn't feel right spending 70% of my refund on a laptop, I'd just get a cheap netbook probably.


----------



## Silent One

Great to hear you've got assistance like that available!


----------



## AppleheadMay

@Agentsim
   
  Are there any drawbacks to having BitPerfect launch on startup of the Mac and keeping it running all the time?
  It only works for sound coming from iTunes, right? Has no influence on sound from a QuickTime or YouTube video for example?


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> @Agentsim
> 
> Are there any drawbacks to having BitPerfect launch on startup of the Mac and keeping it running all the time?
> It only works for sound coming from iTunes, right? Has no influence on sound from a QuickTime or YouTube video for example?


 
   
  I don't see any problems doing that, and yes, it only works with tracks being played by iTunes.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Thanks, will continue using it that way then. Talk about set and forget.


----------



## Preacherdaniel

Hey people, I am new to OSX and would love for a recommendation for an alternative to iTunes. I am using Clementine but it is really slow....
   
  BTW - Can iTunes stay in sync with a certain directory?
   
  Thanks.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I wonder if it's actually possible to sell licenses to others for apps you don't use anymore.
  I have 3 Amarra licenses and one for Audirvana and the full Fidelia.
   
  Anybody knows?


----------



## Ren19

Can anyone tell me if the soundcard from imac mid 2011 (27") is a good sound card?
   
  The name is:  "Cirrus Logic CS426A (AB 32)"
   
  Also anyone knows how to get the best audio out of my imac? (I'm on bootcamp Windows 7)
   
  Thanks


----------



## AppleheadMay

iTunes + BitPerfect, forget about the soundcard. and get an extarnal USB dac.
  Why on earth would you want to use Windows to play music on your Mac?


----------



## Ren19

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> iTunes + BitPerfect, forget about the soundcard. and get an extarnal USB dac.
> Why on earth would you want to use Windows to play music on your Mac?


 

 Why mac over windows (same hardware just different os :S)


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Bitperfect is a good on a budget but I still prefer Audirvana + through Direct/Integer Mode.  To me it seems to make the background blacker and the soundstaging seems more focused.  This is a moot point however if you don't have an external DAC connected through USB.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





ren19 said:


> Why mac over windows (same hardware just different os :S)


 
  ???
   
  You have an iMac, it comes with a pretty decent OS, why install the buggiest OS on the planet on it for playing music since you can do that perfectly well in OSX?
   
  I can understand installing Windows in Bootcamp or Parallels if you need it for software you can't run in OSX and you can't find a decent OSX equivalent for, but not for playing music.
   
  It's not the hardware of a Mac that is better, it's the OS. You can get the same and even more powerful hardware for a lower price elsewhere if you want to use Windows.
   
  It's your choice of course and if you're happy with it why not. I fail to see the point though.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> Bitperfect is a good on a budget but I still prefer Audirvana + through Direct/Integer Mode.  To me it seems to make the background blacker and the soundstaging seems more focused.  This is a moot point however if you don't have an external DAC connected through USB.


 
   
  Agentsim posted that integer mode will be coming to BP as well. Not in the App Store version though.
  Could take a while.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Agentsim posted that integer mode will be coming to BP as well. Not in the App Store version though.
> Could take a while.


 
  Integer mode is available using BP. Although limited to specific DACs. Am I missing something?


----------



## Jmstrmbn

I have the app store version of BP, how do i update it outside of the appstore?


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> I have the app store version of BP, how do i update it outside of the appstore?


 
  You don't. Yet. For now there is only the app store version if I'm correct.
   
   
  Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Integer mode is available using BP. Although limited to specific DACs. Am I missing something?


 
   
  Dunno, maybe on more dacs or maybe it only works on Leopard/SL now.
*See here.*


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> You don't. Yet. For now there is only the app store version if I'm correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I glossed over the OS. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Ren19

How do i convert .ape to flac or apple lossless without any loss at all on mac?


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





ren19 said:


> How do i convert .ape to flac or apple lossless without any loss at all on mac?


 
  Use  Max or XLD.


----------



## Ren19

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Use  Max or XLD.


 

 I downloaded Max what settings i change for best FLAC quality?


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





ren19 said:


> How do i convert .ape to flac or apple lossless without any loss at all on mac?


 
   
   
   
*XLD*
   
  If you want to play them in iTunes you'll want ALAC. (Apple's version of FLAC).
  There used to be a plugin that allowed iTunes to play FLAC as well but I'm not sure if it still works.
  I rip all my music to ALAC. That way I can use it on an iPod/Pad/Phone/whatever as well.
   
  The drawback of ALAC IMO is that if you want to use a media server you need a Mac Mini with iTunes on it for example. Simply putting the files on a NAS won't let you play them with most (if not all) network player devices like Marantz/Denon/PS Audio, etc ... These can't decode ALAC.
  You can store your iTunes library on a NAS and access it with any Mac running iTunes.
   
   
  I have my setup like this:
   
  Mac Mini used as a media server with Thunderbolt drive containing all my music, movies, TV shows, podcasts, etc... The Mac Mini is connected via USB to a Dac that feeds my music amp and speakers.
  It is connected via HDMI to a surround receiver with speakers and screen for playing back movies. 
  Control is via various iPad apps. (I am still testing out to find which suit me best). For music the Apple Remote App is fine. You don't need the TV on to see/access your music library, you see that on the iPad.
   
  On my MBP and iMac iTunes refers to the same library on the MM's Thunderbolt drive. The iMac is also connected via USB to a Dac that again feeds an amp and speakers.
  I can also control the Mac Mini from there via screensharing.
   
  Only one computer at a time can use the library though, but that isn't a problem for me.
   
  I hope this makes sense, I'm pretty tired right now so might be a bit uncoherent.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





ren19 said:


> I downloaded Max what settings i change for best FLAC quality?


 
   
  XLD is regulary updated. Max hasn't been for the last 3 or 4 years. I'd take XLD.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> XLD is regulary updated. Max hasn't been for the last 3 or 4 years. I'd take XLD.


 
  I concur. Just threw out Max as an option. XLD is what I surmise most of us use.


----------



## Ren19

.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Probably ML's new security feature.
Right click or option-click and choose open, then press open again.


----------



## paradoxper

Or it could be that XLD is open, but seeing as it doesn't exactly have a window he's missing it.


----------



## Ren19

i think i downloaded it wrong, but it works now.
   
  Now my problem (if it's one) is that when i convert to lossless, it gives me 16 bit audio. I converted from an Ape file.
   
  Is it possible that the ape file is made in 16 bit?


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





ren19 said:


> i think i downloaded it wrong, but it works now.
> 
> Now my problem (if it's one) is that when i convert to lossless, it gives me 16 bit audio. I converted from an Ape file.
> 
> Is it possible that the ape file is made in 16 bit?


 
  Check your settings: Under option.


----------



## Ren19

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Check your settings: Under option.


 
   
  Ah thanks, i was converting to AIFF.
   
  I noticed you have you "Maximum #threads" at 4. Did you change it because it makes a difference in the audio? (I have no idea what it is)
   
  Was it like that default?


----------



## paaj

that amounts to the number of processor cores you want to keep busy converting. It's about conversion speed, not related to quality. I think standard setting utilizes all available cores, but you can lower it to keep system responsiveness better if you want to keep working while converting.
   
   
  I'm not going to read the 100 pages I missed... has any real alternative to iTunes/Remote popped up since? I have used the BitPerfect add-on for a while, but it is just too buggy and uncertain for a headless MacMini to work with and I don't have much 44.1+ material anyway.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





ren19 said:


> Ah thanks, i was converting to AIFF.
> 
> I noticed you have you "Maximum #threads" at 4. Did you change it because it makes a difference in the audio? (I have no idea what it is)
> 
> Was it like that default?


 
  Default should be 2, If I'm not mistaken.
   
  Threads refers to the number of Cores/Processors you have available to use.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





paaj said:


> that amounts to the number of processor cores you want to keep busy converting. It's about conversion speed, not related to quality. I think standard setting utilizes all available cores, but you can lower it to keep system responsiveness better if you want to keep working while converting.
> 
> 
> I'm not going to read the 100 pages I missed... has any real alternative to iTunes/Remote popped up since? I have used the BitPerfect add-on for a while, but it is just too buggy and uncertain for a headless MacMini to work with and I don't have much 44.1+ material anyway.


 
   
  Did you try the latest versions of BP? I just let the program start on startup of my headless MM and whenever I run iTunes it simply takes over core audio and changes the sample rate just fine.
   
  For iTunes I keep using the Remote App. Haven't felt the need for anything better.
  I have a bunch of remote apps for other things though, and Rowmote to use as a keyboard/mouse replacement. When you start Rowmote the MM wakes from sleep.
   
  Quote: 





ren19 said:


> i think i downloaded it wrong, but it works now.
> 
> Now my problem (if it's one) is that when i convert to lossless, it gives me 16 bit audio. I converted from an Ape file.
> 
> Is it possible that the ape file is made in 16 bit?


 
   
  You should take Apple Lossless indeed and under the options button next to it set sample rate and bit depth to same as original.
   
  ALAC is the same quality as AIFF (Apple's version of wav) but is smaller due to losless compression and  keeps all metadata inside the mp4 file. Wav doesn't and aiff keeps only part of it inside the file if I remember it right.
   
  It could be your ape file is 16-bit as well. If it's a CD rip then it's 16-bit. CD's are 16/44, if you want higher you need a DVD audio or BluRay audio rip or highres downloads form sites like hdtracks.com .


----------



## AppleheadMay

By the way Ren, I get the feeling that you haven't used iTunes (much) yet.
  one of the reasons many like it is it's capabilities as a music manager/browser. 
  It isn't configured like that standard though, out of the box you get a shiny and easy to use interface.
  With some customizng through the view menu and by right clicking on the headers of the columns you can make it a joy to search, select and re-discover your music.
  Below is a screenshot of how I use it.
  As for SQ it's bitperfect if you don't mess with the sound-enhancement options in preferences and keep the volume at max.
  The only gripe I have is that it doesn't autoswitch sample rates but that is easily remedied by installing BitPerfect from the app store and always have it running. I even set it to run on startup of the Mac.


----------



## paaj

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Did you try the latest versions of BP? I just let the program start on startup of my headless MM and whenever I run iTunes it simply takes over core audio and changes the sample rate just fine.


 
   
  Yeah. Previous versions didn't do gapless well (I did get a 'custom' version that worked for a while but then started skipping too), and the new version doesn't integrate with Lion or iTunes11 but the sample rate doesn't (visibly) change in AudioMidi anymore.
  Maybe my Mini needs an upgrade, it's getting old with it's 1.8Ghz C2D and no support for MountainLion.


----------



## Ren19

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> You should take Apple Lossless indeed and under the options button next to it set sample rate and bit depth to same as original.
> 
> ALAC is the same quality as AIFF (Apple's version of wav) but is smaller due to losless compression and  keeps all metadata inside the mp4 file. Wav doesn't and aiff keeps only part of it inside the file if I remember it right.
> 
> It could be your ape file is 16-bit as well. If it's a CD rip then it's 16-bit. CD's are 16/44, if you want higher you need a DVD audio or BluRay audio rip or highres downloads form sites like hdtracks.com .


 
  Thanks for the site, can i get that much quality if i buy from itunes?
   
  Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> By the way Ren, I get the feeling that you haven't used iTunes (much) yet.
> one of the reasons many like it is it's capabilities as a music manager/browser.
> It isn't configured like that standard though, out of the box you get a shiny and easy to use interface.
> With some customizng through the view menu and by right clicking on the headers of the columns you can make it a joy to search, select and re-discover your music.
> ...


 
  Thanks thats nice to know, but i don't have that much music.....yet.


----------



## Ren19

Anyone know how to make the mac output 24/96 ? I can't see it in the audio settings


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





ren19 said:


> Anyone know how to make the mac output 24/96 ? I can't see it in the audio settings


 
  Apps/Utilities/Audio Midi you can manually change it there, if that's what you're wanting.


----------



## Ren19

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Apps/Utilities/Audio Midi you can manually change it there, if that's what you're wanting.


 

 exactly what i was looking for, thanks.


----------



## miceblue

For Audirvana Plus, in OS X 10.8.2 (I'm using a 15" Retina MacBook Pro):

 Can you prevent the playlist from automatically showing up every time you open a song from Finder?
 Even when "Autostart playback when opened from outside" is checked, opening a file straight from Finder doesn't automatically start playback. Does this happen to anyone else?
 Why does the preferences window ALWAYS appear near the bottom of my screen? It's so annoying having to move it up every time...


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





ren19 said:


> Thanks for the site, can i get that much quality if i buy from itunes?
> 
> Thanks thats nice to know, but i don't have that much music.....yet.


 
   Nope, iTunes is AAC, Apple's equivalent of MP3, compressed thus.
   
  I only have about 3800 tracks in there yet. Another 80 GB is waiting to be converted to Alac and then tagged in iTunes here on my drive. Then about 500 classical and 500 jazz CDs still need to be ripped.
   
  Since you don't have that much music yet, now is the time to set the metadata and classify them all in the way you want your music to be organised. The each time you add new music or rip a CD it's a breeze to make it fir into your system.
  Believe me, it isn't much fun to do that with thousands of tracks all at once. 
   
   
   
  Quote:


ren19 said:


> exactly what i was looking for, thanks.


 
  Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Apps/Utilities/Audio Midi you can manually change it there, if that's what you're wanting.


 
  Quote: 





ren19 said:


> Anyone know how to make the mac output 24/96 ? I can't see it in the audio settings


 
   
  If it's for playing through iTunes that won't change a thing. You need to shut down iTunes, change the setting like Paradoxper said and the relaunch iTunes each time you use a file with a different sample rate. Not a bug, Apple is very well aware of it but they're pretty stubborn buggers. I guess they don't feel the need to change the sample rate since they want you to buy all your music from the iTunes store.
  If you don't do it that way,  A/M Setup will show the correct sample rate but when you have an external Dac you can see on the Dac that iTunes is still using the previous sample rate.
   
  Or simply install an app like BitPerfect that does that all automatically for you without shutting down iTunes.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> Why does the preferences window ALWAYS appear near the bottom of my screen? It's so annoying having to move it up every time...


 
   
  You need a bigger screen, with a 27' iMac it will appear in the middle.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Sorry mate, couldn't resist.


----------



## Ren19

Where do you guys get your 24/96 from? It dosen't seems like there is alot of that quality on the internet.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





ren19 said:


> Where do you guys get your 24/96 from? It dosen't seems like there is alot of that quality on the internet.


 
  There isn't. As previously mentioned HDTracks is a popular source.


----------



## AppleheadMay

HDTracks indeed. They have 44/48/88/96/176 and 192. Sometimes you have the choice between two qualities as well. They have a lot of music already and new labels and artists are added regularly. Subscribe yourself to their newsletter, there are discounts about ewvery week.


----------



## preproman

Has J. River for OS X been mentioned at all?


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





preproman said:


> Has J. River for OS X been mentioned at all?


 
  No. Because there is no full port. That won't happen until "end of the year" or early next year.
   
  The HDTracks incentive they have been pushing isn't fully functional. In fact, it's flakey.


----------



## preproman

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> No. Because there is no full port. That won't happen until "end of the year" or early next year.
> 
> The HDTracks incentive they have been pushing isn't fully functional. In fact, it's flakey.


 
   
   
  Yeah I was just wondering if you guys herd anything.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





preproman said:


> Yeah I was just wondering if you guys herd anything.


 
  They seem to be committed. I know I am very excited to see some real competition.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> They seem to be committed. I know I am very excited to see some real competition.


 
  Are they planning on getting the audio part only or the video part as well to the Mac?


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> Are they planning on getting the audio part only or the video part as well to the Mac?


 
  I believe the main focus is on the audio part. Just to get it up and running. And expectations of by end of year
is pretty ambitious. February 2013. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Video will not even be part of the first version.


----------



## preproman

From Jim at J. River.
   
   


[size=small]
 [td][size=small] 

[size=small]
 [td][size=small] 

[size=small]
 [td][size=small]  Here's the status to date.

 As said above, we have MC's audio engine working, so we can play audio.  We can encode and decode most codec's (ALAC, AIFF, etc.)

 The user interface is not working yet.  Parts of networking don't work.  DLNA, ripping, burning and Theater View don't.

 We have not looked at video or TV yet, and they will not be part of the first version.

 By commenting out some non-audio features, we're expecting to be able to compile the whole program in the next few weeks.  
   
  It should take several more weeks to clean things up to the point where we could release an audio only version of MC for testing.

 Expect these early builds to be available in late January or February.
[/size][/td] 
[/size] [/size][/td] 
[/size] [/size][/td] 
[/size]


----------



## paradoxper

Until J.River supports server features I'll be on the sidelines, sadly.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Good to know thanks. My give it a try, check out the updates and wait for a video version meanwhile.


----------



## miceblue

This isn't a music player, but it was mentioned earlier. I usually use EAC to accurately rip CD's I have, but it's kind of cumbersome to switch to Windows solely for that purpose (and some light gaming). Is there an easy-to-follow, newbie-friendly, comprehensive guide as to how to accurately rip CD's with XLD? Does XLD have the AccurateRip and CUEtools DB log features? From prior experiences with XLD, I've had extremely long rip periods even with new CD's (maybe it was CD Paranoia mode?) that had estimated rip times of a few days...totally not acceptable.


----------



## Currawong

If it's a new CD, without scratches, then you don't need paranoia mode. I would just use iTunes with error correction.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





currawong said:


> If it's a new CD, without scratches, then you don't need paranoia mode. I would just use iTunes with error correction.


 
  I would use iTunes, but I prefer to rip in FLAC. I also like the re-assurance of having a log file. XD


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





currawong said:


> If it's a new CD, without scratches, then you don't need paranoia mode. I would just use iTunes with error correction.


 
   
  Is there actually anything better about XLD compared to iTunes for CDs in good condition?


----------



## paradoxper

Not if you're ripping good condition CD's. If not, Itunes error correction isn't near as good as XLD's.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Not if you're ripping good condition CD's. If not, Itunes error correction isn't near as good as XLD's.


 
  Well for the record, I do have a few pretty scratched-up CD's (i.e. second-hand/used CD's), so sometimes using EAC for ripping is a good thing.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Not if you're ripping good condition CD's. If not, Itunes error correction isn't near as good as XLD's.


 
   
  Thanks, good to know.


----------



## miceblue

A new version of Audirvana Plus is out. It fixes the preferences window being out of range of the screen boundaries.
   
  And Integer Mode is back.
   
   
  On another note, for iTunes 11, does anyone else experience a slow loading time for opening the store upon launching iTunes? It takes about 5-10 seconds for mine to completely load, so my typing gets interrupted when I'm trying to search for an artist in the store when I open it up after launching iTunes.


----------



## xarchi

hi 
   
  wondering if you guys can help me out.. im new to headfi and new to the world of good quality music.. i have libraries of 1000s of mp3s that have now become horrid to listen to after i head some real quality music.. 
   
  i have a very particular question and need.. 
   
  i wish to start a library with solely Wavs 16bit/44.1khz.. im aware of the implications of this but i wish to do it anyway. im currently using itunes for my mp3s
   
  i want to rip cds as wavs so i need software to do that, i would also explore the idea of a new player as opposed to iTunes. i would also like to create tags for my wavs so they are identifiable. i understand dbpoweramp can do something like this but it is not available on the mac platform.
   
  if there is a stand alone app that can do this then that would be great.. 
   
  any ideas??
[size=medium]  [/size]


----------



## jamescodway

Hello. Suggest you read through the thread for detail on players. iTunes can readily rip and tag your CDs into lossless ALAC format. Purists prefer open source but ALAC works for me. 

You can set iTunes to auto rip, tag get artwork and eject your CD when done. I just put in a new disk each time I walk past. I would suggest a quick disk clean to avoid skipping type errors on your rips. 

Good luck. 

Best

James


----------



## xarchi

Thanks for the fast reply. 

My biggest concern in tagging. I understand that id3 tagging does not work with wav.. But dbpoweramp does offer a compatible tagging. I don't know the tech details but I'm going on what Iv already read. 

Can Alac be easily converted to wav? 

Thanks


----------



## liqwidlord

Quote: 





xarchi said:


> Thanks for the fast reply.
> My biggest concern in tagging. I understand that id3 tagging does not work with wav.. But dbpoweramp does offer a compatible tagging. I don't know the tech details but I'm going on what Iv already read.
> Can Alac be easily converted to wav?
> Thanks


 
  I use Max to convert all my tracks into whatever i need the format to do. It's quick and really easy. You can convert WAV to AIFF which is the same but iTunes will be able to read it and it holds as much tag information as you want it too


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





xarchi said:


> Thanks for the fast reply.
> My biggest concern in tagging. I understand that id3 tagging does not work with wav.. But dbpoweramp does offer a compatible tagging. I don't know the tech details but I'm going on what Iv already read.
> Can Alac be easily converted to wav?
> Thanks


 
  Alac can be converted back to wav without any loss yes. But if you want an uncompressed Mac format you'd better get AIFF, same as wav but with tagging infoin the file. Not all the info though if I remember correctly but most of it. Alac holds all the info in the file but it's losslesss compressed as opposed to uncompressed. Same SQ though, it's lossless after all.


----------



## xarchi

Right. I understand a little better now. I want to purchase the tera player and that only supports wav so ideally I would want all my files to be the same format as I can imagine it can get confusing aswell as using up too much memory I.e having separate libraries for separate formats


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





xarchi said:


> Right. I understand a little better now. I want to purchase the tera player and that only supports wav so ideally I would want all my files to be the same format as I can imagine it can get confusing aswell as using up too much memory I.e having separate libraries for separate formats


 
   
  I know the feeling. 
  I tried to go with a NAS and use a network Dac. None of those seem to be able to handle ALAC or AIFF, only WAV, FLAC, MP3 and sometimes AAC. Some companies promised ALAC support but didn't come through and blamed it on licenses. Now ALAC is open source they still don't keep their promise.
   
  I then started to define my priorities: top quality (thus uncompressed or lossless), iTunes compatible (since I use Macs and iStuff only and iTunes is my library as well as player, with the aid of "BitPerfect") and all metadata contained inside the file. That leaves me with the choices of ALAC or AIFF with the occasional AAC from the iTunes store.
   
  I decided any Dac or Network player (or in your case portable player which I believe the TERA is) should serve my needs and play those file types, not the other way around, I'm not prepared to use a different file type so a player can play them.
  Not the easiest way I can tell you, which is how I came to the following solution/setup:
   
  Living room:
  A Mac Mini that serves as a media server with a Thunderbolt RAID to hold my media (iTunes Library, audio and video).
  It is connected to a Dac via USB to play up to 192/32 music. from there it goes to an amp with stereo speakers. 
  It is also connected to a surround receiver to play video (downloaded, DVD rips, Bluray rips) with surround speakers.
  Controlled with an iPad (or iPod if you want smaller). Control with the iPad, KB and mouse or Apple Remote via TV screen is also possible. I have various apps on the iPad to control the way I want depending on what I want to do or how I feel like doing it at the time, for example one that replaces a keyboard, trackpad and remote all in one app, one that simply offers screen sharing, one that shows iTunes, and some others to control video or control my amp/dac/surround.
   
  Office:
  An iMac that connects to the iTunes Library on the TB drive of the Mac Mini via Ethernet (WiFi also possible).
  This one is connected to a Dac via USB, again capable of up to 192/24.
  Dac connects to speaker amp with speakers and HP amp with phones.
  Since I'm at my desk I usually control straight via the iMac but the iPad/Pod/Phone is possible as well.
   
   
  This gives me top quality and allows me to use iTunes. On the go I simply use an iPod or my iPhone.


----------



## jontron

I use iTunes with Audio Hijack Pro. Pretty much all I need since iTunes plays ALAC. I convert FLAC files with XLD (http://tmkk.undo.jp/xld/index_e.html), it does a wonderful job, and inherits  the ID3 tags as along as you are converting into ALAC. 
   
  The only issue I have right now is storage. I'm on a 500GB SSD, and using up a large percentage of my HD just for music isn't very appealing. AppleheadMay posted a great solution, though. I'll be doing the same thing with my music collection.
   
  Cheers!


----------



## jtinto

Quote: 





jontron said:


> I convert FLAC files with XLD (http://tmkk.undo.jp/xld/index_e.html), it does a wonderful job, and inherits  the ID3 tags as along as you are converting into ALAC.


 
  I do most of my conversions in XLD too.
  I used to use Max, but it's not as intuitive and not as good with meta data, cue files and album art.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Max seems to have become abandonware more or less.
   
  I use XLD as well and though I once or twice seem to have found how to edit tags for multiple tracks at once that option usually eludes me. 
  Anyone knows what I am doing wrong?


----------



## jtinto

I edit multiple songs on an album in the cue window
  I'm not sure if there's another way to edit multiple tracks at once


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





jtinto said:


> I edit multiple songs on an album in the cue window
> I'm not sure if there's another way to edit multiple tracks at once


 
   
  To be a bit more clear, I'm talking about converting files from FLAC, not ripping a CD.
   
  By cue window you mean the window you get when you "open folder as a disc"? (probably the same one you get when you rip a CD.)
   
  You can also just use "open" and select a folder instead of a file but then you get an edit window when you can edit metadata of 1 song at a time, which I have been doing up to now. Time consuming.


----------



## jtinto

yes, the .cue file is like an index file for the individual .flac files


----------



## AppleheadMay

Thanks jtinto, it works. Silly I never found that back again myself.


----------



## oogabooga

So I've tried to read as much of this thread as I can manage, as well as one of the other Amarra threads on here.  
   
  I've tried using Amarra and Fidelia for the past few days.  My not so golden ears can't hear a difference between the two and iTunes. Of course I've ready many reports of others hearing a difference, which frustrates me . I do have a few questions I'm hoping someone can shed some light on. For what it's worth, I'm using a Macbook Pro running 10.7. I have an SSD. I use either USB to a NAD M51 or optical out to a Parasound 1500, both of which go to my Stax.
   
  1) Since I have an 8x upsampling DAC (why) would I want to upsample in software (e.g. to 88.2 kHz) before sending to the DAC?
   
  2) If I am NOT upsampling in software should I care at all about the "iZotope sampler", etc, features that some programs offer?
   
  3) If I only listen to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz audio, what benefits do I really get from software like Amarra?
   
  4) If I turn off iTunes crossfade, sound enhancer, and sound check, is it 'bit-perfect'?
   
  5) The one thing I did find very handy about Fidelia is that it has a 'hog-mode'. Is BitPerfect the cheapest way to grant this power to iTunes?
   
   
  Thanks, 
  Sameer
   
  PS - Question 6, which I don't know if there's a good answer to, is: If iTunes and Amarra are both supposed to be bit-perfect, how can they sound different to some people? (does Amarra affect jitter in some way??)


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





oogabooga said:


> So I've tried to read as much of this thread as I can manage, as well as one of the other Amarra threads on here.
> 
> I've tried using Amarra and Fidelia for the past few days.  My not so golden ears can't hear a difference between the two and iTunes. Of course I've ready many reports of others hearing a difference, which frustrates me . I do have a few questions I'm hoping someone can shed some light on. For what it's worth, I'm using a Macbook Pro running 10.7. I have an SSD. I use either USB to a NAD M51 or optical out to a Parasound 1500, both of which go to my Stax.
> 
> ...


 
   
  1) Different kind of upsampling most likely. Most upsampling DACs are really converting from PCM to delta-sigma. The delta-sigma is necessarily very high sample rate, thus "upsampling". The software will upsample PCM to PCM.
   
  2) If you need to downsample. For instance, you're playing a 32/384k file, but your DAC only does 24/96.
   
  3) As a member of the trade, I'll stay away from this one.
   
  4) Yes, *but*. The "but" is, if your DAC is set to, for instance 24/48, and you play a 16/44.1 file, iTunes will not reconfigure the DAC, so it will have to upsample to 24/48.
   
  5) I think so


----------



## solserenade

Quote: 





oogabooga said:


> 3) If I only listen to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz audio, what benefits do I really get from software like Amarra?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Sameer


 
   
  This may be obvious, but one of the main reasons I use Fidelia is because it plays .flac files. (which iTunes does not)
   
  I have paid for one level of "enhanced" player, because I wanted access to a couple things (Matrix Reverb, Graphic EQ, Parametric EQ) -- but not the top two Add-ons, FHX and "Advanced". (yet)
   
  The cross-feed (FHX) interests me ... but I've not taken that ($49) plunge - I did try a couple of "Mono Enhancer/Exciter" type plug-ins with Audio-Hijack Pro--which I thought might be similar to FHX (?)-- and was not excited about them.
   
  One more thing I like (Fidelia): Seeing the waveform of the file. I think it's nice to see (with Classical especially) the 'dynamics' of the song - and you're able to see if a whole album is mixed way high (brickwalled?).
   
  The Fidelia iOS Remote Control app is fantastic!


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





solserenade said:


> This may be obvious, but one of the main reasons I use Fidelia is because it plays .flac files. (which iTunes does not)
> 
> I have paid for one level of "enhanced" player, because I wanted access to a couple things (Matrix Reverb, Graphic EQ, Parametric EQ) -- but not the top two Add-ons, FHX and "Advanced". (yet)
> 
> ...


 
   
  Very true and great if that’s what one wants. But I want about the exect opposite from a player.
   
  I want all my music managed and played by iTunes, not an external app. All Flacs are converted to Alac thus.
  I absolutely don't want any kind of effects or alterations, so no need for EQ, crossfeed or other effects.
  I want the app to be as lightwight as possible, invisible is even better. It just has to deliver bitperfect sound and take care of the sample rate switching.
   
  So for me, after having tried (and bought) 4 of the 5 main apps we've been talking about in this thread BitPerfect is the answer. I put it into my startup items so it's always ready when I start iTunes and takes over the audio system of OSX whenever I start playing music in iTunes. It does nothing when I play a YouTube video or anything else sound related on my computer. Glad I finally got to that but sadly I spent a lot of cash finding that out.
   
  Quote: 





oogabooga said:


> 3) If I only listen to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz audio, what benefits do I really get from software like Amarra?
> 
> 5) The one thing I did find very handy about Fidelia is that it has a 'hog-mode'. Is BitPerfect the cheapest way to grant this power to iTunes?


 
   
  I suppose you do know iTunes does not automatically switch sample rates? If the first song you played was 96/24 then all others after that will be up/down-sampled to 96/24 until you shut down itunes and change the sample rate manually in Audio Midi Setup, then relaunch iTunes again.
  These apps change the sample rate sent to your Dac automatically without needing to restart iTunes. A bare necessity in my opinion.


----------



## oogabooga

Quote: 





solserenade said:


> This may be obvious, but one of the main reasons I use Fidelia is because it plays .flac files. (which iTunes does not)
> 
> 
> The cross-feed (FHX) interests me ... but I've not taken that ($49) plunge - I did try a couple of "Mono Enhancer/Exciter" type plug-ins with Audio-Hijack Pro--which I thought might be similar to FHX (?)-- and was not excited about them.
> ...


 
   
  I thought about the FLAC support too, but I'm a sucker for the iTunes library, so I've decided to transcode to ALAC.  
   
  I did try the FHX (it's enabled in the demo).  It's a pleasing effect, for sure. I don't think that I would buy it for $50, but it sounded nice!
   
  I also like seeing the waveform, for the same reasons you mention.
   


appleheadmay said:


> I suppose you do know iTunes does not automatically switch sample rates? If the first song you played was 96/24 then all others after that will be up/down-sampled to 96/24 until you shut down itunes and change the sample rate manually in Audio Midi Setup, then relaunch iTunes again.
> These apps change the sample rate sent to your Dac automatically without needing to restart iTunes. A bare necessity in my opinion.


 
  Quote: 





agentsim said:


> 1) Different kind of upsampling most likely. Most upsampling DACs are really converting from PCM to delta-sigma. The delta-sigma is necessarily very high sample rate, thus "upsampling". The software will upsample PCM to PCM.
> 
> 2) If you need to downsample. For instance, you're playing a 32/384k file, but your DAC only does 24/96.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Okay, $10 for hog-mode and setting the bitrate on my DAC is good/economical enough for me to give it a go!
  Thanks all!


----------



## jtinto

I'm with you guys by keeping it simple, and managed within iTunes
  For me that's BitPerfect
  It stays out of the way and sounds great
   
  P.S. and support the fellow canuck too!


----------



## oogabooga

Quote: 





jtinto said:


> I'm with you guys by keeping it simple, and managed within iTunes
> For me that's BitPerfect
> It stays out of the way and sounds great
> 
> P.S. and support the fellow canuck too!


 
  I've been using it for a day now. I noticed a few minor problems - it doesn't seem to like if I update metadata on a currently playing song, but I don't do that often enough to care. 
   
  Otherwise it's great and stays out of the way quite nicely.  I don't upsample or anything so I can't comment on that part of the software.  
   
  PS - not just a canuck, but a québécois too, I think!


----------



## jtinto

pretty sure he's another Head-Fier from Montreal


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





oogabooga said:


> PS - not just a canuck, but a québécois too, I think!


 
   
  Toute à fait... mais d'origine britannique!


----------



## AppleheadMay

C'est quoi un Canuck?


----------



## jtinto

Les Canadiens bien sur


----------



## AppleheadMay

Aha, goed om te weten!


----------



## mboerma

Ja, zeker weten! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Wat eigenlijk?


----------



## Droste

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> C'est quoi un Canuck?


 
  a somewhat derogatory term in my opinion...


----------



## jtinto

Non!


----------



## omasciarotte

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Not if you're ripping good condition CD's. If not, Itunes error correction isn't near as good as XLD's.


 
   
  Another bonus; for those that prefer FLAC, XLD has two useful encoding adjustments, the chief one being  “compression level” or how hard it works to compress the data. I’ve run some tests and found that the file size difference between max and min settings is relatively small so, I used to (these days, I prefer ALAC for several reasons) encode with the minimum compression setting to reduce CPU utilization during playback.


----------



## NasturtiumLabs

Hi all -- I hope you'll forgive this minor advertisement. Nasturtium Player is a new music app for Mac that integrates with both iTunes and YouTube. I will be the first to admit that it is not targeted towards audiophiles -- the backend is simply QuickTime -- but it _does_ intend to be the player for those who would simply like to choose some music and get back to work.
   
  Here's a few promo codes for download Nasturtium from the Mac App Store:
  http://tokn.co/6yxh56fx
  http://tokn.co/ys45p5s2
  http://tokn.co/9jwtaugw
   
  Otherwise, you can find it here:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nasturtium-player/id585354542?ls=1&mt=12


----------



## jtinto

I'll give it a look
  thanks Nasturtium


----------



## miceblue

Does anyone use Audirvana Plus with a Retina MacBook Pro?
  When I have the volume control mouse control axis set to "rotate" (as opposed to horizontal or vertical), rotating the knob hardly changes the volume (i.e. -∞ dB to -39 dB when I try to rotate the knob).


----------



## AppleheadMay

No retina here, but I know what you mean.
  Try setting it to horizontal or vertical, go out of prefs and then get back in and set it to rotate again.
  That did the trick for me.


----------



## MatsudaMan

How do you think Bitperfect compares to Decibel sound wise?


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> No retina here, but I know what you mean.
> Try setting it to horizontal or vertical, go out of prefs and then get back in and set it to rotate again.
> That did the trick for me.


 
  Hm that didn't work for me. I have it on vertical by default.
  I tried moving Audrivana to a different part of the screen so I can "rotate" it more. It rotates reaaaaally slowly at first, then rotates really quickly later on. On my older MacBook, the rotate feature works just fine.


----------



## hubee

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> A new version of Audirvana Plus is out. It fixes the preferences window being out of range of the screen boundaries.
> 
> And Integer Mode is back.


 
  For me Audirvana Plus is the best. It has some kind of sweetness in the treble that no other player can (min. for my ears) This is easily detectable with classical music, furthermore with violins.
   
  What are your impressions about it folks ?


----------



## littletree76

Second your impression on Audirvana Plus. Not only it sounds more natural (particularly when compared with Amarra / Amarra HiFi) , the layering, imaging and sound stage are excellent as you can sense the location/tone of individual instrument in an orchestra. Further more with direct play and integer mode turned on, unnecessary software layers (for various audio effects and sample rate conversion) such as Apple Core Audio are bypassed all together, thus settings in Apple MIDI Setup utility do not have any effect on Audirvana Plus. For pure music appreciation by audiophiles, any additional audio processing has adverse effect on sound quality.
   
  Audirvana Plus requires certain amount of memory (buffer size is adjustable) for track preload and processing, scheme for sample rate conversion is adjustable as well (according to capability of your external DAC). It doe not modify any setting in Apple MIDI Setup at all (see above), thus no audio setting should be affected once Audirvana Plus application has been quit (does not matter it ran in hog mod / direct play / integer mode). So if you never set these parameters properly according to your Mac and DAC hardwares and the application keep crashing and audio system never work properly for other applications, then blame yourself instead of the application. With Audirvana Plus, crappy software such as iTunes and all unnecessary software layers can be bypassed completely, thus it should be more stable than Amarra HiFi and Pure Music and even standalone Amarra.
   
  By the way we are talking about paid commercial software Audirvana Plus but not free open source software Audirvana. The free version has some critical components (particularly good sample rate converter) missing.


----------



## merkil

littletree76 said:


> Second your impression on Audirvana Plus. Not only it sounds more natural (particularly when compared with Amarra / Amarra HiFi) , the layering, imaging and sound stage are excellent as you can sense the location/tone of individual instrument in an orchestra. Further more with direct play and integer mode turned on, unnecessary software layers (for various audio effects and sample rate conversion) such as Apple Core Audio are bypassed all together, thus settings in Apple MIDI Setup utility do not have any effect on Audirvana Plus. For pure music appreciation by audiophiles, any additional audio processing has adverse effect on sound quality.
> 
> Audirvana Plus requires certain amount of memory (buffer size is adjustable) for track preload and processing, scheme for sample rate conversion is adjustable as well (according to capability of your external DAC). It doe not modify any setting in Apple MIDI Setup at all (see above), thus no audio setting should be affected once Audirvana Plus application has been quit (does not matter it ran in hog mod / direct play / integer mode). So if you never set these parameters properly according to your Mac and DAC hardwares and the application keep crashing and audio system never work properly for other applications, then blame yourself instead of the application. With Audirvana Plus, crappy software such as iTunes and all unnecessary software layers can be bypassed completely, thus it should be more stable than Amarra HiFi and Pure Music and even standalone Amarra.
> 
> By the way we are talking about paid commercial software Audirvana Plus but not free open source software Audirvana. The free version has some critical components (particularly good sample rate converter) missing.




I have also been trying out audirvana plus and I'm likin it a lot. It does make an improvement from just using iTunes, at least to my ears. 

I was wondering if you are doing any up sampling also. I was playing around with none vs max and I think there is a slight difference between the two (source is 16/44.1 ALAC). What are your impressions on that?


----------



## littletree76

Followings are my audio system setup:
   
  iMac (2.8 GHz Core i7, 256 GB SSD, 16 GB DDR3 RAM) (USB 2.0) > WireWorld UltraViolet USB cable > nuForce DDA-100 Amplifier > Wharfedale Diamond 122 Speakers
   
  Since nuForce DDA-100 Direct Digital Amplifier only support following sample rates: 44.1/48/96 kHz, I set Forced Up-sampling option to Maximum sample rate (namely 96 kHz) as the option Oversampling 2x only (88.2 kHz for red-book CD sample rate of 44.1 kHz) is not supported by nuForce DDA-100 amplifier. With the renown iZotope 64-bit SRC up-sampler selected for Converter option in Audirvana Plus, I did not hear any degradation in sound quality. Time jitter has been taken care of in DDA-100 amplifier thus not a concern to me.
   
  Maximum up-sampling of 96 kHz sound slightly better than no up-sampling at all (44.1 kHz), thus I keep 96 kHz as permanent setting and rediscover all my music through Audirvana and above new audio setup on my three-month old iMac.


----------



## iamoneagain

Audirvana Plus is now default player.  I was still going back and further with Amarra but found latest version of Audirvana Plus better in every way with direct/integer mode enabled.  
   
  I use no oversampling with all sliders to the right except cutoff at 1 and pre ringing at 0.76.  I use iTunes integration but have everything deactivated.


----------



## miceblue

I actually liked Fidelia a little bit more than Audirvana Plus from my memory, but I like Audirvana Plus for its simplicity...no add-ons required, everything is included. I don't use upsampling, but wouldn't that decrease the audio quality? Or am I thinking about upsampling music files themselves?
   
  Personally I don't use iTunes except for synching 256 kbps music to my iPhone, so I ruled out Amarra from my list. That plus I don't like its interface very much.


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





iamoneagain said:


> *Audirvana Plus is now default player.*  I was still going back and further with Amarra but found latest version of Audirvana Plus better in every way with direct/integer mode enabled.
> 
> I use no oversampling with all sliders to the right except cutoff at 1 and pre ringing at 0.76.  I use iTunes integration but have everything deactivated.


 
   
  +1


----------



## TheHawk

I agree! Audirvana Plus is my go to player now!


----------



## merkil

thehawk said:


> I agree! Audirvana Plus is my go to player now!




How often does this player crash or freeze up your system? Is it pretty stable with all the newer updates?

This question goes out to all the audirvana plus owners.

Thanks


----------



## TheHawk

Quote: 





merkil said:


> How often does this player crash or freeze up your system? Is it pretty stable with all the newer updates?
> 
> This question goes out to all the audirvana plus owners?
> 
> Thanks


 
  This player has never crashed for me.
   
  It has been very stable.
   
  Can't emphasize that enough!
   
  Also, it hardly uses resources whatsoever.


----------



## TheHawk

Often I don't use iTunes integrated mode, and just use it with it's own playlist!


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





merkil said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Which version of [Mac] OS X are you using? It runs fine in Mountain Lion with a Retina Display MacBook Pro, but on my 2008 MacBook with Snow Leopard it crashes every time I quit.


----------



## merkil

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> Which version of [Mac] OS X are you using? It runs fine in Mountain Lion with a Retina Display MacBook Pro, but on my 2008 MacBook with Snow Leopard it crashes every time I quit.


 
  I got a mid 2012 Macbook Pro with Mountain Lion. Sometimes it hangs and I get the dreaded beach ball if I close iTunes before I close it (using integrated mode).


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Audirvana used to crash on Lion when switching to or from itunes integration mode.  After updating to ML it has no issues at all.  This could also be from the 1.4 update as I upgraded to ML around the same time.


----------



## 65535

iTunes is free, has an excellent library, I like it a lot. Makes syncing my devices easy too.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

65535 said:


> iTunes is free, has an excellent library, I like it a lot. Makes syncing my devices easy too.




Very true, but not really relevant to this thread.


----------



## 65535

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> Very true, but not really relevant to this thread.


 
  Definitely was in a different tab than I thought I was.


----------



## iamoneagain

Quote: 





merkil said:


> How often does this player crash or freeze up your system? Is it pretty stable with all the newer updates?
> 
> This question goes out to all the audirvana plus owners.
> 
> Thanks


 
  I'm using early '09 iMac and latest OS.  Only time I've every had issues if I was doing way too many things at once.  Like ripping a movie, having Aperture open, and playing Audirvana + at the same time.  But if I'm just surfing the web at the same time, I have no issues at all.  
   
  I use integrated mode and it's pretty seamless. Just like using iTunes.  Only way I can tell it's Audirvana + is I have progress bar in iTunes disabled with one of the options.  I found leaving it working sometimes caused glitches if was looking at iTunes store at same time as Audirvana + was running.  With it disabled, no issues at all.  This toggle is in one of the preference tabs of Audirvana +.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

If you upgrade the amount of RAM in the machine you could probably get away doing all of that at once.  I have a 10' Macbook with 8gb of RAM and I have used A+ with high res. while ripping a movie, and writing a paper with safari and word open with no pops or clicks or lag.


----------



## merkil

jmstrmbn said:


> If you upgrade the amount of RAM in the machine you could probably get away doing all of that at once.  I have a 10' Macbook with 8gb of RAM and I have used A+ with high res. while ripping a movie, and writing a paper with safari and word open with no pops or clicks or lag.




I will probably end up doing this.


----------



## iamoneagain

I also have 8gb of RAM.  The issue I had was the whole computer would automatically just restart. Might have been some kind of kernel panic. This could have been due the the direct/integer mode of the betas.  Don't think it was as stable at the point.  Only time had any skipping was on one of bad betas.  Now it works great.   
   
  Amarra would still occasionally give me loud static, which is the worst thing you ask for.  Knocks you out of you seat.  BitPerfect was still having a problem with track listings if I don't play from a playlist.  Also doesn't sound nearly as good.  But since the latest version of Audirvana + sounds the best and is the most stable, I see no reason to use the other players anymore.


----------



## littletree76

I have finally uninstalled Fidelia, BitPerfect and Amarra from my iMac and has been using Audirvana Plus version 1.4.3 as my default player for at least a month. With integer mode, direct mode and exclusive access mode all turned on, maximum memory for tracks pre-load reduced from default to 5504 MB and running as standalone application without iTunes integration, it has never crash at all on the iMac (2.8 GHz Core i7, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, 256 GB SSD). The only sure way to crash this application is to quit the application by control-click on Audirvana Plus icon in dock and select Quit option (you can always quit in other ways). Since any playlist in iTunes can be imported easily into Audirvana Plus, I see no reason to run it with iTunes integrated mode. In fact when running as standalone application, the CPU time is the minimum compared to other players when monitored with Activity Monitor in Mac OS 10.8.2. So final verdict is to set parameters according to hardware specifications of your Mac and external DAC (first step is to reduce real memory usage by reducing memory allocated for tracks pre-load to much lower setting than default) and don't run it in iTunes integrated mode and don't think that you can run unlimited number of applications simultaneously with no respect to your Mac hardware specification (particularly on notebook computer with limited resources).
   
  iTunes sucks big time in term of playback sound quality (flame not warranted if you have sub-standard audio equipments less than USD 1000 as sound quality is not distinguishable) , so it is used only for syncing my iPhone 5 and iPad mini.
   
  In fact BitPerfect (iTunes required) and Amarra (no real-time up-sampling and ugly/slow interface) are far more unstable and slow than Audirvana Plus, so there are just two options for me: Fidelia 1.2.1 in advanced mode (USD 20 + USD 50) or Audirvana Plus 1.4.3 (USD 70). Since I want to bypass Apple's Core Audio and iTunes all together, and I want minimum effort in tweaking parameters, Audirvana Plus is selected over Fidelia.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





littletree76 said:


> I have finally uninstalled Fidelia, BitPerfect and Amarra from my iMac and has been using Audirvana Plus version 1.4.3 as my default player for at least a month. With integer mode, direct mode and exclusive access mode all turned on, maximum memory for tracks pre-load reduced from default to 5504 MB and running as standalone application without iTunes integration, it has never crash at all on the iMac (2.8 GHz Core i7, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, 256 GB SSD). The only sure way to crash this application is to quit the application by control-click on Audirvana Plus icon in dock and select Quit option (you can always quit in other ways). Since any playlist in iTunes can be imported easily into Audirvana Plus, I see no reason to run it with iTunes integrated mode. In fact when running as standalone application, the CPU time is the minimum compared to other players when monitored with Activity Monitor in Mac OS 10.8.2. So final verdict is to set parameters according to hardware specifications of your Mac and external DAC (first step is to reduce real memory usage by reducing memory allocated for tracks pre-load to much lower setting than default) and don't run it in iTunes integrated mode and don't think that you can run unlimited number of applications simultaneously with no respect to your Mac hardware specification (particularly on notebook computer with limited resources).
> 
> iTunes sucks big time in term of playback sound quality (flame not warranted if you have sub-standard audio equipments less than USD 1000 as sound quality is not distinguishable) , so it is used only for syncing my iPhone 5 and iPad mini.
> 
> In fact BitPerfect (iTunes required) and Amarra (no real-time up-sampling and ugly/slow interface) are far more unstable and slow than Audirvana Plus, so there are just two options for me: Fidelia 1.2.1 in advanced mode (USD 20 + USD 50) or Audirvana Plus 1.4.3 (USD 70). Since I want to bypass Apple's Core Audio and iTunes all together, and I want minimum effort in tweaking parameters, Audirvana Plus is selected over Fidelia.


 
  That's not necessarily true but OK.
   
  I really like Audirvana Plus but the "hog mode" kind of gets annoying for me to toggle, or just quitting Audirvana Plus for other audio playback.


----------



## GarySaville

I would agree that Audirvana Plus is the new big player in the audiophile market and the best value for its feature set.
  Amarra: clunky, ugly, and slow, lacking basic features such as exclusive access, meters, transport (a usable one at any rate), and it is priced far higher than comparable players . It reacts like it is programmed in BASIC. If the programmers can't program a simple clean interface, why should one trust their audio programming skills?
  Fidelia is much better. I think it trumps Audirvana Plus and clearly puts Amarra to shame in interface and features (until Audirvana update with VST support in the next version), and hopefully though not announced: level meters. But Fidelia is substantially more resource heavy, often causing my computer's fans to start running. Decibel is set to default player on my system since it is the only audiophile player that will launch tracks when double-clicked from the Finder.  
  Of these players, Audirvana Plus is the only one I do not own, but I probably will stop paying for updates for the other players and switch over in the future. I used the 15 day demo and was disappointed to see it go. Since my demo copy expired, Audirvana has received several substantial updates with intriguing features. While Amarra sees the occasional update, there is little or no difference other than claimed "audio performance improvements." Meanwhile, the interface continues to dutifully salut DOS 1.0.


----------



## MatsudaMan

+1 for Audirvana.
   
  Been using Audirvana Plus for the past week (just purchased it) and absolutely love it.  The sound quality is great, quite a step up from Decibel and Bitperfect.  Not too diss either of them since they are great alternatives to iTunes playback which IMO is terrible.  Before upgrading, I would get clicks and pops and overall "unclean" sound from iTunes.  Audirvana is just the opposite, I would call it "pristine" sound.  Not only that, the interface just right, clean and uncluttered.  BTW, using the v-dac II and playing either apple lossless or 24 bit/96 files from HDtracks and LinnAudio.


----------



## littletree76

I have forgotten to mention that I purchased Fidelia because I wanted standard AU/VST plugin to create warm tube sound as all my audio gears have neutral sound signatures. Only Fidelia and Pure Music accept standard formats (AU/VST) audio plugins (pick your audio preference here: http://www.macosxaudio.com), hopefully Audirvana Plus will follow suit. After listening to warm tube sound for a while, I realised that it does not suit all music genres (good for vocal but bad for instrumental), thus my preference right now is still neutral and transparent signature. Pure Music requires iTunes to work as plugin and there is no standalone version.
   
  Thus if you want high fidelity without additional audio processing, go for Audirvana Plus and if you need tweaking in sound profile with AU/VST plugins, go for Fidelia (advanced mode). Audirvana Plus, Fidelia and Pure Music are the three alternative media players that have impressed me most but Pure Music need iTunes to work though it has the most features among these media players.


----------



## hubee

It seems that Audirvana+ wins the glorius battle of the OSX music players 
   
  Folks, what do you think about the forthcoming release of Mac version of JRiver Media Center? I'm personally curious about it .


----------



## hubee

Quote: 





garysaville said:


> I would agree that Audirvana Plus is the new big player in the audiophile market and the best value for its feature set.
> Amarra: clunky, ugly, and slow, lacking basic features such as exclusive access, meters, transport (a usable one at any rate), and it is priced far higher than comparable players . It reacts like it is programmed in BASIC. If the programmers can't program a simple clean interface, why should one trust their audio programming skills?
> Fidelia is much better. I think it trumps Audirvana Plus and clearly puts Amarra to shame in interface and features (until Audirvana update with VST support in the next version), and hopefully though not announced: level meters. But Fidelia is substantially more resource heavy, often causing my computer's fans to start running. Decibel is set to default player on my system since it is the only audiophile player that will launch tracks when double-clicked from the Finder.
> Of these players, Audirvana Plus is the only one I do not own, but I probably will stop paying for updates for the other players and switch over in the future. I used the 15 day demo and was disappointed to see it go. Since my demo copy expired, Audirvana has received several substantial updates with intriguing features. While Amarra sees the occasional update, there is little or no difference other than claimed "audio performance improvements." Meanwhile, the interface continues to dutifully salut DOS 1.0.


 

 I mostly agree !


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





hubee said:


> It seems that Audirvana+ wins the glorius battle of the OSX music players
> 
> Folks, what do you think about the forthcoming release of Mac version of JRiver Media Center? I'm personally curious about it .


 
  I still think Amarra reigns the favorite.
   
  The JRiver port has a long way to go, but I'm very excited.


----------



## MatsudaMan

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> I still think Amarra reigns the favorite.
> 
> The JRiver port has a long way to go, but I'm very excited.


 
  We should set up a poll and see what's what.


----------



## GarySaville

Quote: 





hubee said:


> I mostly agree !


 
  To be fair, I should note I like the sound signature of Amarra despite myself. I know objectively that I should not hear any difference between Fidelia & Amarra since they both claim to be bit perfect, but with certain genres, Amarra seems to have more detail and impact in the bass. Amarra sucks to use, but I would not knock its sound quality.


----------



## lextek

I've been playing around with Bitperfect, Pure Music and Audirvana Plus.  I like iTunes so it had to work well with it.  Audirvana Plus is the first one I tried that I could hear a difference.  The others I thought made a little difference, but I switch to A+ and enjoy it more.  It has never crashed and integtrates with iTunes.


----------



## solserenade

Quote: 





littletree76 said:


> I have forgotten to mention that I purchased Fidelia because I wanted standard AU/VST plugin to create warm tube sound as all my audio gears have neutral sound signatures. Only Fidelia and Pure Music accept standard formats (AU/VST) audio plugins (pick your audio preference here: http://www.macosxaudio.com), hopefully Audirvana Plus will follow suit. After listening to warm tube sound for a while, I realised that it does not suit all music genres (good for vocal but bad for instrumental), thus my preference right now is still neutral and transparent signature. Pure Music requires iTunes to work as plugin and there is no standalone version.
> 
> Thus if you want high fidelity without additional audio processing, go for Audirvana Plus and if you need tweaking in sound profile with AU/VST plugins, go for Fidelia (advanced mode). Audirvana Plus, Fidelia and Pure Music are the three alternative media players that have impressed me most but Pure Music need iTunes to work though it has the most features among these media players.


 
   
  Hi,
  Could you possibly elaborate a bit on the plugin you use for "a warm tube sound" ? I use Fidelia ... and dabble a little with the plugins -- but I do not understand ... are you using something you found elsewhere ? (the plugin)
   
  Thanks


----------



## johnnypaddock

I picked up Audivarna Plus the other day and have been extremely impressed with the sound. I had no clue that 320k mp3's on a MBP could sound this good! A huge step up from stock iTunes.


----------



## MatsudaMan

Quote: 





johnnypaddock said:


> I picked up Audivarna Plus the other day and have been extremely impressed with the sound. I had no clue that 320k mp3's on a MBP could sound this good! A huge step up from stock iTunes.


 
  Totally agree, Royale with Cheese.


----------



## mmlogic

for stability, my vote goes to Audirvana Plus 1.4
  for sound, my vote goes to Amarra 2.4
  Audirvana Plus sound artificial compair to Amarra IMHO, but difference is subtle.
   
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mac mini >> audio-gd DI-V3 >> Metrum Octave DAC >> Leben CS300 >> Grado PS1000


----------



## hubee

Quote: 





mmlogic said:


> ...  Audirvana Plus sound artificial compair to Amarra IMHO, but difference is subtle.


 
  On what genre do you hear that?


----------



## mmlogic

Quote: 





hubee said:


> On what genre do you hear that?


 
  '70s rock/pop 96/24 vinyl rip mostly.


----------



## littletree76

These plugins are released by other vendors (most deal with professional recording studios) and not available in Audiofile Engineering site. They vary in wide range in term of quality and price and must be conformed to plugin standards such as AU/VST/RTAS in order to work with various host applications such as Fidelia (AU and VST compatible). Fidelia without plugin consumes about 10% of CPU time, with Studio Devil's Virtual Tube Preamp plugin, the total CPU time is about 18%. Thus audio plugin increases CPU utilisation to different extends though their developers always try their best to minimise CPU usage.
   
  The easier way to experience effects of these audio plugins when used with Fidelia (allows audio effects of up to three different plugins):
   
  1. Go to popular sites to look for suitable plugin such as http://www.macosxaudio.com
   
  2. Use search key such as "tube" to search within the site: http://www.macosxaudio.com/front/?s=tube&submit=Search
   
  3. Identify the plugins you are interested and download their installation packages from respective websites, most allow trial for certain periods.
   
  4. Install the plugin according to instructions on display.
   
  5. Upon successful plugin installation, you should be able to see new files in following directories (note at root rather than user home directory):
  /Library/Audio/Plug-Ins/Component  (for all AU plugins)
  /Library/Audio/Plug-Ins/VST  (for all VST plugins)
   
  6. Set view of Fidelia interface to Smaller onward (other than Mini), three effect selection fields should appear below control buttons.
   
  7. Select the newly install plugin in any of these fields and user interface for the plugin should pop up on display for you to set various controls.
   
  8. Play music as usual to feel the audio effect provided by the plugin.
   
  Note your audio gears must be good enough in order to hear the audio effect of the plugin (headphone is definitely more prominent than speaker), otherwise it will be a waste of time (your time and CPU time) and money. I am happy with Audirvana Plus alone or Fidelia in advanced mode without any plugins to work with my audio gears.


----------



## solserenade

Quote: 





littletree76 said:


> I am happy with Audirvana Plus alone or Fidelia in advanced mode without any plugins to work with my audio gears.


 
   
   
  Thank you for all the information. It's good to know how it works.
   
  Really, the only plugin (or feature), (other than what is included with Fidelia Advanced) I was interested in was something that did cross-talk (I think that's the term - to emulate speakers)  ... tried something, but I didn't like it.
   
  Now I think I'm happy with Fidelia in advanced mode without any plugins.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   (sometimes I'll use an effect in Audio Hi-jack Pro ... if I really need to hear something differently)


----------



## littletree76

Here are all about audio plugins (AU and VST) for Fidelia in Audiofile Engineering support site: http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/support/helpdesk/index.php?pg=kb.book&id=39
   
  In fact Audiofile Engineering does offers additional FHX add-on (USD 50) for headphone cross feed in its online store: http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/fidelia
   
  According to the person who bought a audio gear from me, he feels that the cross feed effect created by FHX add-on is too soft and unnatural compared to hardware implementations. The only cross feed implementation I have experience is through Corda series headphone amplifiers produced by Mier Audio. Effect of the cross feed listened through headphone does not seems to be the same as real speakers. Furthermore it also depends on how music was recorded/mixed in recording studios (any cross feed introduced in master sound tracks ?). I will leave it to my brain to process audio signals introduced at both ears whether there is cross feed or not.
   
  Advantage of these audio plugin/add-on in using Fidelia is that you can set up a virtual audio rig (if your computer is powerful enough for the purpose) according to your audio preference without worrying about heat issue of class A tube amplifier and impedance matching issue among various audio components. Audio Hi-jack Pro is a lot more flexible than Fidelia in this aspect, you can even set up a virtual circuit to encompass all virtual audio components.


----------



## littletree76

Just like Fidelia, whatever audio plugins appear in folder: /Library/Audio/Plug-Ins are accessible by Audio Hi-jack Pro (support almost any audio plugin format). So in my previous post, I was referring to audio plugins purchased from other vendors but not those free standard plugins (not very useful anyway) bundled with Audio Hi-jack Pro. In Mac OS X, all audio plugins are located in single folder and all audio host applications (such as Fidelia, Audio Hijack Pro etc) can access the same set of audio plugins. Very much like all browser plugins are located in single folder "/Library/Internet Plug-Ins" and accessible by all browsers (such as Safari, Firefox, Chrome, Opera etc).


----------



## edwardsean

Hi, 
   
  Just a word of warning on plugins. Once you get into the world of plugins there are a lot of claims made that certain plugins can increase soundstage, recreate the spatial dimension of speakers, reproduce the harmonic warmth of expensive analog gear. This is a really complex matter. Plugins and software recreations of hardware have been the fulfillment of the promise begun by the move to digital in the audio recording/mastering industry. In the hands of trained audio technicians, judicious--and radical amounts--of plugin use have fundamentally altered the way music is produced.
   
  It is a different ballgame for music consumption
   
  Audio engineering plugins are now at the level where they are truly usable. However, they are meant to change the sound in "musical" ways. This has limited use for audiophile sound reproduction as this also often introduces certain kinds of degradation. For example, a plugin promising "tube sound" may warm up your digital signal, but it will also decrease detail resolution. A stereo widening program may widen the soundstage but at the cost of decreasing depth, introducing phase problems, smearing transients, and generally confusing imaging. In other words, all the metrics of sound quality that you pay so much to gain in terms of source and amplification can be decreased through plugins. You may, at first, be impressed and amazed because you are only focusing on the new feature: "Whoa, my soundstage is so much wider." When you start bypassing plugins though you realize what you lost in the other areas, e.g., the stereo widening plugin also had left a sonic hole in your center image. The best studio grade plugins mitigate some of these kinds of problems--if used knowledgeably. But these are very expensive. They are not aimed at the consumer audio market. The cheap plugins that promise similar effects are, well... trash. It is like putting your carefully selected, matched, tuned system and putting it through a karoke-level reverb. 
   
  Since I have a few thousand dollars worth of some of the best of studio-grade plugins, I've tried some of them through pure music, audirvana, etc. I've kept only one plugin which I think generally improves the sound and then have gradually dialed that down to a minimum. There is no parallel development (or market) on the audio consumer side to the recording plugin industry. It took a long time for the recording side to get to where they are. I think it'll be some time before we see genuinely usable plugins on the consumer side, that go beyond "audio tricks." If there were software recreations of the Smyth Realizer--now that would be something. Until that time, I would really counsel caution. Unfortunately, for now, there are no shortcuts or cheap solutions to great sound. Plugins are fun, but time and money is better spent finding the best proverbial "bang for the buck" gear. Just my two cents on where I'll be spending my pennies--okay hundreds and thousands of dollars (sigh).


----------



## solserenade

Thanks again for all the info, littletree76 and edwardsean.


----------



## GarySaville

Fidelia announced on Twitter today that an update to Fidelia will be released soon. No details yet.
  The only plugin I use with Fidelia is Fabfilter's ProQ, which I use to add a bass bump while listening through the ALO Pan Am. The PanAm attenuates bass, at least I've found a substantial reduction in bass extension and weight with the stock, Telefunken, and Mullard tubes when used with IEMs. I like the clean presentation of through the Mullard tubes, but find it better with a gentle 3db bump in from 200hz down to 20hz. Fabfilter ProQ also gives you a swanky visual before/after frequency analyzer.


----------



## GarySaville

Quote: 





garysaville said:


> Fidelia announced on Twitter today that an update to Fidelia will be released soon. No details yet.
> The only plugin I use with Fidelia is Fabfilter's ProQ, which I use to add a bass bump while listening through the ALO Pan Am. The PanAm attenuates bass, at least I've found a substantial reduction in bass extension and weight with the stock, Telefunken, and Mullard tubes when used with IEMs. I like the clean presentation of through the Mullard tubes, but find it better with a gentle 3db bump in from 200hz down to 20hz. Fabfilter ProQ also gives you a swanky visual before/after frequency analyzer.


 
  Re: Audiofile Engineering announced...


----------



## chimmycham

I've been using XDA (on my Mac) to convert all of my FLAC files to Apple Lossless, so that I could play them with big music players like iTunes.
  Now that I will have my first audiophile phones (Sennheiser HD598), would re-downloading the original FLACs benefit me?
   
  I could easily use a program such as VLC, or something similar..


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





chimmycham said:


> I've been using XDA (on my Mac) to convert all of my FLAC files to Apple Lossless, so that I could play them with big music players like iTunes.
> Now that I will have my first audiophile phones (Sennheiser HD598), would re-downloading the original FLACs benefit me?
> 
> I could easily use a program such as VLC, or something similar..


 

 Apple Lossless is lossless, just like FLAC, so there will be no sonic benefit to using the FLAC files.


----------



## chimmycham

I've been told that in ANY conversion there is always some sort of loss in quality.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





chimmycham said:


> I've been told that in ANY conversion there is always some sort of loss in quality.


 

 Not true, lossless means lossless.
  If you converted FLAC to MP3 or AAC or any other lossy format, then yes, but you converted to Apple Lossless (ALAC) so you're all good.


----------



## chimmycham

Quote: 





agentsim said:


> Not true, lossless means lossless.
> If you converted FLAC to MP3 or AAC or any other lossy format, then yes, but you converted to Apple Lossless (ALAC) so you're all good.


 
  It converts them to 'Apple Lossless' which, in XLD, is FLAC -> M4A
  (Sample rate and Bit depth remain the exact same as the original files)


----------



## agentsim

XLD is a good program and Apple Lossless is a good codec, you haven't lost any sound quality.


----------



## arnaud

I forgot if I posted already, probably so, so this is rumbling on my part but I also say +1 to audirvana+. It is rock stable on of mbp'11 (8GB RAM I believe). Using with mountain lion, in integer and hog mode, no probl whatsoever.
   
  I did notice some instability in previous betas for hog or integer mode (not sure which, always been using both), especially when running aperture and win 7 with parallels. Obviously, running CPU and memory applications in parallel to itunes with audirvana+ for high res playback isn't the smartest idea ever, but still seems the app has been stable with no crash since the recent updates.
   
  I'd never go to amarra based on the feedback in this thread. Only bit I miss about pure music is the ability to use custom filtersas vst pluggins. If that's coming to audirvana+, it's fantastic news, I may finally get my act together and start to play with binaural conversion using own HRTFs (as poor's man realiser...).


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





agentsim said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Yeah I just converted a FLAC file to ALAC, to FLAC, to ALAC, to FLAC, to ALAC, to FLAC and the file size remains the same to the byte.


----------



## chimmycham

I truly appreciate you taking the time to do that.


----------



## chimmycham

I just got my HD598s in the mail today, and i'm really not impressed at all.
   
  I have only used inexpensive headphones up to this point, and I truly hear almost no difference.
   
   
  I'm using iTunes through my Macbook Pro (with lossless files)
   
  I wonder what my problem is.
   
  edit:
  HOOOOLLLLYYYY ****.
  never mind.
  I guess it is really song dependent.


----------



## StratocasterMan

Give 'em some burn-in time too...


----------



## Silent One

Yeah, I was rather surprised by the rush to judgement.


----------



## chimmycham

I think having no Amp/DAC and using iTunes are probably 2 huge factors also.
  I'm currently downloading Audirvana Plus.
   
  Let's see if there is a noticeable difference.
   
  I find, at this point, that these sound the best when at a moderately low volume.
   
  edit: I installed Audirvana, selected iTunes integrated, and there is definitely a noticeable difference.


----------



## Silent One

Amarra had enjoyed the longest run inside the listening room as my favourite. But was unseated only this past autumn by Audirvana Plus. System changes had a hand in this, but right now A+ is where it's @!


----------



## chimmycham

Headphone burn-in loop file
  http://www.jlabaudio.com/burn.php
   
  A good or bad idea?


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





chimmycham said:


> Headphone burn-in loop file
> http://www.jlabaudio.com/burn.php
> 
> A good or bad idea?


 
  I didn't believe in burn-in until I tried it on the AKG K 701...or maybe it's due to the earpads breaking-in. I may never know the answer. Burn-in is a pretty controversial topic so I'll leave that up to you to find in the Sound Science threads.
  When I first tried them out-of-the-box, I almost wanted to cry because the highs were really piercing on the K 701; now they're just fine after 200+ hours of pink noise and playing Assassin's Creed III.
   
  I think pink noise should be fine. I would just make a 30-minute pink noise file on Audacity as well as a 5-minute silent track to give your headphones some "rest time" and leave that playlist playing for a day or two. Although it probably doesn't matter too much, I played the pink noise and silent tracks through Audirvana Plus.


----------



## chimmycham

That's exactly how I feel.
  I got my Senn HD598s today, and theyre great, but the highs are giving me bad headaches.


----------



## chimmycham

Audirvana Plus vs VLC.
   
  What do you guys think?


----------



## arnaud

Quote:


miceblue said:


> I didn't believe in burn-in until I tried it on the AKG K 701...or maybe it's due to the earpads breaking-in. I may never know the answer. Burn-in is a pretty controversial topic so I'll leave that up to you to find in the Sound Science threads.
> When I first tried them out-of-the-box, I almost wanted to cry because the highs were really piercing on the K 701; now they're just fine after 200+ hours of pink noise and playing Assassin's Creed III.
> 
> I think pink noise should be fine. I would just make a 30-minute pink noise file on Audacity as well as a 5-minute silent track to give your headphones some "rest time" and leave that playlist playing for a day or two. Although it probably doesn't matter too much, I played the pink noise and silent tracks through Audirvana Plus.


 
   
  At least, we've tried very hard to objectively quantify it: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/measurement-and-audibility-headphone-break
   
  The influence of the dumpster truck and other ambiant fluctuations seemed larger than the burn in itself, so rather inconclusive and disappointed after all the effort to krank these results out.


----------



## MatsudaMan

Quote: 





chimmycham said:


> Audirvana Plus vs VLC.
> 
> What do you guys think?


 
  VLC is not even an audiophile player.


----------



## chimmycham

Should I do anything with the Audio/Sound settings of my Macbook Pro to enhance the SQ of these phones for the time being, until i get an Amp/DAC?


----------



## velvetx

Quote: 





chimmycham said:


> Audirvana Plus vs VLC.
> 
> What do you guys think?


 

 Audirvana Plus is amazing.


----------



## littletree76

No matter which player application you have chosen (note VLC is not much better than crappy iTunes in term of playback sound quality), set the playback volume in the application to maximum and control the volume at very end of audio chain, namely volume control of headphone amplifier (Macbook Pro built-in headphone output in your case). Though it is not necessary to do that if the application implement volume control with dithering (such as Audirvana Plus) rather than zeroing of least significant bits (such as free Audirvana). The free version of Audirvana is not equivalent to paid commercial version of Audirvana Plus. Turn off all unnecessary audio effects in the application. Otherwise there is not much you can do with built-in headphone output.
   
  Judged by your previous posts, you are listening through the built-in analog headphone output of Macbook Pro (cheap DAC and amplifier on motherboard of the notebook computer) with various headphones. Having lossless audio source files and a better pair of headphones are not good enough as you have to consider quality of all components along the whole audio chain (Macbook > DAC > amplifier > headphone). Otherwise it will be a waste of money to upgrade just one component (headphone in your case) as you are not going to hear too much difference among your headphones. Since the bottleneck right now is the DAC and amplifier, why not get a reasonably good and affordable portable headphone amplifier with asynchronous USB DAC such as following versatile model (search in this website for other options):
   
  http://www.nuforce.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=4&Itemid=186
   
  Note for this DAC/amplifier to drive your headphone properly, input impedance of your headphone must be between 16 to 300 ohm (see your headphone specification).


----------



## hubee

Quote: 





hubee said:


> On what genre do you hear that?


 
   
  Quote: 





mmlogic said:


> '70s rock/pop 96/24 vinyl rip mostly.


 

 Thanks. With some old records i also have heard something.. I'll give a try for Amarra.


----------



## chimmycham

Quote: 





littletree76 said:


> No matter which player application you have chosen (note VLC is not much better than crappy iTunes in term of playback sound quality), set the playback volume in the application to maximum and control the volume at very end of audio chain, namely volume control of headphone amplifier (Macbook Pro built-in headphone output in your case). Though it is not necessary to do that if the application implement volume control with dithering (such as Audirvana Plus) rather than zeroing of least significant bits (such as free Audirvana). The free version of Audirvana is not equivalent to paid commercial version of Audirvana Plus. Turn off all unnecessary audio effects in the application. Otherwise there is not much you can do with built-in headphone output.
> 
> Judged by your previous posts, you are listening through the built-in analog headphone output of Macbook Pro (cheap DAC and amplifier on motherboard of the notebook computer) with various headphones. Having lossless audio source files and a better pair of headphones are not good enough as you have to consider quality of all components along the whole audio chain (Macbook > DAC > amplifier > headphone). Otherwise it will be a waste of money to upgrade just one component (headphone in your case) as you are not going to hear too much difference among your headphones. Since the bottleneck right now is the DAC and amplifier, why not get a reasonably good and affordable portable headphone amplifier with asynchronous USB DAC such as following versatile model (search in this website for other options):
> 
> ...


 
   
  Will That uDac-2 be enough?
  I was going to get a Fiio E17.
   
  You think the uDac-2 is a better option in my case?
  I've been told numerous times to stay away from the NuForce uDAC2


----------



## Slowfade

Quote: 





chimmycham said:


> Will That uDac-2 be enough?
> I was going to get a Fiio E17.
> 
> You think the uDac-2 is a better option in my case?
> I've been told numerous times to stay away from the NuForce uDAC2


 
   
  I'd at least take a look at the Modi/Magni combo from Schitt. Good stuff. http://schiit.com/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=0&products_id=13
   
  Main thing is have fun and enjoy the music.


----------



## chimmycham

I know the E17 has an optical input..
  What would the benefits be of getting the Magni/Modi combo instead of the E17.
   
  I honestly could not care less about portability.
  Would the Magni/Modi combo be a significant upgrade from the E17, in terms of sound?
   
  I read that the DAC was 99% the same, with the E17 being just a hair brighter.


----------



## Currawong

I've added Swinsian (http://swinsian.com) to the original article if anyone is interested in a fully fledged iTunes alternative player.


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I've added Swinsian (http://swinsian.com) to the original article if anyone is interested in a fully fledged iTunes alternative player.


 
   
  Have you had a chance to put it through its paces? I'm a little behind inside the listening room - this morning is only my second session since 20 December, due to personal issues. But, I'm slowly working it out.


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I've added Swinsian (http://swinsian.com) to the original article if anyone is interested in a fully fledged iTunes alternative player.


 
  Are you going to share any thoughts on the player Swinsian? Never heard of it 'til now.


----------



## miceblue

Does anyone know if Audirvana Plus works with iTunes' CD player? When I try to play a CD through Audirvana Plus, a single track takes ages to load...on the order of minutes.


----------



## littletree76

I have encountered the same problem some time ago with older version (not sure with latest version 1.4.5) even in standalone mode. One remedy I can think of is to copy tracks from CD to hard disk before playing these tracks. Bare in mind that with memory play option turned on, Audirvana Plus will only play the selected track after it has been loaded completely in memory and all post-processing on the track have been done.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





silent one said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I saw it mentioned on ALO's Facebook page so I thought I'd check it out. Since it's not compatible with Bit Perfect or Amarra I don't think I'll be using it. It does look a LOT better than some of the other attempts at making an iTunes alternative, many of which appeared to me to be rough-looking ports of software for other systems.
   
  Quote: 





miceblue said:


> Does anyone know if Audirvana Plus works with iTunes' CD player? When I try to play a CD through Audirvana Plus, a single track takes ages to load...on the order of minutes.


 
   
  It is probably trying to load the tracks into memory. Better to rip the CD (make sure to turn Error Correction on in iTunes first) then play the tracks.


----------



## hubee

Quote: 





hubee said:


> It seems that Audirvana+ wins the glorius battle of the OSX music players
> 
> Folks, what do you think about the forthcoming release of Mac version of JRiver Media Center? I'm personally curious about it .


 

 Official site: http://www.jriver.com/mac.html
  And a new expected release date! "The first public preview release is scheduled for February 22, 2013, and will be made available on Interact."


----------



## sjones

I am having a difficult time deciding on which player I want to purchase. I am mostly basing my decision on sound quality, but I have to be practical and factor in price as well. Currently I have trials of the following: Amara 2.4, Pure Music, Audirvana Plus, and Amara HiFi. I also bought BitPerfect from the App Store using a gift card. However, BitPerfect is not on the same level as the other players, but noticeably better than just iTunes. I quickly eliminated Amara HiFi, because I actually found it sounded harsh. It's not smooth like Amara 2.4, and it's less organic, has less depth and dynamics, and generally I found myself less involved with the music. I would say it is above the level of BitPerfect, but not by much. This leaves me with three very good sounding players, and each having a different presentation of the sound. 
   
  Amara 2.4 is the most different from all the others. It sounds the most organic and smooth. The notes stand out very distinctly from the darkness or blackness of the background. It's like the notes have the most depth and dimensionality out of all the players. The sound is very engaging. Because it is so smooth, there is no edge to the notes at all. It's like the software ran a comb over each note and took out the harshness. I never felt my ears fatigue listening to it. This smoothness does not sacrifice details at all, it's still there. However, I keep thinking the smoothness is slightly more than what is a natural presentation. It sounds incredibly nice, but I have a nagging feeling this is sacrificing accuracy of a real presentation.
   
  Audirvana Plus is a pleasant sounding player. It sounds like the most forward of the players, with Amara 2.4 following close behind. For instance, it places me within the front row rather than the second row like Amara 2.4, and further back like Pure Music. It also sounds a tad clearer than the other two, and I might say the one with the most natural presentation. I'm not sure there's a big weakness with this player. If I could point to one thing, the forward nature and the not as smooth presentation of the sound may not work with all music. Sometimes I want to observe the music from the middle row, and not be constantly exposed to it from up close. 
   
  Finally, Pure Music brings together many of the qualities of both the Audirvana Plus and the Amara 2.4, yet not to the same degree. For instance, it was not as smooth as the Amara, but it was smoother than the Audirvana. It lacked the forwardness of the other two. It still portrays good depth, clarity, and soundstage. It may be the most analytical. I find it does not engage me as much as the other two, possibly because it lacked the distinctive presentation that the other two have.
   
   
  So that's where I stand with these excellent players. The differences are subtle to microscopic in some aspects. I've been switching feverishly between these three over the past two day that I have auditioned them. I sometimes think I hear differences from memory, but then they are so small that it's hard to know if I am making them up in my mind. Perhaps, I should just spend one day with each one and enjoy the music rather than look to spot where they differ from each other.

 Any thoughts on what could help me make my decision?


----------



## merkil

sjones said:


> I am having a difficult time deciding on which player I want to purchase. I am mostly basing my decision on sound quality, but I have to be practical and factor in price as well. Currently I have trials of the following: Amara 2.4, Pure Music, Audirvana Plus, and Amara HiFi. I also bought BitPerfect from the App Store using a gift card. However, BitPerfect is not on the same level as the other players, but noticeably better than just iTunes. I quickly eliminated Amara HiFi, because I actually found it sounded harsh. It's not smooth like Amara 2.4, and it's less organic, has less depth and dynamics, and generally I found myself less involved with the music. I would say it is above the level of BitPerfect, but not by much. This leaves me with three very good sounding players, and each having a different presentation of the sound.
> 
> Amara 2.4 is the most different from all the others. It sounds the most organic and smooth. The notes stand out very distinctly from the darkness or blackness of the background. It's like the notes have the most depth and dimensionality out of all the players. The sound is very engaging. Because it is so smooth, there is no edge to the notes at all. It's like the software ran a comb over each note and took out the harshness. I never felt my ears fatigue listening to it. This smoothness does not sacrifice details at all, it's still there. However, I keep thinking the smoothness is slightly more than what is a natural presentation. It sounds incredibly nice, but I have a nagging feeling this is sacrificing accuracy of a real presentation.
> 
> ...




If they all sound close or you can't really decide between them I would choose whatever interface is the cleanest and easiest to use at this point.


----------



## GarySaville

Quote: 





sjones said:


> Any thoughts on what could help me make my decision?


 
  I agree there must be some special sauce to Amarra 2.4. It drives me crazy because I hate the program with a passion. It is ugly, cumbersome, and slow. When I'm listening to electronica, I always use Amarra's bass boost EQ. I've tried copying the exact bass-boost setting into a parametric EQ in a plug-in in Fidelia, but the sound is not as smooth or subtle. I just really enjoy the combo. But it has MAJOR drawbacks. I cannot use Amarra to play randomized playlists, mainly because of its slow, lagging audio handling. When Amarra plays songs in sequence, they load quickly after the initial 10 second freeze while "processing" tracks. But, in a random playlist, this lag occurs with every track change, and worse, you get a clip of the wrong track  briefly playing before it gets cut-off due to the randomization process. Incredibly frustrating! Add to that, Amarra is the ONLY player that adds a pop or brief pause between gapless songs on my system (I have many players). I've fiddled with its settings relentlessly, but the micro pause remains.
   
  I own Amarra 2.4, Fidelia, and Decibel. But to be honest, it is Audirvana that appears to be undergoing the most active development, and the direct control over the Dragonfly's volume is fantastic. With that said, Fidelia still takes the lead as far as features. It also has a beautiful iOS app to control playlists. Also, JRiver is releasing a Mac version this month, and you can buy it for half price at the moment: $25.00.
  I have done so, but the beta is not yet out, so I can't comment on its fidelity, features, or stability. However, JRiver's supporters put up quite a fuss about loving the program on the forums, so for $25 it might be worth jumping on board.
   
  I find I am not satisfied with any one player. They all excel in areas and have draw-backs. But, if I could only have one, with everything I know about these players, it would be Audirvana. The active development, current feature set, and ... very close to Amarra sound quality ... wins for me.


----------



## solserenade

I'll add a vote for Fidelia - for the iOS App alone.
   
  (I find the computer (turning 'on') really disruptive to listening to music ... the small-screen remote app totally solves that problem)


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





sjones said:


> I am having a difficult time deciding on which player I want to purchase. I am mostly basing my decision on sound quality, but I have to be practical and factor in price as well. Currently I have trials of the following: Amara 2.4, Pure Music, Audirvana Plus, and Amara HiFi. I also bought BitPerfect from the App Store using a gift card. However, BitPerfect is not on the same level as the other players, but noticeably better than just iTunes. I quickly eliminated Amara HiFi, because I actually found it sounded harsh. It's not smooth like Amara 2.4, and it's less organic, has less depth and dynamics, and generally I found myself less involved with the music. I would say it is above the level of BitPerfect, but not by much. This leaves me with three very good sounding players, and each having a different presentation of the sound.
> 
> Amara 2.4 is the most different from all the others. It sounds the most organic and smooth. The notes stand out very distinctly from the darkness or blackness of the background. It's like the notes have the most depth and dimensionality out of all the players. The sound is very engaging. Because it is so smooth, there is no edge to the notes at all. It's like the software ran a comb over each note and took out the harshness. I never felt my ears fatigue listening to it. This smoothness does not sacrifice details at all, it's still there. However, I keep thinking the smoothness is slightly more than what is a natural presentation. It sounds incredibly nice, but I have a nagging feeling this is sacrificing accuracy of a real presentation.
> 
> ...


 
  I went through the same demo process.  I went with Amarra 2.4 as it was the only player that seemed to work consistently with my Audioquest Dragonfly DAC.  I haven't had any regrets.  There is some special sauce in the Amarra player.


----------



## Silent One

Clunky navigation aside, there's something pleasing about Amarra to me, though I can't quite seem to place it.


----------



## D_4_Dog

Quote: 





sjones said:


> I am having a difficult time deciding on which player I want to purchase. I am mostly basing my decision on sound quality, but I have to be practical and factor in price as well. Currently I have trials of the following: Amara 2.4, Pure Music, Audirvana Plus, and Amara HiFi. I also bought BitPerfect from the App Store using a gift card. However, BitPerfect is not on the same level as the other players, but noticeably better than just iTunes. I quickly eliminated Amara HiFi, because I actually found it sounded harsh. It's not smooth like Amara 2.4, and it's less organic, has less depth and dynamics, and generally I found myself less involved with the music. I would say it is above the level of BitPerfect, but not by much. This leaves me with three very good sounding players, and each having a different presentation of the sound.
> 
> Amara 2.4 is the most different from all the others. It sounds the most organic and smooth. The notes stand out very distinctly from the darkness or blackness of the background. It's like the notes have the most depth and dimensionality out of all the players. The sound is very engaging. Because it is so smooth, there is no edge to the notes at all. It's like the software ran a comb over each note and took out the harshness. I never felt my ears fatigue listening to it. This smoothness does not sacrifice details at all, it's still there. However, I keep thinking the smoothness is slightly more than what is a natural presentation. It sounds incredibly nice, but I have a nagging feeling this is sacrificing accuracy of a real presentation.
> 
> ...


 
   
  hm... how should we put this.... i ended up owning all of them...... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  your observations mirrors mine. For the longest time i've held off trying amarra but all this talk of "special sause" got me curious. Finally downloaded the demo last night and despite the software UI, i have to say there IS indeed a more organic feel to Amarra. Needless to say that "Buy Now" button was clicked on fairly shortly after (15% off... how could one resist 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) Do i regret buying other softwares? heck no. I'm just happy i've got choices at the end of the day
   
  but my wallet and I are no longer on friendly terms


----------



## hubee

Quote: 





hubee said:


> Official site: http://www.jriver.com/mac.html
> And a new expected release date! "The first public preview release is scheduled for February 22, 2013, and will be made available on Interact."


 

 Only two days remaining...


----------



## jtinto

And a nice intro price of only $25


----------



## feverfive

Quote: 





jtinto said:


> And a nice intro price of only $25


 
   
  Which I paid, sight unseen.  I've never even used a J. River product of any kind before (Mac user), but the love they get all over the interwebs that I frequent made it seem like a no-brainer (small) investment to at least give this a shot.


----------



## miceblue

This is kind of unrelated, but why is it that audiophile software exists for Mac for a kind of hefty price, but on Windows most "audiophile approved" media players are free? Does Apple have special sound processing in Mac OS X that you need to pay to design your media player around or something?


----------



## preproman

J. River for MAC is really buggy right now.  They still have lots of work to do to get it stable.


----------



## hubee

Quote: 





preproman said:


> J. River for MAC is really buggy right now.  They still have lots of work to do to get it stable.


 
  Yes, you are right. Indeed, i think its worth to count on this player !  Download location: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=78427.0 , direct link to the .dmg file: http://files.jriver.com/mediacenter/channels/v18/latest/MediaCenter180139.dmg
  I have tested only with few songs but it doesn't sound bad at all!


----------



## feverfive

Man, I installed a trial version of Audirvana Plus on my rMBP last weekend.  I tried it for 3 hours, and then plopped down $74USD to buy the license.  I've very impressed...


----------



## Silent One

Quote: 





feverfive said:


> Man, I installed a trial version of Audirvana Plus on my rMBP last weekend.  I tried it for 3 hours, and then plopped down $74USD to buy the license.  I've very impressed...


 
  For me, it took a few revisions and special requests for additional 15 day trials. But last autumn, I knew it was the one!


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





silent one said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I like Audirvana Plus's overall package. No need to worry about a silly user interface (Amarra), nor a confusing multi-component purchase (Fidelia). I've been extremely satisfied with Aduirvana Plus as a whole. The only thing that bugs me is how slow it takes to load a song from a CD; but that's a minor complaint and it's faster to just rip the CD and listen to it through Audirvana Plus.


----------



## zigy626

I am completely blown away with J River for Mac. I had burnt my CD to Hard drive in WAV and no other program was able to organise the music as JRiver imported all the files correctly and found Album art work for all the titles. Just amazed. Previous to this I was using the Audirvana Plus trial and found that to be a very nice software but again it was missing the Album artwork and I does not have the full browsable experience like JRiver. Frankly I was regretting burning my CD's to WAV and was thinking of going back to ITunes and AppleLossless. I cannot wait for this software to get out if beta so I can buy it. The best alternative to iTunes for all us audio geeks.


----------



## whoever

hi, sorry, i haven't read the 121 pages....so please excuse if same question was asked 10 times....:
  does Audivarna plus integrated playing with airport express? 
   
  Thanks very much!
   
  best
   
   
   
  EDIT:
   
   
  i downloaded the trial version, and i have to say, it's a catastrophy!! As soon as i want to integrate it to ITunes it messes everything up. volume doesn't works anymore, neither on or the other, it freezes all the time....NOTHING works....


----------



## Currawong

Audirvana deliberately disables the iTunes volume controls and playback for better fidelity and there is a delay while it loads files into memory. However, by using an Airport Express, you're not going to get any benefit from a special music player.


----------



## whoever

i guess i asked a pretty useless question.... 
   
   
  sorry.....retreating in shame.....
   
   
   





   
   
  anyway, thanks for you fast answer Currawong! 
   
  cheers


----------



## littletree76

I have following setups with Audirvana Plus (latest version 1.4.6) running in Mac OS 10.8.3 on last generation of iMac (2.8 GHz Core i7, 256 GB SSD, 16 GB DDR3):
   
  Airport Extreme as main WiFi base station in living room (802.11n / 5 GHz only with 2.4 GHz radio band avoided).
  Airport Express (latest generation) > Toslink optical cable > Sonos Playbar in bedroom.
  (Airport Express is used to extend WiFi network only for 802.11 / 5 GHz)
   
  In Audirvana Plus Preferences window under Audio System menu, change Preferred Audio Device to AirPlay.
  In Audio MIDI Setup utility under AirPlay menu, set Source option to name of the Airport Express base station.
   
  Played music in Audirvana Plus as normal and sound appeared at Sonos Playbar without problem (no dropout or distortion at all). It sounds quite good when compared with same music played through Sonos system.
   
  Note you do not need any service from iTunes in order to use Audirvana Plus, thus it is better to import all existing playlists from iTunes into Audirvana Plus and run it in standalone mode. The biggest reason I use Audirvana Plus as default player is to get rid of god damned iTunes 11.0.2 completely (I am still looking for alternative way to sync media files between my iMac and iPhone/iPad). So forget about integration with iTunes, as Currawong has pointed out, Audirvana Plus can bypass iTunes completely (even the lower Core Audio layer built into Mac OS X) thus don't expect volume control to work in iTunes as usual.


----------



## jtinto

I suppose it's a matter of personal preference when using Airplay devices.
   
  Audirvana Plus runs great on my main rig. I mostly use the iTunes integration rather than Audirvana playlists. I stream to an AirPort Express when I want background music throughout the house on more than one system. I don't use Audirvana to stream because it does not allow multiple output devices like iTunes allows.
   
  I agree with Currawong that there won't be any real sonic benefit from running Audirvana to an Express, even though littletree76 makes a good point that Audirvana will stream to an Express without using iTunes if that's what 'whoever' was looking for


----------



## whoever

Quote: 





littletree76 said:


> I have following setups with Audirvana Plus (latest version 1.4.6) running in Mac OS 10.8.3 on last generation of iMac (2.8 GHz Core i7, 256 GB SSD, 16 GB DDR3):
> 
> Airport Extreme as main WiFi base station in living room (802.11n / 5 GHz only with 2.4 GHz radio band avoided).
> Airport Express (latest generation) > Toslink optical cable > Sonos Playbar in bedroom.
> ...


 
  Thanks very much for your effort. Apparently i can't change the prefered source option to express....don't know why. 
  Quote: 





jtinto said:


> I suppose it's a matter of personal preference when using Airplay devices.
> 
> Audirvana Plus runs great on my main rig. I mostly use the iTunes integration rather than Audirvana playlists. I stream to an AirPort Express when I want background music throughout the house on more than one system. I don't use Audirvana to stream because it does not allow multiple output devices like iTunes allows.
> 
> I agree with Currawong that there won't be any real sonic benefit from running Audirvana to an Express, even though littletree76 makes a good point that Audirvana will stream to an Express without using iTunes if that's what 'whoever' was looking for


 
  thx!


----------



## DerrickRozay

What is the best media monkey alternative for Mac? I'm looking for something to easily edit album arts and tags and also organize all my albums


----------



## littletree76

Note when posting in this forum, please be awared of what functions can be performed by iTunes:
   
  1. Decoding/playing of media files in various digital formats (MP3, AAC etc) -- Audirvana Plus, Fidelia, Pure Music.
  2. Management/organisation of media files -- J. River.
  3. Ripping of audio media -- X Lossles Decoder.
  4. Syncing of mobile devices -- iSync utility which has been removed from Mac OS X.
  5. Purchase of media files in online stores -- Google Play Store, Amazon Store.
  6. Tag editing on media files -- (fill in this blank).
   
  iTunes tries to be all-in-one application which has been developed into bloatware and good for nothing (good in all trades and master of none). I am most interested in first function and the rest are secondary. Thus please specify your objective as far as iTunes alternatives are concerned. So far I have yet to know an application can provide all these functionalities with good result. I am prepared to have few good/different applications handle different functions instead of just one good for nothing bloatware application.


----------



## jtinto

In your opinion littletree ...
  I still use iTunes
  try XLD for your #6 "metadata tagging"


----------



## miceblue

Woah, I just realised today that Audirvana Plus is $79 USD now. I was fortunate enough to buy it when it was still $50.


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





jtinto said:


> In your opinion littletree ...
> I still use iTunes
> try XLD for your #6 "metadata tagging"


 
  XLD rocks, love that software.  I couldn't figure out how to convert 24/96 to 24/48 for my Rockboxed iPod XLD does the trick, in fact it converts virtually all the lossless audio into any bit rate you want, best of all its free.


----------



## TrollDragon

Quote: 





rumay408 said:


> XLD rocks, love that software.  I couldn't figure out how to convert 24/96 to 24/48 for my Rockboxed iPod XLD does the trick, in fact it converts virtually all the lossless audio into any bit rate you want, best of all its free.


 

 You do know that the iPod's only output 16/44.1, the 24/48's will play but they are downsampled buy the iPod to 16/44.1 for playback.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





trolldragon said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Maybe not 24/48, but it looks like 16/48 is supported.
  Quote: 





skylab said:


> The iPod will absolutely handle 48 kHz for sure.  I have my iPod connected to the Wadia i170 and then to an Assemblage jitter filter, and that shows the sample rate.  When I play 48 kHz files on the iPod, the 48 kHz light comes on on the Assemblage.
> 
> I'm not sure about the bit rate though.


----------



## TrollDragon

48Khz / 44.1Khz basically the same but it is still only 16Bit though. The 24Bit files are just taking up unnecessary space IMHO.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Rockbox on an ipod will play 24bit files at full resolution.  At least it does on mine.


----------



## Currawong

Since I may not be able to update this post as often as I'd like, I've now made it into a wiki/article that anyone can update here: http://www.head-fi.org/a/mac-os-x-music-players-alternatives-to-itunes


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Since I may not be able to update this post as often as I'd like, I've now made it into a wiki/article that anyone can update here: http://www.head-fi.org/a/mac-os-x-music-players-alternatives-to-itunes


 
  Thanks for doing that!
  I just added a short blurb for Audirvana Plus.


----------



## azarel

Quote: 





rumay408 said:


> XLD rocks, love that software.  I couldn't figure out how to convert 24/96 to 24/48 for my Rockboxed iPod XLD does the trick, in fact it converts virtually all the lossless audio into any bit rate you want, best of all its free.


 
  how do u do that? Man i'm struggling with XLD to convert my flac 24 bit to 16bit. i'm totally confused with the settings.


----------



## TrollDragon

jmstrmbn said:


> Rockbox on an ipod will play 24bit files at full resolution.  At least it does on mine.



There are many many threads on this out there... The DAC chip in ALL the iPods only supports 16 Bit output, so I am sorry to say that yours does not output 24 Bit audio... 

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





trolldragon said:


> You do know that the iPod's only output 16/44.1, the 24/48's will play but they are downsampled buy the iPod to 16/44.1 for playback.


 
  Thanks for the post.  The Wolfson ADC on the iPod 5.5G is 24bit but the output for the DAC is limited to 16bit.  16/48 is the maximal output for the Rockbox iPod.  The TrollDragon knows audio.  The information on the net is very confusing on this matter.  After spending the better part of the last day researching this matter I'm convinced that Apple limited the output on this chip for a variety of reasons.


----------



## TrollDragon

Quote: 





rumay408 said:


> Thanks for the post.  The Wolfson ADC on the iPod 5.5G is 24bit but the output for the DAC is limited to 16bit.  16/48 is the maximal output for the Rockbox iPod.  The TrollDragon knows audio.  The information on the net is very confusing on this matter.  After spending the better part of the last day researching this matter I'm convinced that Apple limited the output on this chip for a variety of reasons.


 
  You're welcome RUMAY408, I went down that road before I found out about the 16Bit output... It sure saves a lot of space on the old iPod's... Till I get my hands on a Classic at least, then the space will not matter, but it will still only be loaded up with 16Bit files. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I didn't mean to send you on the great internet hunt for validation, I should have posted a few links.


----------



## IA64

Audirvana has memory leak issues... I installed the 1.4.6 version and it's buggy as hell....
   
  I lowered the amount of memory reserved to 500MB but after an hour of playing it's using 11GB of RAM  ( Yes 11 ) 
   
  Everytime I move to the next track the memory consumption increases by 25-40 MBs... 
   
  Worst part of the story is that the software shows that it's using only 500MB Real Memory in Activity Monitor but the reality is that it's using much much more.....
   
  And it's not over, when you quit the application it doesn't release the memory back !! It only frees 500MBs, I have to reboot my Mac or type "purge" in terminal to free up the inactive RAM


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





ia64 said:


> Audirvana has memory leak issues... I installed the 1.4.6 version and it's buggy as hell....
> 
> I lowered the amount of memory reserved to 500MB but after an hour of playing it's using 11GB of RAM  ( Yes 11 )
> 
> ...


 
  That sounds like a serious issue. How big is your playlist? I'm using 1.4.6 on OS X 10.8.3 without any problems...

   

   
   
  *Running on a Retina MacBook Pro with 8 GB RAM, 2.6 Core i7. 5120 MB allocated memory for tracks pre-load, integer mode on.


----------



## IA64

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> That sounds like a serious issue. How big is your playlist? I'm using 1.4.6 on OS X 10.8.3 without any problems...


 
   
  My playlist is 93 track. As said, it doesn't show in Process management. You can see it in Inactive RAM.
   
  IF you want to simulate the issue, load some 50-60 tracks in your playlist and watch the Inactive Memory increasing everytime you move to the next track.
   
  Once Inactive RAM is very huge, OS will start using swap memory and lags like hell...


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





ia64 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Yeah I just loaded all of my HDTracks music and see what you're saying.
   

  ^ that


----------



## IA64

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> Yeah I just loaded all of my HDTracks music and see what you're saying.
> 
> 
> ^ that


 
   
  SWAP used 1.06 GB ?  I hope you are enjoying the lags on OS X.
   
  You can only release that memory if you purge the cache. ( purge command in terminal ) 
   
  That is something abnormal for a music player... Say I am only listening to music and the 16GBs of RAM loaded aren't enough.... Well.. well... Gonna stick with SongBird for now.
   
  VLC is very bad with FLAC, too much distortion even with nighty builds.
   
  FIdelia doesn't support keyboard control keys ( Play stop next etc.. )


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





ia64 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I actually don't know how RAM works...OS X was running just fine when I was playing that monster of a playlist (110+ songs) in Audirvana Plus. I didn't notice any serious lag problems.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





ia64 said:


> Audirvana has memory leak issues... I installed the 1.4.6 version and it's buggy as hell....
> 
> I lowered the amount of memory reserved to 500MB but after an hour of playing it's using 11GB of RAM  ( Yes 11 )
> 
> ...


 
   
  It's not a memory leak, it's a misunderstanding of how virtual memory works in Mac OS X. Try this: Get two Macs networked and open up a shared disk from one on the other. Copy a folder with a few thousand files in and watch the inactive memory fill up the RAM. You'd think this is a memory leak, but it's actually intentional. The idea is to keep recent data in memory in case it needs to be accessed again soon after, but mark it as inactive so it can be quickly over-written. It is effectively free memory.  A similar thing happens when you run Audirvana.  
   
  If you purge that inactive memory, in some cases you can end up with your machine slowing down as quite a bit of data that was in the inactive memory ends up being accessed from the hard drive again.


----------



## IA64

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> I actually don't know how RAM works...OS X was running just fine when I was playing that monster of a playlist in Audirvana Plus. I didn't notice any serious lag problems.


 
   
  You won't notice lags unless you launch new applications because all your RAM is reserved, system is using your HDD instead of RAM to cache memory. Unless you are using an SSD, that would be detrimental to the performance overall. Application launch time will be significantly higher.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





ia64 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Yeah I'm using a SSD. >.>
  Doing the same thing on my old MacBook with a HDD on the other hand, it would definitely lag like crazy *I'm not going to try it, hahaha*.


----------



## IA64

Quote: 





currawong said:


> It's not a memory leak, it's a misunderstanding of how virtual memory works in Mac OS X. Try this: Get two Macs networked and open up a shared disk from one on the other. Copy a folder with a few thousand files in and watch the inactive memory fill up the RAM. You'd think this is a memory leak, but it's actually intentional. The idea is to keep recent data in memory in case it needs to be accessed again soon after, but mark it as inactive so it can be quickly over-written. It is effectively free memory.  A similar thing happens when you run Audirvana.
> 
> If you purge that inactive memory, in some cases you can end up with your machine slowing down as quite a bit of inactive memory ends up being accessed again.


 
   
  yeah sorry I know how RAM works, first I thought it was a memory leak then I edited the first post when I noticed that it was inactive, forgot to correct the leak claim.
   
  However this should be freed once the application exits. It's not the case. I'd rather purge the cache than hear my HDD bloating and struggling all the time.
   
  Audirvana gives you the option to allocate active RAM as much as you want, say 5GB-10GB... but then, I find it useless if the system will cache it.
   
  Fidelia, itunes, Songbird and other players don't have similar impact on the PC performance. That's only the case with Audirvana.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

I have Audirvana remember my playlist which has something like 1000-2000 songs in it and I don't have this problem at all.  I'm using a Macbook, 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, 8Gb RAM, Integer Mode On and 2Gb dedicated to A+.  Using iTunes with A+ will sometimes cause issues that you describe but I use a free app called FreeMemory and it will dump what A+ has saved in Inactive.


----------



## solserenade

Quote: 





ia64 said:


> SWAP used 1.06 GB ?  I hope you are enjoying the lags on OS X.
> 
> You can only release that memory if you purge the cache. ( purge command in terminal )
> 
> ...


 
   
  Play/Stop - Spacebar
  Next song - Command-Rt. Arrow
  Prev. song - Cmd-Left Arrow
  Shuffle    -   Option-Cmd-S
  Enable/Disable effects - Cmd-D
   
  there may be more, I'm not sure ... that's all I know.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  The remote-control App for iDevice is great too.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





solserenade said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I think the point was that you can't use the media-control keys like Audirvana Plus. Pressing the spacebar in Firefox, for example, won't play/pause the music.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> I have Audirvana remember my playlist which has something like 1000-2000 songs in it and I don't have this problem at all.  I'm using a Macbook, 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, 8Gb RAM, Integer Mode On and 2Gb dedicated to A+.  Using iTunes with A+ will sometimes cause issues that you describe but I use a free app called FreeMemory and it will dump what A+ has saved in Inactive.


 
   
  ....as well as what all other apps have. Immediately afterwards, unless you have an SSD, enjoy the incredible lag as your system re-loads a heap of data from disk.  The Mac OS X memory system works fine and doesn't need messing with. The problem is more many apps having become bloatware over the last decade, full of unnecessary eye candy.


----------



## Slaphead

I'm currently trying out the Fidelia demo and so far I'm impressed with it - the iZotope sampler having, to my ears at least, a clear advantage over the standard apple samplers in terms of separation and air. I also like that it's not dependent on iTunes being open as I have 2 iTunes libraries, one for serving my iToys and one specifically for the purpose of archiving CDs into lossless format.

I've played with the advanced package and could not really find anything that improved the sound further, but that's probably because I don't have the faintest idea what I'm doing with the settings. Also as I'm not using, and am unlikely to use anything above 44.1 16bit lossless material, therefore I don't really see what loading the whole track into memory will give to me. The "hog" mode is interesting, but as I can tell the system to use the standard sound and Fidelia to use the DAC there seems to be no need real need for this from my point of view.

The FHX add-on is not for me. It's interesting, but found nothing there which I could see myself using with any regularity, if at all.

The only bad point really is the library which really looks as if could have come out of the 90's - definitely a case of letting engineers to close to the UI programming  but I can live with it.

So, I'm about to pull the trigger on the basic version, but only so long as the basic version supports the iZotope sampling, and the abilty to add the standard Apple effect filters, mainly for equalisation should I need it. 

If anybody could confirm that the basic package will do what I want then I'd really appreciate it as the site App Store description and the Fidelia site don't appear to be entirely clear on this.


----------



## GarySaville

With the basic version of Fidelia you can run AUs such as Apple's EQ. The isotope resampler also works when the volume is being attenuated. So, yes I think Fidelia will do all that you require.


----------



## IA64

Give me a bitperfect playback for Songbird and I'll stick with it for life.


----------



## solserenade

miceblue said:


> I think the point was that you can't use the media-control keys like Audirvana Plus. Pressing the spacebar in Firefox, for example, won't play/pause the music.




I see your point:. The "media control keys" on the keyboard would control iTunes instead of Fidelia.


----------



## Chawanwit

Very long thread and didnt have time to read all of it. Anyway can someone please recommend a music player for use with macbook pro. Preferably something that can adjust the bass. thanks


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





chawanwit said:


> Very long thread and didnt have time to read all of it. Anyway can someone please recommend a music player for use with macbook pro. Preferably something that can adjust the bass. thanks


 
  I bought Bitperfect for $10 and demo'd Amarra and Pure Music for two weeks each on my MBAir.  Amarra is the one I settled for.  Amarra has a detailed equalizer and you can adjust the sound about anyway you want.


----------



## Currawong

Fidelia allows inserting any Core Audio plug-ins, which includes 2 different equalisers as well.


----------



## IA64

Quote: 





solserenade said:


> I see your point:. The "media control keys" on the keyboard would control iTunes instead of Fidelia.


 
   
  I found a nice trick... if you open Quicktime basically in background, keyboard keys will not control iTunes anymore however, it will however control Songbird or any other music player with the shortcut keys plugin.


----------



## Chawanwit

Quote: 





rumay408 said:


> I bought Bitperfect for $10 and demo'd Amarra and Pure Music for two weeks each on my MBAir.  Amarra is the one I settled for.  Amarra has a detailed equalizer and you can adjust the sound about anyway you want.


 
  Thanks for your recommendations,
   
  however from their website there are so many options and all are quite expensive. (more than 100$)
  Is their anything cheaper you can recommend or should I go with the 10$ Bitperfect.
   
  Also how does these music players differ from iTunes?


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





chawanwit said:


> Thanks for your recommendations,
> 
> however from their website there are so many options and all are quite expensive. (more than 100$)
> Is their anything cheaper you can recommend or should I go with the 10$ Bitperfect.
> ...


 
  I found Bitperfect better than standard iTunes but it would not handshake with my DAC (Audioquest Dragonfly) consistently.  I would suggest doing free demo's and see what works best for you.


----------



## snowshoe

I don't know how I've missed this thread until now. I'm still looking around for the ideal music player for Mac. Right now, I'm pretty much settled on Audirvana because it offers a good balance between sound quality and acceptable interface. Fidelia is much easier to use, but the playlist function is a major PITA, especially if, like me, you buy or rip music in FLAC fairly frequently. (For those who don't know, Fidelia uses playlists, but it won't arrange them any other way than date added). I tried Amarra, but honestly found it overly complex and irritatingly built to cater to iTunes (where I keep all my lossy music).
   
  I wanted to like JRiver's Media Player, but it seems to be more like a port than an app built for Mac OSX. Also, I couldn't work out if there were plans to offer iZotope, or similar, support. To my ears, iZotope sounds better than CoreAudio. I've got no idea what JRiver offers. It didn't offer the same quality sound as Audirvana. Now, what I liked about JRiver is that it had the best potential interface of all the players I know. It is easy to find tracks in the app. It scans specified folders (I keep all my FLAC tracks organized in folders, so this was helpful) and will, if I remember correctly, create playlists that you can then see in the app. The thing is, I'm just not convinced that JRiver is doing this properly. Maybe they should just offer a Mac virtualizer, like WINE.


----------



## Mr Strongg

Well I just noticed a big difference in sound quality comparing Songbird to other media players listening to M83!!! At first i thought i was losing my mind because I had no eq's on, no change of volume, just literally pause and playing on both players. The easiest way to explain the difference in SQ is that songbird just removed one extra plane of glass from view compared to itunes, so you to see/hear the music that much more clearly. At first i thought it was possible volume normalization or some jazz like that, but it definitely wasn't. Reverbs would tail off longer, i started hearing instruments that i never heard while I'd stream the exact same song via Rhapsody, vocals popped out more, everything just got better!
  
 The easiest tracks IMO to compare this SQ change with on the M83 "Hurry Up We're Dreaming" album would be: Intro, Splendor & Wait. I played flac's in Songbird and alac's in iTunes. Also, for the record, i even played the alac's in Songbird just to cover my bases and make sure the conversion didn't make it sound different, and yeah it wasn't the conversion. Songbird just is better for lossless listening, and 320 listening as well 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. I'm going to make Songbird my primary lossless library from now on.
  
 My only complaint is that sadly when I tried looking for a flac player on my iPhone, none could compare to the SQ that the desktop Songbird app put out, even the actual Songbird player in the App Store 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I was comparing the stock music player, Songbird app & the Aphex arual exciter app when listening to the M83 tunes, and they're pretty much all close to the same, except for the dsp in the Aphex player that I honestly love. So for portability wise, you're best bet IMO is to get a copy of that Aphex Aural exciter app, and play alac's off that using the dsp for extra clarity. 
  
 Now I'm officially gonna be "that guy" who says you GOTTA listen to your lossless collection via Songbird from now on!


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





mr strongg said:


> My only complaint is that sadly when I tried looking for a flac player on my iPhone, none could compare to the SQ that the desktop Songbird app put out, even the actual Songbird player in the App Store
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Well yeah, your iPhone has different hardware compared to your computer, so of course they're going to sound different.


----------



## IA64

Quote: 





mr strongg said:


> Well I just noticed a big difference in sound quality comparing Songbird to other media players listening to M83!!! At first i thought i was losing my mind because I had no eq's on, no change of volume, just literally pause and playing on both players. The easiest way to explain the difference in SQ is that songbird just removed one extra plane of glass from view compared to itunes, so you to see/hear the music that much more clearly. At first i thought it was possible volume normalization or some jazz like that, but it definitely wasn't. Reverbs would tail off longer, i started hearing instruments that i never heard while I'd stream the exact same song via Rhapsody, vocals popped out more, everything just got better!
> 
> The easiest tracks IMO to compare this SQ change with on the M83 "Hurry Up We're Dreaming" album would be: Intro, Splendor & Wait. I played flac's in Songbird and alac's in iTunes. Also, for the record, i even played the alac's in Songbird just to cover my bases and make sure the conversion didn't make it sound different, and yeah it wasn't the conversion. Songbird just is better for lossless listening, and 320 listening as well
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  I seriously doubt that a music player would make that huge difference but anyway. I have songbird and it's my favorite so far but for other reasons.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





ia64 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I can't quantify differences in sound, but I do hear a pretty subtle between in sound quality between iTunes, Audirvana, and Audirvana Plus. I agree that those iTunes alternatives seem to remove a sort of veil covering the sound and music just sounds cleaner.


----------



## Mr Strongg

I'm not gonna lie, i kind of wish music players just all played the files as they were intended to be heard and not have all these different "signatures" to them.


----------



## Mr Strongg

I just found a free FLAC player for my iphone that perfectly replicates what i heard via the Sondbird desktop app when playing my tunes. It's not the most resourceful player, but i'm glad i found it nonetheless.


----------



## Mr Strongg

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> Well yeah, your iPhone has different hardware compared to your computer, so of course they're going to sound different.


 
I just found a free FLAC player for my iphone that perfectly replicates what i heard via the Sondbird desktop app when playing my tunes. It's not the most resourceful player, but i'm glad i found it nonetheless.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Quote: 





mr strongg said:


> I'm not gonna lie, i kind of wish music players just all played the files as they were intended to be heard and not have all these different "signatures" to them.


 
   
  I would already be happy if iTunes would play as it should, meaning it would change sample automatically.
  Luckily there's BitPerfect that does that very unobtrusively.


----------



## Mr Strongg

Quote: 





appleheadmay said:


> I would already be happy if iTunes would play as it should, meaning it would change sample automatically.
> Luckily there's BitPerfect that does that very unobtrusively.


 
  I've heard a few things about BitPerfect. So you'd recommend it??


----------



## AppleheadMay

Yep, works fine.
  I have it set to run when the computer starts up.
  When I launch iTunes it does its job, automatically switches sample rates.
  SQ is just as good as any of the other apps if you ask me.


----------



## solserenade

Fidelia update: I'm getting hooked on the FHX processor! For some reason, my app "reset" and it's letting me have another "trial period" of all the features (which are paid add-ons later).

The first time 'round, I could *not* get it to work effectively, and sound good to me. It's *possible* ... that it was set out-of-phase by default - because I seem to recall it sounding that way when first testing it - it sounded so "off" to me, I couldn't even get close.

Now, (in phase) I'm really digging it with *most* recordings. There certainly are exceptions, when I prefer no cross-feed (FHX) ... like a lot of late 60s/early 70s rock, which sounds so great to begin with.

I only wish now that the Fidelia app would get it together and fix the lousy playlist functions. (I'd feel better investing more money in it if it didn't have certain "clumsy" features).


----------



## pencilnecgeek

Hello Audiophiles!
   
  I ran across this fairly new app called "Boom" in the mac app store.
   
  Now, It's not my place to give this app raving reviews when it comes to the technical aspects of computer audio / software since I'm a noob, but my first impressions of this app are pretty impressive. Just messing with the preset settings, the sound quality is amazing with my Sony XB500's. It features and EQ for custom settings as well, and works with a slew of musical apps. (i.e. iTunes, Spotify, etc.....)
   
  Any audio veterans care to give insight?
   
http://www.globaldelight.com/boom/


----------



## mrbig

I have one big complaint about the Apple Remote app, but maybe it has something to do with the way I have the app/iTunes set up.  When I do a search by artist and then pick an album, the remote will put ALL of the songs by that artist in the queue for playback.  It's not a big deal if I only have one album or if I pick the last album by that artist.  But let's say I pick "A Hard Day's Night," which is the first of 14 albums I have of The Beatles, all 14 albums will go into the queue.  Is there a setup preference that I'm missing that'll let my play only the album I picked?  Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## littletree76

Audirvana Plus has just been upgraded from version 1.4.6 to version 1.5 with support for Audio plugin (only Audio Unit format but no support for VST/RTAS formats). I have tried with the same audio setup as previous version and it works well as before. Have also tried trial/free version of Virtual Tube Preamp plugin from Studio Devil (http://www.studiodevil.com/products/virtual_tube_preamp), real time control of all parameters presented in window of the audio plugin work flawlessly. I have also stream audio output of Audirvana Plus through Airplay protocol (Preferred Audio Device under Audio System tab of application preferences window) to latest generation of Apple TV without any issue (settings in Audirvana Plus application is exactly the same as before without alteration).
   
  So right now if you want to play with audio plugins, you can have a choice of application between Audirvana Plus version 1.5 or Fidelia. As someone has pointed out in this forum, audio plugin can enhance one aspect but compromise another aspect of audio output, and a good/professional plugin is never cheap. Anyway I am happy with running Audirvana Plus without any plugin as I no longer appreciate warm tube sound (making all songs sound almost the same regardless of genre/singer). For someone who do not want to bid with high price in ebay for physical/rare NOS tubes (and break them carelessly later on), perhaps a tube audio plugin is a viable alternative.
   
  Followings is memory footprint when playing the song "Wicked Game" by IL Divo (VBR MP3 format ripped from standard audio CD through LAME encoder with extreme settings). The Audirvana Plus application is completely separated from iTunes with iTunes playlist loaded into it. User interface and playlist window of Audirvana Plus application are disabled in the application with only icon visible in Mac OS Finder's dock. Play control is done through Apple Remote Control without iTunes running. In other words, iTunes is completely out of picture as what I have intended (until Apple has done something to save the bloatware like firing all responsible for its development).
   
  Audio hardware setup:
  iMac USB 2.0 port (mid-2011 model, 2.8 GHz Core i7, 16 GB DDR3, 256 GB SSD)
  > WireWorld Ultraviolet USB cable
  > NuFore Direct-Digital Integrated Amplifier (USB digital audio input to speaker output directly)
  > Wharfedale Diamond 122 bookshelf speakers
   
  Application settings:
  Maximum memory for tracks preload:  5,504 MB
  Exclusive Access Mode:  On
  Direct Mode:  On
  Integer Mode:  On / Model 1
  Volume Control Type:  DAC Only
  Sample Rate Converter:  iZotope 64-bit SRC / Best Quality
  Forced Upsampling:  Maximum Sample Rate
   
  Memory footprint:
  Real Memory:  405 MB
  Virtual Memory:  8 GB
  Shared Memory:  0 byte
  Private Memory:  358 MB
  Virtual Private Memory:  690 MB


----------



## miceblue

After Audirvana Plus's recent updates, I am quite satisfied with the changes they made to the iTunes integration feature. They made it possible to adjust playback position within iTunes itself instead of through Audirvana Plus, which was annoying since you had to have both windows showing to have full playback/library browsing features.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





pencilnecgeek said:


> Hello Audiophiles!
> 
> I ran across this fairly new app called "Boom" in the mac app store.
> 
> ...


 
   
  If it actually runs a near system level, that looks like it will provide a good parametric eq and pre-amp control. I'm skeptical of their presets, but that's always the case. 
   
  I don't think I'll bother - since I have other tools that do that well (audio hijack pro, and dedicated VST and AU plugins), but looks good.


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

I totally agree; none of these apps are going to improve or change audio quality dramatically, if at all.  But getting hog mode and automatic sample rate conversion while being able to run iTunes with its own interface is definitely worth $10.00.  (And I got in with an early $5.00 version).


----------



## solserenade

Does Bit Perfect play FLAC files, on a Mac in iTunes? 

Does it play 24/96 files from HD tracks?

Thanks much.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





solserenade said:


> Does Bit Perfect play FLAC files, on a Mac in iTunes?
> 
> Does it play 24/96 files from HD tracks?
> 
> Thanks much.


 

 Yes on both counts, however getting the FLAC files into iTunes is not something BitPerfect can help you with just yet.


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





solserenade said:


> Does Bit Perfect play FLAC files, on a Mac in iTunes?
> 
> Does it play 24/96 files from HD tracks?
> 
> Thanks much.


 
  Check out XLD its free.  You can convert FLAC or any other lossless file. If you Rockbox you need to convert to Apple lossless to preserve the tag.


----------



## solserenade

Thanks very much for the tips. I do have XLD already so that's a start... 

I'm beginning to get a bit annoyed with Fidelia requiring a restart (of the app). It is never buggy while using it, but if I come back to it after a couple days it will inevitably need to be quit and then opened again. 

Am I understanding you correctly, that bit perfect will allow me to play 24/96 AIFF files?


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





solserenade said:


> Thanks very much for the tips. I do have XLD already so that's a start...
> 
> I'm beginning to get a bit annoyed with Fidelia requiring a restart (of the app). It is never buggy while using it, but if I come back to it after a couple days it will inevitably need to be quit and then opened again.
> 
> Am I understanding you correctly, that bit perfect will allow me to play 24/96 AIFF files?


 
  What is the computer that your using.  If your on a Mac you have to reset your Midi audio.


----------



## zigy626

I have just purchased Fidelia and added my whole lossless iTunes library to it and the compared the sound quality to itunes. The result is really surprising FiDelia sounds fantastic compared to iTunes even though they are playing the same lossless music. I have chosen the iZotope sampler so maybe that makes a difference but wow does it make a difference. And all this time it was just sitting on my Dock unused. What a surprise.


----------



## snowshoe

I'm curious, how is Fidelia's handling of playlists now? It drove me mad that playlists created in Fidelia could not be rearranged in alphabetical order or put into groups or anything else. That is one of the reasons I went for Audirvana (which just uses m3u playlists). I rip and buy all my music in FLAC, so I am not going to rely on iTunes to organize playlists!


----------



## SoundsGood

This might be a stupid question, but is it worth purchasing a new music player (I'm looking at Audirvana) when I don't have an external DAC? I'm currently using Cog to play my flac files (both CD rips and high-res downloads). Is there a sound quality upgrade even when listening through the headphone output on my MacBook Pro?


----------



## solserenade

Quote: 





rumay408 said:


> What is the computer that your using.  If your on a Mac you have to reset your Midi audio.


 
   
  A Macbook Pro. I'm familiar with adjusting Midi audio when using Fidelia. Would it just be the same with BitPerfect-- set it to 24 bit, etc. (the max. resolution file I'm going to play) ?
   
  thanks for the help.


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





solserenade said:


> A Macbook Pro. I'm familiar with adjusting Midi audio when using Fidelia. Would it just be the same with BitPerfect-- set it to 24 bit, etc. (the max. resolution file I'm going to play) ?
> 
> thanks for the help.


 
  Exactly the same.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Quote: 





soundsgood said:


> This might be a stupid question, but is it worth purchasing a new music player (I'm looking at Audirvana) when I don't have an external DAC? I'm currently using Cog to play my flac files (both CD rips and high-res downloads). Is there a sound quality upgrade even when listening through the headphone output on my MacBook Pro?


 
  I've used Audirvana to play music through either the headphone out to iems or through the internal speakers, I heard a difference between plain old itunes on both.  Now of course the biggest improvement will come when you get an external DAC to use with Audirvana; so you have to decide if the $75 is worth it to you.


----------



## solserenade

I really appreciate the assistance. . 

Now I just need to decide which is more important to me: an interface that I love or the handful of features in Fidelia such as FHX/ Cross-feed …. 

I wonder if there is a crossfeed plug-in which could be used with iTunes? Maybe I'm thinking crazy and plug-ins don't work with it, I am forgetting now.

I suppose for starters an investment in Bit Perfect is an inexpensive way to get a feel for how much I may like to go with it! 

Furthermore, I'd bet staying with iTunes will make transfer of Higher Def files to my iDevices much, much easier.


----------



## RUMAY408

If anyone wants to try higher end players I would strongly recommend trying a demo of Pure Music or Amarra.  A two week free demo of either of the players is available via their web sites.  Amarra can  change the bit size automatically without having to manually change the Audi Midi.
   
  If all you're music is the same bit size then Bitperfect is fine.


----------



## Silent One

Are you suggesting "A+" didn't make the cut?


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





silent one said:


> Are you suggesting "A+" didn't make the cut?


 
  Can't recommend what I haven't tried.


----------



## Silent One

Well stated...


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





soundsgood said:


> This might be a stupid question, but is it worth purchasing a new music player (I'm looking at Audirvana) when I don't have an external DAC? I'm currently using Cog to play my flac files (both CD rips and high-res downloads). Is there a sound quality upgrade even when listening through the headphone output on my MacBook Pro?


 
  I just downloaded Cog (I used to use it for listening to CDs) and I compared a few CD-ripped tracks between it and Audirvana Plus straight out of my MacBook Pro Retina Display with my AKG K 701. Through Audirvana Plus, the music sounds more spacious both in terms of width and depth, the instrument separation is improved, and sounds just sound more crisp and well-defined. I paid $50 USD for Audirvana Plus and I would say it's worth the money. The current price of $74 USD is steeper, but if you plan to use Mac OS for a while, I think the investment is worthwhile.
   
   
  Also, one of the comments in the Mac OS X Music Players Wiki suggested JRiver Media Center. Does anyone have experience with the paid version ($44.98 USD)? I downloaded and tried the beta a few months ago but it didn't support proper Asian Unicode fonts, just like Foobar in OS X through Wine.


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





rumay408 said:


> If anyone wants to try higher end players I would strongly recommend trying a demo of Pure Music or Amarra.  A two week free demo of either of the players is available via their web sites.  Amarra can  change the bit size automatically without having to manually change the Audi Midi.
> 
> If all you're music is the same bit size then Bitperfect is fine.


 

 BitPerfect will also automatically change the bit depth to match the file you are playing. It will also convert to a supported sample rate if needed.


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





agentsim said:


> BitPerfect will also automatically change the bit depth to match the file you are playing. It will also convert to a supported sample rate if needed.


 
  This must be new when I used it  >1 1/2 years ago I had to manually change bit depth.  I was using a DF DAC maybe that was the issue?


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





rumay408 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 BitPerfect has always automatically changed bit depth, that was pretty much the whole point of earlier versions 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  What's a DF DAC? I'm not familiar with that term.


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





agentsim said:


> BitPerfect has always automatically changed bit depth, that was pretty much the whole point of earlier versions
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Thanks for the feedback. DF=Audioquest Dragonfly


----------



## agentsim

Quote: 





rumay408 said:


> Thanks for the feedback. DF=Audioquest Dragonfly


 
   
  I have a Dragonfly, nice little DAC, should work just fine with BitPerfect.


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





agentsim said:


> I have a Dragonfly, nice little DAC, should work just fine with BitPerfect.


 
  I really had problems getting the DF to handshake with PureMusic as well as BitPerfect.  I have not had that problem with Amarra.  I can only describe my experience.  Frankly I liked both BitPerfect and PureMusic. BitPerfect was the first music player I tried, for the cost I thought it delivered really good bang for the buck.


----------



## Jbyrnes88

I'm fairly new to the Audiofile world. I just picked up a pair of HD598 and a Fiio E17 to help me get all I can out of MacBook Pro. I'm a traveling musician so my vinyl unfortunately stays at home most of the time. I was looking for an alternative to iTunes and stnled across this awesome thread. I will of course look throughout at the suggestions but was curios if anyone had suggestions of a player for my current set up. Thank you for your help!


----------



## Jmstrmbn

I've tried Fidelia, Audirvana Plus, Amarra and Bitperfect and Decibel.  If your looking to jump right in I would go with Audirvana Plus.  To me it is the most transparent and feature packed player for the money.  I also prefer how it allows the user to organize the music library with itunes but plays songs through its own software.  This also allows the use of the Remote app to control itunes remotely.  I also really like that it is updated almost monthly, bringing new features or improved quality.  If your on more of a budget Bitperfect is a great set-and-forget app to play various bitrate files without having to manually change it.


----------



## paradoxper

I think it really depends on the user. Audrivana and Amarra are my favorite full featured players,
  however If find myself using BitPerfect more and more.
   
  If you want the bells and whistles, tons of choices, if you want set and forget, BitPerfect, no brainer.


----------



## miceblue

Is BitPerfect its own player, or is iTunes required?
   
  I still use Audirvana Plus by itself.


----------



## solserenade

jmstrmbn said:


> I've tried Fidelia, Audirvana Plus, Amarra and Bitperfect and Decibel.  If your looking to jump right in I would go with Audirvana Plus.  To me it is the most transparent and feature packed player for the money.  I also prefer how it allows the user to organize the music library with itunes but plays songs through its own software.  This also allows the use of the Remote app to control itunes remotely.  I also really like that it is updated almost monthly, bringing new features or improved quality.  If your on more of a budget Bitperfect is a great set-and-forget app to play various bitrate files without having to manually change it.




I think that is all good advice. Keep in mind most every player, half-dozen maybe even a dozen of them, will have a free version to use for a while so you will have plenty of time to do some evaluating and choosing. 

I use Fidelia, iTunes (looking into Bitperfect), and recently decided to give Decibel another trial. (w/MBP) 

I like how Decibel worked, the remote works … but I'm not sure about playlists. (that is where Fidelia is lacking).


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





solserenade said:


> I think that is all good advice. Keep in mind most every player, half-dozen maybe even a dozen of them, will have a free version to use for a while so you will have plenty of time to do some evaluating and choosing.
> 
> I use Fidelia, iTunes (looking into Bitperfect), and recently decided to give Decibel another trial. (w/MBP)
> 
> I like how Decibel worked, the remote works … but I'm not sure about playlists. (that is where Fidelia is lacking).


 
  I like the idea of free trials, different setups favor one player over another.


----------



## ddanois

I'm really interested in this subject as well but do any of these players really make a difference if all of you music is standard iTunes Match 256k files?


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





ddanois said:


> I'm really interested in this subject as well but do any of these players really make a difference if all of you music is standard iTunes Match 256k files?


 
  Most of them play 256, Amarra won't play 128.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





ddanois said:


> I'm really interested in this subject as well but do any of these players really make a difference if all of you music is standard iTunes Match 256k files?


 
  Most of these players offer a free trial, and Audirvana Plus has its completely free counterpart: Audirvana Free.
  You can give them a try for yourself and see if they're worth the price to you.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





ddanois said:


> I'm really interested in this subject as well but do any of these players really make a difference if all of you music is standard iTunes Match 256k files?


 

 Probably not, just stick to itunes


----------



## preproman

What players don't need iTunes to operate?


----------



## miceblue

Audirvana (Free and Plus), Decibel, and Fidelia for sure don't need iTunes.


----------



## Y2HBK

In Audirvana, you can set the max sample rate to 96KHz. When doing so, it shows my DAC playing at 24/96KHz like I want. I can't seem to find any similar settings with Amarra. Is this not possible? Emailed their support but no response.


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





y2hbk said:


> In Audirvana, you can set the max sample rate to 96KHz. When doing so, it shows my DAC playing at 24/96KHz like I want. I can't seem to find any similar settings with Amarra. Is this not possible? Emailed their support but no response.


 
  Amarra outputs 24/96, rescan the audio devices off edit on the Mac.


----------



## Y2HBK

rumay408 said:


> Amarra outputs 24/96, rescan the audio devices off edit on the Mac.




Im not sure I fully understand what you mean. I set the built-in output to 96/24 in audio devices, but when i try to play a file through Amarra it switches everything back to 44. Im guessing this means that no realtime conversion happens. 

Do you mean I would need to do something like upsample the tracks offline and then replay it?


----------



## RUMAY408

Quote: 





y2hbk said:


> Im not sure I fully understand what you mean. I set the built-in output to 96/24 in audio devices, but when i try to play a file through Amarra it switches everything back to 44. Im guessing this means that no realtime conversion happens.
> 
> Do you mean I would need to do something like upsample the tracks offline and then replay it?


 
  You shouldn't have to resample, check the device preference manually.  I will say this my Dragonfly DAC is seamless with Amarra.  My new Meier DAC is requiring an initial manual setting with Amarra. I'm finding that manual change just a bit annoying.


----------



## snowshoe

miceblue said:


> I paid $50 USD for Audirvana Plus and I would say it's worth the money. The current price of $74 USD is steeper, but if you plan to use Mac OS for a while, I think the investment is worthwhile.
> 
> 
> Also, one of the comments in the Mac OS X Music Players Wiki suggested JRiver Media Center. Does anyone have experience with the paid version ($44.98 USD)? I downloaded and tried the beta a few months ago but it didn't support proper Asian Unicode fonts, just like Foobar in OS X through Wine.




I was looking and looking at Audirvana + when it was $50 and was probably testing out another player when they raised their prices.  I ended up paying the $74. Once you add in everything you need to bring it up to the same level as A+, Fidelia is about the same price and A+ is better IMHO!

I am probably the one who mentioned JRiver. I brought it up for completeness, not to express approval. The app needs to be completely rewritten to fit into the Mac environment. I'd imagine that's why it doesn't support Asian Unicode fonts. I considered buying it when it was like $20, thinking that once it gets better I will have gotten a bargain. However, it seemed that the developers were not interested in writing it as a proper mac app. Instead, they're approaching it like a port - that was my impression. I didn't buy and thus far I don't regret it at all!


----------



## dgilz

snowshoe said:


> I was looking and looking at Audirvana + when it was $50 and was probably testing out another player when they raised their prices.  I ended up paying the $74. Once you add in everything you need to bring it up to the same level as A+, Fidelia is about the same price and A+ is better IMHO!
> 
> I am probably the one who mentioned JRiver. I brought it up for completeness, not to express approval. The app needs to be completely rewritten to fit into the Mac environment. I'd imagine that's why it doesn't support Asian Unicode fonts. I considered buying it when it was like $20, thinking that once it gets better I will have gotten a bargain. However, it seemed that the developers were not interested in writing it as a proper mac app. Instead, they're approaching it like a port - that was my impression. I didn't buy and thus far I don't regret it at all!




About Fidelia, if you add up its price 19.99$ plus the advanced features at 49$ plus the remote at 9.99$ you get the same service for the same price as Audirvana and with the same features  don't get fooled by the marketing subtleties


----------



## reiserFS

It would be nice if Fidelia wouldn't crash every once and then while adding songs and thus killing your database. Audirvana 1.4.6 is still the best sound wise.


----------



## littletree76

Note the latest version of Audirvana Plus is 1.5.4 and it has been updated to allow audio plugins conform to AudioUnits format. So features and prices between latest Audirvana Plus and Fidelia in advanced mode are close. Main difference between the two players is Audirvana Plus does not rely on Apple's Core Audio module for audio processing at all, thus there is definitely difference in sound quality. In fact Audirvana Plus has been developed from scratch with its own audio decoding algorithm and architecture with no regard to what has been done in Core Audio module.
   
  As mentioned in my previous post long ago, please keep in mind functionalities/objectives of different software in assessing these software. JRiver Media Centre is just like iTunes, its main purpose is for managing and playing media files to suit general usage. I am only interested in software player with the best playback/decoding quality (to be used with audiophile grade equipments as digital transport) even though it might have very poor media management and user interface (such as pathetic playlist of Audirvana Plus). So please avoid comparing apple with orange and causing confusion.
   
  To developer of Audirvana Plus, please fix the playlist (particularly the miniature font) as soon as possible. It is about time you ditch skeuomorphic in user interface design just like what Apple has done lately, the main user interface does not have to look like real/physical player in Mac OS X desktop.


----------



## miceblue

Has anyone tried SoX before? I didn't read through the documentation very much but I'm curious to know how it processes the audio. It is a Terminal-based program, which I'm not too familiar with. It can keep track of how many times the audio file clips, which is pretty unique from my experience.


----------



## jackwess

I came across SoX when i was at sourceforge, downloaded it but never had the chance to play with it. It have good ratings.


----------



## rosgr63

Quote: 





reiserfs said:


> It would be nice if Fidelia wouldn't crash every once and then while adding songs and thus killing your database. Audirvana 1.4.6 is still the best sound wise.


 
   
  I find the latest Fidelia release very evil.
  It takes ages to load I am not happy with it.


----------



## mgunin

I also chose Audirvana after careful evaluation (just bought a license) and also recommend to try [size=12.727272033691406px]a headphone crossfeed Audio Unit. ToneBooster IsoOne, for example, seems to work well for me.[/size]
   
  [size=12.727272033691406px]I still prefer a more warm and smooth sound of Amarra, but Audirvana is more flexible and convenient (in my opinion) and supports more audio formats.[/size]


----------



## Slaphead

rosgr63 said:


> I find the latest Fidelia release very evil.
> It takes ages to load I am not happy with it.




If you're referring to v 1.3.1 then I don't have the slow loading problem. However there is a problem when using the iZotope sampler in that when you use it at a higher bit resolution and sample rate than your source material then there is quite a bit of clicking/buzzing/distortion, especially on louder sections of the music. Using the Apple high quality sampler resolves the problem, but the reason for fidelia in the first place is the iZotope sampler, which admittedly can still be used at source resolution and sample rate

I sent off a bug report about a month ago and got a response that the problem could be duplicated and that it had been passed on to the head of software engineering, but nothing since. I would imagine that they're going to release a fix for that and other bugs at the same time.

To be honest I find these alternative "HiFi" players a bit of a mixed bag to be honest. Yes there are some sound quality gains to be had, but this is offset by clunky interfaces and general buggyness. iTunes may well be bloatware, but with regards to music playback and especially library organisation it does pretty good.


----------



## Solitary1

Quote: 





mgunin said:


> I also chose Audirvana after careful evaluation (just bought a license) and also *recommend to try *[size=12.727272033691406px]*a headphone crossfeed Audio Unit. ToneBooster IsoOne*, for example, seems to work well for me.[/size]


 
  Just bought a few days ago. LOVE IT! A must-have for headphone addicts.


----------



## desertblues

I recently purchased Pure Music after a 2 week demo and love that I can now download and store flac files directly in itunes & play them mixed with alac (or any others). The native sampling mode is glitch free and works perfectly with my Woo Audio WA7's Dac which accepts files up to 32 bit. I find this player to be a serious upgrade to itunes soundwise and well worth the cost with nothing else to buy or add (this one would seem to be a no-brainer if you are into sound shaping with all the eq & plug-in capabilities). The demo version is free and has all the features.


----------



## Grev

Using Clementine and Songbird, am I missing out?


----------



## dgilz

grev said:


> Using Clementine and Songbird, am I missing out?




The best music player is the one you like


----------



## solserenade

rosgr63 said:


> I find the latest Fidelia release very evil.
> It takes ages to load I am not happy with it.




I have quit Fidelia et al and gone with Bit Perfect plus iTunes. Love it. Everything works. Add the iOS remote - Bliss. 

All the features (playlists in other words if you're listening Fidelia) and I think it sounds great!

I do appreciate the advice of people describing how Bit Perfect works etc. 

 Cheers.


----------



## solserenade

Also thanks for the tip regarding ToneBooster IsoOne.


----------



## Magicman74

Nothing really to add.  For me Audirvana Free works pretty good.  The + is WAY too bright and really doesn't give a pleasing Analog (Warm) sound.  $75 bucks is not worth it IMO, when the free features are just about the same as the +..Just a few things missing. If the free had the use of .Cue it would be perfect...But it is FREE.   If you just want a standalone player, I'd say grab the FREE it is the best sounding Free player for sure.  If you need the whole Itunes features, it's a hard call.  $75 is steep, More like in the $20 range is what it should cost IMO.
  But if you got it $$$$, I guess go for it


----------



## zigy626

Quote: 





littletree76 said:


> Note the latest version of Audirvana Plus is 1.5.4 and it has been updated to allow audio plugins conform to AudioUnits format. So features and prices between latest Audirvana Plus and Fidelia in advanced mode are close. Main difference between the two players is Audirvana Plus does not rely on Apple's Core Audio module for audio processing at all, thus there is definitely difference in sound quality. In fact Audirvana Plus has been developed from scratch with its own audio decoding algorithm and architecture with no regard to what has been done in Core Audio module.
> 
> As mentioned in my previous post long ago, please keep in mind functionalities/objectives of different software in assessing these software. JRiver Media Centre is just like iTunes, its main purpose is for managing and playing media files to suit general usage. I am only interested in software player with the best playback/decoding quality (to be used with audiophile grade equipments as digital transport) even though it might have very poor media management and user interface (such as pathetic playlist of Audirvana Plus). So please avoid comparing apple with orange and causing confusion.
> 
> To developer of Audirvana Plus, please fix the playlist (particularly the miniature font) as soon as possible. It is about time you ditch skeuomorphic in user interface design just like what Apple has done lately, the main user interface does not have to look like real/physical player in Mac OS X desktop.


 
  I am using the iTunes integration mode with Audirvana Plus and hence do not need to see the "pathetic playlist of Audirvana Plus". It is essentially the iTunes interface while the music is routed through Audirvana. I get all the benefits of a beautifully organised music library (all FLAC and HI-Res) and the best audiophile music. Check it out it was a game changer for me and I have never looked back.


----------



## Slaphead

I'm currently running the Audivana plus demo (1.5.4) and I'm quite impressed with it. Fidellia seems to have a few problems with the current version which affects the iZotope sampler meaning that I've been reduced to using it with the Apple sampler, which while OKish, kind of defeats the point of having a high quality audio player.

Audivana seems to produce a more cohesive sound than Fidellia, and also a touch warmer, making the Fidellia player appear to be a little rough around the edges, even compared with the previous version where the iZotope sampler functioned OK.

All in all Audivana appears to be a more finished product, and the iTunes compatibility is the icing on the cake. I'll be listening to it seriously this weekend and I can imagine the credit card will be coming out.


----------



## iamoneagain

I was using Audirvana + integrated mode for awhile just because it's so easy but was seeing a few posts about how it's sounds better in playlist mode.  So with iTunes in Song view, I can easily drop an album cover into the playlist and it quickly adds all the songs in seconds.  I'm noticing a fuller, warmer sound.  The integrate sounds great but a tad on the bright side, but the playlist mode completely fixes that.


----------



## TK277

So, I decided to try out a higher grade audio player as my next step toward the best sound I can achieve.
   
  My set up looks like this: iTunes w/ various ALAC and MP3 320s > Dragonfly DAC > Pico Slim > W4R 
  I haven't found a file yet, ALAC or otherwise, with a sample rate over 16 bit / 44.100 kHz in my library. Naturally, since I don't have vinyl rips.
   
  edit: I'm a noob. Figured out my question about Audirvana.
   
  Let the testing continue...


----------



## jmoore914

I was having an issue with Audirvana Plus that I was hoping you guys could help me with.
   
  I have My MBP plugged into my hifimediy Sabre Dac (24/96) and I'm using iTunes integrated mode.
  Most of my songs are 44.1 sample rate and the display for audirvana says "DAC: 16/44.1kHz"
  However when I play one of the songs that has a 22 sample rate the display says "DAC: 24/96kHz"
   
  Does this mean that is is not using my DAC for the higher sample rate songs and is for lower or is this normal?
  Thanks a bunch


----------



## Currawong

22 sample rate? Where is that from?


----------



## miceblue

I was going to say the same exact thing but I held myself back. It might be a weird glitch with the recognition of the file's sample rate and what the DAC can convert from. My ODAC says 24/96 in Audirvana Plus when playing a 24/88 file.


----------



## jmoore914

The 22.05 is a CD I ripped a while ago, I have no idea why it went over at such a low rate.
  So is it alright and just a weird glitch or is it not recognizing the DAC properly?


----------



## Slaphead

jmoore914 said:


> The 22.05 is a CD I ripped a while ago, I have no idea why it went over at such a low rate.
> So is it alright and just a weird glitch or is it not recognizing the DAC properly?




I think I know what's going on here. Audirvana has perhaps recognised that the DAC doesn't support 22.05 and is doing the up sampling itself in order to get the music to the DAC in a compatible format.

As to why it's up sampling to 24/96 I don't know, but with my brief experience with audirvana up sampling seems to be an all or nothing affair.

I've no actual basis for what I've said there, it's purely conjecture.


----------



## Slaphead

Well, as I started Audivana this morning I was disappointed to see that my trial had run out. Yes, I probably could have hacked it to get another trial, but I pay for the software that I use, so the credit card came out and now I have a fully licensed version - I was that impressed with sound quality it delivered that I had to buy it. Very happy with it.


----------



## reiserFS

slaphead said:


> Well, as I started Audivana this morning I was disappointed to see that my trial had run out. Yes, I probably could have hacked it to get another trial, but I pay for the software that I use, so the credit card came out and now I have a fully licensed version - I was that impressed with sound quality it delivered that I had to buy it. Very happy with it.




If you leave Audirvana open in the background, the license will never run out.


----------



## Solitary1

Has anybody heard the release of Audivana (1.5.5). BIG improvement with sound quality.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





solitary1 said:


> Has anybody heard the release of Audivana (1.5.5). BIG improvement with sound quality.


 
  I didn't notice anything different...
   
  I can't download 1.5.4 to compare it to either.


----------



## Slowfade

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> I didn't notice anything different...
> 
> I can't download 1.5.4 to compare it to either.


 
  Have fun   [size=14.999999046325684px]http://audirvana.com/delivery/AudirvanaPlus_1.5.4.dmg[/size]


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





slowfade said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Hm thanks!
   
  Just did a test. The mids on the 1.5.4 sound a little more congested and rougher. On a regular day-to-day usage though, I don't think anyone would really hear the difference as I didn't at first. The difference is hardly big and the last thing I want to think about is the audio being drastically altered between a 0.0.1 upgrade in firmware. -.-
   

  ^ 1.5.4 on the left, 1.5.5 on the right; integer mode and hog mode enabled


----------



## firefly89

If I take a picture with my camera, and process it with photoshop- are you telling me there's a program out there that will make it look sharper or more colourful than the original master file, without changing anything at all?
Surely there might be a program that adds slight sharpness, or saturation as a post effect during rendering, so is that not the same for audio- maybe you're confusing 'wider soundstage' for an invisible reverb plug in, or 'deeper bass' is really just an invisible eq boost?

I get the benefit of bit perfect playback and native flac support, but the things some of you are saying make no sense

I was happy with iTunes, but now because of you lot I have to try more software...


----------



## Currawong

It has to do with the hardware, not the data. 
   
  I borrowed a friend's Resonessence Invicta and have been trying DSD files via Audirvana Plus. Now I understand what people have been ranting on about. I'm not sure that the resolution isn't actually _worse_, but acoustical music sounds more natural and less aggressive, that's for sure.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> Hm thanks!
> 
> Just did a test. The mids on the 1.5.4 sound a little more congested and rougher. On a regular day-to-day usage though, I don't think anyone would really hear the difference as I didn't at first. The difference is hardly big and the last thing I want to think about is the audio being drastically altered between a 0.0.1 upgrade in firmware. -.-
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  To me the biggest difference in 1.5.5 is when you active the sysoptimizer function and set the new A+ prioritizer to Extreme.  I won't go and spit out a bunch of superlatives but I definitely noticed a much better sound


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Maybe I'm deaf at 22 years old but I don't hear much of a difference in sound quality with the SysOptimizer on Extreme with my M-100 straight out of my MacBook Pro Retina Display in a "coffee shop." I think I hear the instruments become a little more defined with the Extreme mode, but that's all I can tell for now. Were I to blind test it, I don't think there would be any difference in sound from this setup (i.e. I'm doing a listening test right now and I don't recall which setting I'm on; it sounds like the same sound I hear from day-to-day usage on normal mode).
   
  1. I don't use Time Machine
  2. I usually don't use Audirvana Plus with my iPhone connected
  3. I don't use Spotlight too often
  I don't see how disabling any of the above can alter the sound quality if it doesn't really apply to me in the first place.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

I won't argue with your results but they might change if you use an external DAC.


----------



## miceblue

Mmk I'm back at home with my more critical listening setup and yeah it does make things more crisp and well-defined as well as increasing the soundstage depth. Not a huge difference, but I notice it. With it off, instruments seem kind of flat and not very lively.
   
  Test track was with this album:





   
  More specifically, with the "Groove [Binaural]" track since the drums in the left channel are pretty much constant throughout the entire song and is easy to follow along with.


----------



## onyxgaze

Hi,
   
  I have a Macbook Pro running Mac OS X 10.7.5. 
   
  I normally stream apple lossless audio from Itunes to an AIrport Express which has a Toslink connection to a Nuforce DDA-100 amp. 
   
  I would like to know if A+ can play and stream the audio to the Airport Express. If so how do I do this?
   
  I tried to run A+ but find that it only plays through the macbook speakers. Under A+ Preferences.Audio System. Preferred Audio Device I can only see an option for "Built In Output". In the drop down I cant find any other option.
   
  Is there any way I can get A+ to stream audio to the AIrport Express?
   
  Thanks in advance.


----------



## zigy626

Quote: 





onyxgaze said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have a Macbook Pro running Mac OS X 10.7.5.
> 
> ...


 
  I dont think it would be possible to stream music to Airport Express through A+. Even with the iTunes integration mode enabled since all the music is routed through A+ it would be responsible for handling the output. And A+ does not have the Airplay feature built into it as it is a proprietary Apple tech. Better to stick with iTunes if you want to stream your music.


----------



## dgilz

zigy626 said:


> I dont think it would be possible to stream music to Airport Express through A+. Even with the iTunes integration mode enabled since all the music is routed through A+ it would be responsible for handling the output. And A+ does not have the Airplay feature built into it as it is a proprietary Apple tech. Better to stick with iTunes if you want to stream your music.




In A+ preferences just choose airplay as audio output


----------



## zigy626

^ As easy as that. Since I dont have any Airplay devices I did not know that they would show up in the audio output preference. Great.


----------



## miceblue

Yeah okay I do notice some differences when the SysOptimizer is on/off. I prefer it on with some tracks, and off in others.
   
  This is so weird. Why is the audio process in Mac so much more complicated than Windows?
  Windows -> Foobar2000 -> WASAPI -> done
  Mac -> media player -> voodoo magic -> more voodoo magic -> room for improvement -> more voodoo magic...


----------



## dgilz

miceblue said:


> Yeah okay I do notice the difference when the SysOptimizer is on/off. This is so weird. Why is the audio process in Mac so much more complicated than Windows?
> Windows -> Foobar2000 -> WASAPI -> done
> Mac -> media player -> voodoo magic -> more voodoo magic -> room for improvement -> more voodoo magic...




Because Apple is a cult and you've got to be initiated to belong to the sect 

More seriously, what you are quoting is not OS related, it is just an application related question. 
Personnaly I hate so much the general look and feel of windows, I would never to try to use it in audio simply because the system is always made of tweaks and tricks just to make it work the way it is supposed to, you always need a workaround for common features, and I began with DOS 6.2 more than twenty something years ago... :-D


----------



## Solitary1

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> Yeah okay I do notice some differences when the SysOptimizer is on/off. I prefer it on with some tracks, and off in others.
> 
> This is so weird. Why is the audio process in Mac so much more complicated than Windows?
> Windows -> Foobar2000 -> WASAPI -> done
> Mac -> media player -> voodoo magic -> more voodoo magic -> room for improvement -> more voodoo magic...


 
   
  You 're kidding?


----------



## miceblue

About which part?
   
  The sound? With the SysOptemizer on I hear a little more depth in my music and a more defined bass, but I prefer it off for orchestra music for some reason; maybe it's a little more engaging with it off?


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





jmstrmbn said:


> To me the biggest difference in 1.5.5 is when you active the sysoptimizer function and set the new A+ prioritizer to Extreme.  I won't go and spit out a bunch of superlatives but I definitely noticed a much better sound


 
  ditto.  I had been using 1.5.4 and before that 1.4.7 I think .....all changes up a few revisions have been much bigger than most dac changes in my system.  And yes, better sound with no wifi, no itunes integration, mac tweaks, async dac or bridge, no ipad or remote apps, etc.  They all take their toll on transparency.  I have not listened to Amarra, or Pure Music on a long time.  A+ is one of the best improvements one can make in a Mac based system.  Best under $1000 - $2000 component change I can think of if you are not using it and have a system that is capable of high resolution.


----------



## Solitary1

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> About which part?
> 
> The sound? With the SysOptemizer on I hear a little more depth in my music and a more defined bass, but I prefer it off for orchestra music for some reason; maybe it's a little more engaging with it off?


 
  About the Windows part being easier than the Mac OSX. If you don't want to tailor your sound, what can be any more easy than plug and play with dac and turn on iTunes? No drivers, no ASIO, no WASPI? And Audivana + is not only audiophile player , BitPerfect, Amarra, Pure Music, Fidelia, Decibel, each with own strengths and weaknesses. Let's not confuse flexibility with complicated. That is all I'm saying.


----------



## Solitary1

bixby said:


> ditto.  I had been using 1.5.4 and before that 1.4.7 I think .....all changes up a few revisions have been much bigger than most dac changes in my system.  And yes, better sound with no wifi, no itunes integration, mac tweaks, async dac or bridge, no ipad or remote apps, etc.  They all take their toll on transparency.  I have not listened to Amarra, or Pure Music on a long time.  A+ is one of the best improvements one can make in a Mac based system.  Best under $1000 - $2000 component change I can think of if you are not using it and have a system that is capable of high resolution.


 
 Well, each of has ears. And I guess what sounds like big improvement will not register to others.


----------



## reiserFS

Does anyone know if the latest Audirvana Plus release works with the 10.9 GM?


----------



## MacedonianHero

Anyone having issues with songs skipping with the new Amarra 2.6 version?


----------



## Sternklang

@reiserFS, yes it works with Mavericks GM and the latest iTunes 11.1.1. Only issue I had during the beta period was with a pre-release version of iTunes from one of the earlier preview releases of 10.9.


----------



## miceblue

OS X Mavericks is out? Oh the gold master version.
 I was looking at this....nothing looks really substantial. -_-
 http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/apple-macintosh/apple-os-x-mavericks-goes-gold-11-major/240162287
  
 Compressed Memory is probably the only feature I would actually use.
  
  
 Has anyone tried JRiver Media Center 18 yet? I extended my so-called trial to try it out but it won't let me use it at all. Really great trial system they've got there.


----------



## Solitary1

miceblue said:


> OS X Mavericks is out? Oh the gold master version.
> I was looking at this....nothing looks really substantial. -_-
> http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/apple-macintosh/apple-os-x-mavericks-goes-gold-11-major/240162287
> 
> ...


 
  
 It has a good sound (not as good as A+), but. the interface sucks, still looks like a port of the Windows version. And, I'm sorry, I have too many issues with the way they do business. I was a early paid-beta tester of MC18, which was never released as finished product, now, they want you pay for upgrade MC19. When I complained on CA, all I got is smart-a** answers.


----------



## bixby

funny I have a friend who abandoned a plus for J River I think a plus sounds much better. 
I also was not crazy about the pricing policy,
but I think a plus is going to do the same thing on the next release.


----------



## Solitary1

bixby said:


> funny I have a friend who abandoned a plus for J River I think a plus sounds much better.
> I also was not crazy about the pricing policy,
> but I think a plus is going to do the same thing on the next release.


 
 As far as I'm concerned, if A+ want to charge for an upgrade, I'm there. When I paid for it, it was only $49..


----------



## miceblue

Likewise for me too. One thing I don't like about Audirvana Plus is if you try to play tracks from a CD....well good luck with that.

>.>


----------



## Textfeud

I hope somebody can help me out. I just bought Amarra Hifi but no matter what I do the EQ doesn't seem to work. I bought it so I could keep using the iTunes EQ since I'm familiar with it. I've tried everything I think, but maybe I missed something.
  
 The Amarra EQ (meaning the Amarra presets) is working just fine. It's just the iTunes EQ that isn't working. Ofcourse I have Amarra EQ linked to iTunes EQ. iTunes EQ is also on, but it's still not working


----------



## Tara

Hi Currawong, 
  
 Thanks for the great article. enjoyed the read. 
 I have been dying to install a software that i can listen to music and see the actual  wave forms of each track while playing. Do you know of any software that are simple and do this easily?
  
 I greatly appreciate your response,
  
 Tara


----------



## Tara

Hi Currawong,
  
 Great article thank you for the post 
 I have been dying to find a good software that i can listen to music on my mac and actually see the music wave forms while the track is playing.
 Do you know of any simple softwares that can do this?
  
 I greatly appreciate your feedback,
  
 Tara


----------



## miceblue

tara said:


> Hi Currawong,
> 
> Great article thank you for the post
> I have been dying to find a good software that i can listen to music on my mac and actually see the music wave forms while the track is playing.
> ...


 
 Fidelia?

  
 Or the free program Audacity.


----------



## littletree76

Or any media player such as Fidelia, Audirvana Plus which support various plugins (conform to VST or AU/Components format) and a wave analyser plugin. Better still plugin display is always standalone and detached from main interface of media player, you can resize the wave display to your liking or even stream the wave display to big HDTV through AirPlay protocol if you have Apple TV connected to the TV.
  
 Probably the wave plugin which only generate additional display without affecting audio quality is worthwhile as many other audio plugins cause trade-off among audio parameters (professional knowledge is needed to tune these parameters). Though many audio plugins can be expensive but the wave plugin is often offered for free as they are deemed unimportant to audio quality of media player.
  
 So if you think that your Mac hardware is decent enough to handle extra processing load (purposefully made very light by developers) of the wave plugin, go ahead make a search for such plugin. Note any plugins installed in system or user Library/Audio/Plug-Ins folder are available to all host applications (Fidelia, Audirvana Plus etc) compatible with the VST/AU format. They are paid/installed once and use forever for all applications (updates may be required for changes in Mac OS X made by Apple).
  
 Can someone suggest some audio plugins which are easy to tune for required audio effect yet do not break the bank ?


----------



## manukoshe

Ecoute is a clean and simple iTunes alternative.


----------



## pavloosha

can someone suggest a good quality player for Max OS X which supports DLNA/UPNP servers? i really like audirvana but unfortunately it does not support DLNA. i have tried a few others with no luck. thanks


----------



## StudioSound

pavloosha said:


> can someone suggest a good quality player for Max OS X which supports DLNA/UPNP servers? i really like audirvana but unfortunately it does not support DLNA. i have tried a few others with no luck. thanks



 
I think the Mac version of JRiver should handle that.


----------



## pavloosha

JRiver is not compatible with Mavericks so far, I was not able to launch it, but I will check it out later, thanks. I was also thinking about XBMC. Any other alternatives?


----------



## StudioSound

pavloosha said:


> JRiver is not compatible with Mavericks so far, I was not able to launch it, but I will check it out later, thanks. I was also thinking about XBMC. Any other alternatives?


 
 I just tried the demo on my MacBook Pro and it works fine? (I use a Windows PC for my main library)
 Make sure you have the latest version - the one I got was 19.0.72


----------



## JHern

I tried Audirvana's free trial on my MBP and it worked wonders to improve the sound from the MBP hardware. But I have since acquired a 32-bit USB-DAC (Fostex HP-A3), and the free trial version of Audirvana expired at the same time, which has left me wondering:
  
*With a 32-bit USB-DAC is there any sonic benefit to using Audirvana over iTunes on my MBP Retina?*
  
 My impression has been that any of these player programs are simply feeding the DAC the raw digital signal via USB, so it really doesn't matter which program does the feeding. Is this correct?
  
 Sorry if this has been answered before, this thread is 132 pages long and much great stuff is probably buried within!


----------



## arnaud

I think the benefits are independent from the dac architrecture to the exception of the reduction in jitter. Even there, I am not sure what jitter means in these days of asynchronous usb transfer.

The main points for audirnava in my rig are the automatic sample rate switching, hog and integer mode support. 

I highly recommended as it is a bug free, actively supported product (not what I could say of the competition when I was evaluating various softwares).


----------



## NinjaHamster

jhern said:


> I tried Audirvana's free trial on my MBP and it worked wonders to improve the sound from the MBP hardware. But I have since acquired a 32-bit USB-DAC (Fostex HP-A3), and the free trial version of Audirvana expired at the same time, which has left me wondering:
> 
> *With a 32-bit USB-DAC is there any sonic benefit to using Audirvana over iTunes on my MBP Retina?*
> 
> ...


 
  
 No, that's not correct.  If it doesn't matter what program feeds a USB DAC, then virtually everyone would use just iTunes, be entirely happy, spend no additional money on other programs, and this thread would not be 132 pages long.
  
 Whatever advantage in sonics you perceived using Audirvana through your MBP hardware alone (using its own headphone out, I assume) will be exponentially magnified with a better external DAC.


----------



## stv014

ninjahamster said:


> No, that's not correct.  If it doesn't matter what program feeds a USB DAC, then virtually everyone would use just iTunes


 
  
 There are more reasons (and ones that actually make sense, like better user interface, features, stability, etc.) to use different software than worrying about one bit perfect audio stream sounding better than another.


----------



## NinjaHamster

stv014 said:


> There are more reasons (and ones that actually make sense, like better user interface, features, stability, etc.) to use different software than worrying about one bit perfect audio stream sounding better than another.


 
 Speak for yourself - well, I guess you are.  Sound quality may be low down on your list of priorities, but I suspect for many people having the best sound quality possible will be their highest priority - to suggest that this aim "does not actually make sense" is absolutely ridiculous, and quite frankly, pretty appalling.  However, of COURSE there are other reasons one would choose other software such as SRC and equalisation etc. 
  
 I just never thought I would ever hear anyone on this site state that sound quality is not only a low priority, but that searching for it actually "does not make sense".
  
 Amazing !!
  
 Also, given that the poster I was responding to was asking specifically about sound quality when they asked "*With a 32-bit USB-DAC is there any sonic benefit to using Audirvana over iTunes on my MBP Retina?"*, I believe answering his question to be a priority, over inventing my own and just talking about "user interface, features, stability" as you might wish.  In other words, I am answering a question which was actually asked, rather than just inventing a different one in my own mind.


----------



## NinjaHamster

stv014 said:


> An imaginary sound quality difference between identical binary data is indeed low down on my list of priorities. There might be a sound quality difference if the playback is not bit perfect, or because of buggy software and/or broken hardware, but once you have non-buggy bit perfect playback (something that can easily be achieved even with free players like foobar2000 on Windows), further "improvement" - particularly one related to sound stage, bass extension, or other non-sense, rather than something obvious like skipping, which, on the other hand, would fail to meet the requirement of non-buggy bit perfect playback - is almost always placebo, and in the rare cases when it is not, it is some kind of hardware or driver problem. I have yet to see evidence that audible "software induced jitter" is not a myth on anything other than pathetically poor hardware. It is the kind of stuff for the same people that believe in "huge improvements" from $10000 power cords, cable elevators, and all sorts of esoteric tweaks.


 
  
 If you believe "bitperfect" = all players sound the same, that is absolutely your prerogative. Most people in this particular thread will not agree with you, as they have listened, and can hear, a difference. This is why I thought you might be trolling - come to the place where an intractably objectivist viewpoint would make the biggest "splash". However, you have every right to do so, as this is a forum, and disparate views should be expressed - though it might sound less like trolling if you actually directly answered the question being asked, and expressed less ridicule in doing so ... for instance, if you said "I have listened to one/several of these players and, in my opinion, the sound quality is exactly the same as iTunes".
  
 Suggesting it SHOULDN'T make sense, and that it therefore doesn't, is quite an unscientific approach (not to mention a logical fallacy)  and I'll note that you make no mention of being unable to HEAR differences. Or any mention of you having listened for yourself at all. Your point is that, given your current level of understanding, and what is currently measurable, there SHOULDN'T be a difference (kind of like how bumblebees can't fly, or how 16 bit CD's promised "perfect sound forever" - heck even "jitter" was an unknown phenomenon, and unmeasured, in CD playback less than 20 years ago ... it's just that some people could hear it even though it didn't exist).
  
 Certainly, even within different builds of one particular player I can hear significant sound quality differences through the inbuilt DAC/headphone socket on a 2011 iMac using Apple's crappy iBuds (Try Audirvana 1.5.10 verses 1.5.9 - they are hugely different in sound quality - though the base code is exceedingly similar). I would welcome your opinion that there is no difference in sound quality, for you, far more if you mentioned some form of listening tests (I know - an actual TEST), rather than saying that you don't understand the mechanics of WHY it would make a difference and inferring from this that there is therefore, objectively and incontrovertibly, no difference.
  
 Let's face it - you are not probably going to actually listen with an open mind, and you will argue that I am listening with TOO open a mind (leading to psycho-acoustic effects such as "confirmation bias" etc.).  Though in this case, I hated the sound of the latest revision of Audirvana Plus and rolled back to 1.5.9 - even though I expected the new version to have better sound quality as it was promoted as having "sound quality optimisations".  
  
 It's easy enough to try for yourself ... it sounds as though you aren't using a Mac, so you can't try the two builds of Audirvana Plus I suggested, but how about comparing "iTunes" on your PC with something like a demo of JRiver or Foobar 2000 - no financial expenditure required on your part, and all can play bitperfect. If you can't hear the difference, then you'll be able to state objectively that it SHOULDN'T make a difference (which is still a bit of a modification from you stating categorically that it DOESN'T make a difference) AND will also be able to state that you tested it and that you couldn't HEAR a difference.  This will make a far stronger, defensible and compelling position than arguing that we/you know all that there is to be known, all that can be known, about digital transmission. 
  
 However, just to take it back to the poster whose question I was originally answering, they COULD hear a big difference in sound quality between iTunes and Audirvana ("it worked wonders to improve the sound from the MBP hardware") - using only the built-in DAC and headphone amplifier of their computer !!  Their question is whether such a sonic improvement (viv-avis iTunes) will disappear when using an external DAC.  I guess your position is that they didn't really hear an improvement in sound quality in the first place on their MBP, and if they are delusional enough to think the sound quality improved on an internal DAC, they might be delusional enough to believe the sound quality will be improved on an external DAC - would this be a fair statement ?  Or is it your contention that they DID hear a sonic improvement on the internal DAC, but this would not carry through to an external DAC as the bitperfect stream to an external DAC is somehow less "bitperfect" than the stream to the internal DAC ? I am trying to help that person who posted, and your alternate viewpoint would also help them by providing some balance.  So if you could clarify how your statements might relate to their question, that would be helpful (ie.  Is it that they didn't hear a difference in sound, or that they won't hear a difference in sound, or that they could with an internal DAC, but won't with an external ?).


----------



## Solitary1

jhern said:


> I tried Audirvana's free trial on my MBP and it worked wonders to improve the sound from the MBP hardware. But I have since acquired a 32-bit USB-DAC (Fostex HP-A3), and the free trial version of Audirvana expired at the same time, which has left me wondering:
> 
> *With a 32-bit USB-DAC is there any sonic benefit to using Audirvana over iTunes on my MBP Retina?*
> 
> ...


 
  
 Look at it this way: Your actual file is your cd, Audivrana is your cd player, your DAC is an extension of the cd
 player (just like in real world). Back in the day, in the early years of cd, people  would buy a cheap cd player that had good transport (I had a Magnavox 650) and use a good external DAC to make a budget audiophile cd player. Hell, they still do it now.


----------



## NinjaHamster

The other great thing is that, whilst I personally love Audirvana Plus, JHern can still download a trial of one of the other programs such as Fidelia or Decibel etc. once he/she has their 32 bit USB-Dac and compare to iTunes for themselves ... if they can't hear any difference then, there is no sense in spending money on a playback program unless they require some of the other conveniences such programs confer.


----------



## bixby

ninjahamster said:


> The other great thing is that, whilst I personally love Audirvana Plus, JHern can still download a trial of one of the other programs such as Fidelia or Decibel etc. once he/she has their 32 bit USB-Dac and compare to iTunes for themselves ... if they can't hear any difference then, there is no sense in spending money on a playback program unless they require some of the other conveniences such programs confer.


 
 +1 on your well said prose above.  Any well trained ear can hear the difference between itunes and A+ on a good system.
  
 If you really want to try audirvana again, get another email account and see if that works.


----------



## NinjaHamster

bixby said:


> +1 on your well said prose above.  Any well trained ear can hear the difference between itunes and A+ on a good system.
> 
> If you really want to try audirvana again, get another email account and see if that works.


 
 Thankyou for your praise bixby - it helps me to understand that I am not "speaking into a vacuum" here - the only vacuum I want is in my tubes ...


----------



## bixby

It takes time to learn to listen and to listen with an open mind.  And sometimes the equipment is not up to snuff.  I am always learning new things and have been listening to music and equipment with an open ear for 4 decades.
  
 Oh, speaking of tubes, I am really enjoying very real vocals with a little portable tube hybrid headphone amp.  
  
 cheers


----------



## NinjaHamster

Very true. I had to go against several very experienced people when I said that I preferred Audirvana Plus 1.5.9 to 1.5.10, but so be it. I truly gave the newest version a long try based upon their urgings and recommendations, but ... I was right - at least for me ... 1.5.9 has more body and isn't as thin harmonically, even if it is more detailed with a better soundstage.  So be it.  We are all alone and have only to please ourselves - it is somewhat gratifying to finally understand that you can trust your own ears rather than being swayed by popular opinion and hyperbole.


----------



## bixby

Sounds similar, when an audio geek I know insisted that Jriver was so much better than A+ he was never going to use A+ again.  I listened to Jriver 18....something and it sounded nowhere near as good as A+ on my system.  So be it.


----------



## JHern

I don't mind spending $74 to support a good product and company, particularly one trying to push desktop audio at the frontier, so I bought the Audirvana license…it is worth it just knowing that I can get much better sound straight out of the MBP headphone jack. And if I can make my Fostex sound even better, then it's certainly a great value!
  
 So...I never imagined my query would spur such debate, but after running it again with my Fostex HP-A3 there is now *absolutely no question in my ears that Audirvana blows away iTunes, both without and with a DAC.*
  
 As promised, the differences are very similar in some respects to iTunes vs Audirvana through my headphone jack…brighter, better clarity and separation, wider soundstage, better bass extension and texture, crisper high frequencies. I've tried it with my Audio-Technica ATH-ES10 and ATH-A900X cans, and I notice a much larger improvement for Audirvana vs iTunes on the A900X, it seems to make up for some of their cardboard-esque timbre and lack of bass extension, without losing any quality in the mids (their greatest strength). The ES10 sound better also, it is just not as dramatic a difference as with the A900X.
  
 Also, many knobs to turn in Audirvana in the preferences, I look forward to exploring it further than in the past.
  
* Thanks for the advice!*


----------



## NinjaHamster

Cool - glad you are happy !!


----------



## bixby

jhern:  Glad you are enjoying, let me know if you desire help with any of the settings.


----------



## MacedonianHero

jhern said:


> I don't mind spending $74 to support a good product and company, particularly one trying to push desktop audio at the frontier, so I bought the Audirvana license…it is worth it just knowing that I can get much better sound straight out of the MBP headphone jack. And if I can make my Fostex sound even better, then it's certainly a great value!
> 
> So...I never imagined my query would spur such debate, but after running it again with my Fostex HP-A3 there is now *absolutely no question in my ears that Audirvana blows away iTunes, both without and with a DAC.*
> 
> ...


 
 It also blows away Amarra to my ears too. That and Amarra's customer service is the pits. I put in a ticket that their 2.6 version was skipping with every song and still have yet to hear back. I called them to follow up and was promised that someone would call me back....and that was 2 weeks ago. 
  
 Good thing Audinirvana has kept me very happy.


----------



## elnero

I recently bought a Macbook Air. I started out using Vox but it's lack of gapless playback drove me to look at alternatives. I used to use JRiver on my PC and before that foobar. To be honest I used JRiver more for it's functionality, I can't say I heard any significant differences between it and foobar so I wasn't expecting to hear any significant differences between the OSX players.
  
 For the majority of players I tried that held true but Audirvana Plus and Amarra both surprised me by sounding significantly better than all the others. I was even more intrigued that both of those sounded significantly different from each other. I really like both for different reasons but after a couple of days with Amarra and A+ I was leaning towards Amarra for my preferences and setup. I just about jumped on their $99 Halloween deal but then I discovered that Amarra lacks gapless playback of FLAC files. I could forgive many of Amarra's idiosyncrasies but a lack of gapless playback on FLAC files is what drove me to look for alternatives to Vox in the first place. For the asking price it seems totally unacceptable, especially when you consider A+ has no issues with gapless and seems less finicky overall (although I really dislike the interface, they should take a page from Vox's UI for a mini version). I'm just waiting to see if A+ might have a Black Friday special before purchasing.


----------



## JHern

bixby said:


> jhern:  Glad you are enjoying, let me know if you desire help with any of the settings.


 
  
 Thanks...I have the output set up direct to the Fostex DAC, and I am getting the "INT" indicator so Audirvana seems to be coupling just fine. Audirvana also consistently indicates that it is sending a 24-bit/96kHz signal, which is the maximum for the USB input channel on the Fostex. My files are pretty much all 256 kbps (VBR) AAC imported from CD into iTunes (now wishing I had done a bit-for-bit rip instead, but that's water under the bridge). So I think everything is properly set up. Converter is izotope 64-bit SRC, quality=best. There are a number of "advanced parameters" not sure I want to mess with these? Also the forced upsampling=none, should I set it to something else? Audiounits are off, and I generally don't use much equalizer or other filters, but some of these look like they could be fun to play with…not clear what is a "Realtime Audiounit?"


----------



## NinjaHamster

I'm not sure about the Audiounits question, as I don't use "plug-ins" either, but I can tell you that at the moment you are not using the Isotope 64bit SRC as at the moment you are not converting the sample rate (ie. if you have a 16/44.1 file it is being played at 16/44.1 etc.).  This is also what the "advanced parameters" control.  If you do wish to upsample your files, turn the "forced upsampling" on - 2x or 4x will sound best ... however, some people like upsampling, some people don't - in some cases it even depends on the album being played.  Personally, I like to keep it simple: I believe the best sound quality is at the native rate of whatever file I am playing - however, you should experiment for yourself ... turn the Forced Upsampling on and play a low resolution file and see if it sounds better or worse to you than when the forced upsampling is off - hope that helps !!


----------



## NinjaHamster

elnero said:


> I'm just waiting to see if A+ might have a Black Friday special before purchasing.


 
 Yes, wait to see ... but even if it doesn't go on special, I can vouch for it being an absolute bargain anyway ...


----------



## bixby

jhern said:


> Thanks...I have the output set up direct to the Fostex DAC, and I am getting the "INT" indicator so Audirvana seems to be coupling just fine. Audirvana also consistently indicates that it is sending a 24-bit/96kHz signal, which is the maximum for the USB input channel on the Fostex. My files are pretty much all 256 kbps (VBR) AAC imported from CD into iTunes (now wishing I had done a bit-for-bit rip instead, but that's water under the bridge). So I think everything is properly set up. Converter is izotope 64-bit SRC, quality=best. There are a number of "advanced parameters" not sure I want to mess with these? Also the forced upsampling=none, should I set it to something else? Audiounits are off, and I generally don't use much equalizer or other filters, but some of these look like they could be fun to play with…not clear what is a "Realtime Audiounit?"


 
 I use Audirvana Plus so my notes may not fly for regular Audirvana:
  
 The Int indicator is integer mode and indicates your dac supports this.  You can select mode 1 or 2 depending on which sounds better.  As for the 24/96 indication.  That should only show when Audirvana is not playing a song and it is in the lower right part of the player screen.  When you hit play it should have two ratew, one on the left which indicates the native rate of the track and its type like aiff or wav and one on the right which indicates the rate the dac is paying at which might be 16/44 or 24/88 etc.
  
  
 Audio Units refers to what plug ins you  might use and should normally be off unless you use the native Apple AU for EQ for example.  I don't know what advanced parameters are but on A+ you can select all of the system optimization setting for better sound.  Oh, and I use Playlist mode with no itunes iteration, it sounds better on my system.


----------



## miceblue

I like how Audirvana Plus automatically down-samples music so you can actually play it with your gear (i.e. DSD) instead of getting an error message or no playback at all.


----------



## JHern

Thanks again for the feedback! There is one other thing that has cropped up with Audirvana that I've never before experienced...
  
 My shelf audio system at home (Marantz M-CR603 with Dali Zensor 1's) is AirPlay capable and I have often played music via AirPlay from iTunes. But I usually prefer to use the optical connection from the headphone jack to the unit, and it sounds very nice.
  
 Yesterday my wife's laptop was hooked up to the M-CR603 by optical, while I was using my laptop across the room, Audirvana was open but not playing. When I received my next error beep from my MBP for something it went through the stereo via AirPlay and it was LOUD! My whole family literally jumped out of our chairs. I realize that volume control via AirPlay can sometimes be iffy, but if I'm purposely sending something via AirPlay then I know that I need to adjust the volume in advance.
  
 The first strange thing is that AirPlay was activated, even though I never activated it. I never told anything to play anything through AirPlay, it just decided to switch over, for some reason. I'll switch it back to the regular output, and it will be OK for about 10-ish minutes, but then the music stops as my laptop again switches the Marantz over to AirPlay.
  
 The second strange thing is that my system audio was playing through AirPlay. This is supposed to be impossible, since I tried to do it before on purpose, but couldn't find a way to turn it one…I concluded that Apple only wants you to be able to use AirPlay from iTunes (otherwise nobody would buy AppleTV, right?). But somehow, it did play system sounds from AirPlay, a first in my experience. Also, if I'm playing a song through the standard output optical connection, the music will go silent even as th player indicates it is still playing…I ONLY receive system audio, but no music.
  
 It keeps happening from time to time when I'm at home, but is growing quite annoying. I was curious to know if Audirvana had anything to do with it, so I quit Audirvana…and indeed it stopped swtiching to AirPlay. I've tried it several times now, and every time the problem goes away when I quit Audirvana.
  
 So…there is some kind of bug with Audirvana and AirPlay…does anyone know how to fix it?


----------



## littletree76

I suppose playing through AirPlay protocol is handled in Apple CoreAudio framework rather than iTunes. So check the output selection in Apple's Audio Midi Setup utility as this is the setting which affect audio output system wide (so called system audio). The more popular AirPlay protocol is the better for Apple to promote its products (I remember Steve Jobs mentioned this in one of Keynote speeches to launch AirPlay), so I don't think Apple will ever restrict AirPlay to iTunes alone.
  
 Since Audirvana Plus bypass CoreAudio framework completely (what make it so different from iTunes), settings in Audio Midi Setup should not affect it at all. This is particularly true when exclusive access mode has been turned on in Audirvana Plus.
  
 To those posters who believe that same audio source file playing through different software media players should not have any difference at all, this is not true as different software are developed with different objectives and they process the so called bit-perfect bit stream differently. Apple develops CoreAudio just like other Core frameworks: CoreStorage and CoreGraphic, to provide unified/convenient/flexible system calls to developers for media processing. This is just the opposite of Audirvana Plus as it stripes away all unnecessary software components to focus on sound quality alone. So heuristic testing on sound quality with your own ears is simple: use the same audio hardware setup to compare among different software media players, the higher end are the audio equipments (external DAC) the easier to hear the difference. In reality (from engineering and business perspectives), it is hard to have audio processing behave as single wire with gain.


----------



## JHern

littletree76 said:


> I suppose playing through AirPlay protocol is handled in Apple CoreAudio framework rather than iTunes. So check the output selection in Apple's Audio Midi Setup utility...


 
  
 No luck with that, I've tried it several times before launching the apps and turning on the stereo system, and then monitoring it while the system boots. No matter what I tell it to do, Audirvana WANTS to play through the AirPlay, even when I tell it to not do so. And unfortunately Slayer "Killing Fields" is the first song in my playlist so we've gotten thrashed in the face several times while trying to run Audirvana in the vicinity of this AirPlay stereo (the volume is at 50, 60 is max)…I should probably put something gentle instead.
  
 In any case, it seems like some kind of bug. I simply can't play Audirvana near any AirPlay device without it automatically attempting to take over that device and blast somebody's skull to smithereens. This does not occur with other software, and I never experienced anything like it with iTunes.


----------



## bixby

Send Damien at Audirvana an email with the issue described and see if he can help.  He is very responsive


----------



## jallen89

Can anyone recommend a player that can use my itunes library? So I can add hi res flac files and still play my itunes library and not fill up my 3 ipods with flac.


----------



## NinjaHamster

jallen89 said:


> Can anyone recommend a player that can use my itunes library? So I can add hi res flac files and still play my itunes library and not fill up my 3 ipods with flac.


 
 Kind of hard when you don't state whether you are using Linux, OSX or Windows ... but if you are using Mac, try Audirvana Plus.


----------



## bixby

Easy, stop using flac.  Pick a format that is supported on everything like Wav and convert to that.  Storage is so cheap it makes sense to use full res standard format.  And if you are stuck with smaller memory just rotate out some stuff once in a while.  You do not need to carry around a years worth of listening when it only takes ten minutes to swap stuff out once in a while.
  
 And then you can be open to whatever comes down the pike in new stuff since they all will play wav.  I should talk though, since I chose aiff and I have to use players that play that.  Almost as rare as flac.


----------



## snowshoe

FLAC is much more common than wav. If you buy lossless music, more often than not FLAC is the format on offer. I buy from Boomkat quite often, for example. They only offer mp3 or FLAC. If you really have a problem with FLAC, you can use XLD to convert it or, my preferred method, use Toast to create a disk image, then mount the image and import into iTunes. I prefer this because it's easier to get album artwork. 

At any rate, Audirvana is the way to go. Excellent app. Just needs a redesign!


----------



## miceblue

I personally hate WAV simply because it does not support metadata tags. I don't want to rename every single one of my files to:
artist - album - track# title.wav
Especially with Asian names, where I often put the unicode characters, romanisation, and English translation.


----------



## StudioSound

Just about anything that will play FLAC will also play ALAC. If you insist on using iTunes, convert your files.
I would just switch over to a better player like JRiver which will play anything.


----------



## bixby

miceblue said:


> I personally hate WAV simply because it does not support metadata tags. I don't want to rename every single one of my files to:
> artist - album - track# title.wav
> Especially with Asian names, where I often put the unicode characters, romanisation, and English translation.


 
 I think XLD will do that for you.  I use it to rip from CD to aiff and all the tags are there and it dumps the new files into itunes automatically.  
  
 Then I use Audirvana Plus to play.


----------



## kazsud

Same here


----------



## Silent One

Same here (XLD>AIFF>A+)


----------



## aamefford

VOX just sent an email. Looks like a major interface update, still free and leading to an in-app purchase for an internet radio. 

Anyone try it out yet? I'll download it shortly and give it a try.


----------



## bixby

aamefford said:


> VOX just sent an email. Looks like a major interface update, still free and leading to an in-app purchase for an internet radio.
> 
> Anyone try it out yet? I'll download it shortly and give it a try.


 
 I'ts pretty good.  Depending on what dac I am using, different players can come out on top.  Using A+, vox, and VLC at the moment.
  
 Oh, be sure to uncheck some weird surround sound tick box which is on by default.


----------



## aamefford

No time to try it out right now, but I did look over preferences. Looks like some cross feed options?


----------



## bombjoke

i like the interface of Vox.  (didnt notice any weird default box.)
 i tried head-to-head with Decibel (ATH-AD900X playing bluette.flac (lots of creaking and lip pursing and licorice stick valve levers)) and if i did notice that Decibel sounded slightly more detailed, it was a tough call.  
  
 what i did notice was that it was using as much cpu as clementine (which i use when im plugged into power).  but Decibel uses literally 1/10th the power of these, so i prefer decibel when on battery (using a fiio e11 to save just a bit more macbook air battery (if indeed that helps)).
  
 does anyone know how to make decibel respond to the play control keys F6, F7, and F8?  either nothing happens, or itunes launches (always unwelcome with me).
  
 has anyone heard of a product which is an extension to a headphone cord that includes a mic and pause/advance buttons?
  
 i was wondering- is the first page of this thread kept updated with new entries, or, are they displayed on a table somewhere with a row that includes cpu use, price, active support, etc?
  
 EDIT: i've been trying A+.  although the interface is a bit silly, im happy to hear a difference between it and clementine.  i like clementine for organizing and batch-editing tags, but i never suspected to hear a difference between them.  im not sure i could hear a difference between A+ and Decibel.  however, A+ uses about HALF the cpu Decibel does!   I tried with both flac and 320 (thinking maybe big data decoding would use more cpu than just pushing flac, but in both cases, A+ used half the resources of Decibel.  i checked both the cpu column, and the "energy impact" column.)  some very efficient code there!
  
 also A+ responds to the play control keys F6, F7, and F8 while decibel doesnt.
  
 SIDENOTE- my new headphones ruined So What (kind of blue take).  if you'd like this excellent track ruined as well, try not to hear a faint wet raspy buzz in the right channel from each miles puff at 0:58, 1:05,:08,:12,:19,:22,:26 and then back again at 8:21, and finally at 8:35.  i was listening to the 50th anniversary release at 320 and couldnt believe my "designed in japan" (made in china) headphones were having a right membrane problem within a month of purchase.  but i hear the same thing with se315.


----------



## Slaphead

bombjoke said:


> EDIT: i've been trying A+.  although the interface is a bit silly, im happy to hear a difference between it and clementine.  i like clementine for organizing and batch-editing tags, but i never suspected to hear a difference between them.  im not sure i could hear a difference between A+ and Decibel.  however, A+ uses about HALF the cpu Decibel does!   I tried with both flac and 320 (thinking maybe big data decoding would use more cpu than just pushing flac, but in both cases, A+ used half the resources of Decibel.  i checked both the cpu column, and the "energy impact" column.)  some very efficient code there!




It's looks efficient, however what A+ does is that it reads the whole track into memory and at the same time processes it in one job lot, meaning all it's then got to do is feed the data from memory to the DAC which has very little processor overhead. If you watch the processor stats as A+ loads a track you'll see a huge spike in activity for a few seconds while it does all the pre processing and then virtually nothing.

With decibel it processes on the fly meaning that it's always using a bit of the processor.

In truth both probably use more or less the same total amount of processor resources but just do it in a different way. A+ gets the heavy lifting out of the way right at the start, and decibel does it as it goes along.


----------



## snowshoe

If you are using Mavericks, you can check how much energy each app uses over time in Activity Monitor.


----------



## djsykez

Hello guys... sorry for joining the party late.. but i felt this thread was the place i needed to post if i was to find a answer to my question... 
  
 so the question in hand is the old iTunes alt software.... iv tried / researched all of these different music players in the list above and none of them cover everything i want.. 
  
 what i need... 
  
 i need a music manager software that can have unlimited amount of playlists and for the those playlist to pop up into there own windows (alot like iTunes 10) 
  
 and i need these playlist to burn to Audio CD format 
  
 i dont need / want Radio feeds or ipod sync etc etc,,, just something to play, manage and burn wav files 
  
 reason for all of this, 
  
 itunes 11 doesn't support the multiply windows / playlist players option any more. 
  
 its all gone into one window and its become hard to navigate / pre plan my Dj sets.. 
  
  
 honestly if anyone can help with this id be  very grateful 
  
 Cheers 
  
 Ned


----------



## tempest11

djsykez said:


> Hello guys... sorry for joining the party late.. but i felt this thread was the place i needed to post if i was to find a answer to my question...
> 
> so the question in hand is the old iTunes alt software.... iv tried / researched all of these different music players in the list above and none of them cover everything i want..
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Hi Ned,
  
  
 Have you looked at JRiver Media Center? I believe it supports most of your requirements. I know it can be really difficult to meet all of one's requirements with proprietary software but I think Media Center generally has enough features to keep everyone happy.


----------



## tgrbin

Hi,
  
 I didn't like anything out there so I starting writing my own player.
 I tried Cog, Vox, Clementine, and running QuodLibet which I used to use on linux.
 Ended up using Cog until my player was usable enough.
  
 You can try it out here, it's free and open source: http://tgrbin.github.io/Martin/
 Here is a screenshot: http://tgrbin.github.io/Martin/images/screenshot.png
  
 It displays your library's folder hierarchy in a tree pane on the left, from where you can search and drag and drop to tabbed playlists interface.
 I like using folders to organize my music.
 Search queries are just modifying that left pane folder tree.
  
 It can't play FLAC files or URL streams for now.
 Reproducing music wasn't written by me, I just use what's available in OSX framework.
 There are no options regarding sound quality, equalization, normalization, or anything like that.
  
 Memory footprint is not that low, because I decided to keep the whole library in memory so that searching and dragging around works very fast.
 This comes to about 60Mb on 100Gb music collection, which didn't seem that bad to me.
  
 I apologize if you encounter annoying problems, this is written only by me in my own time, I'm sure there are bugs I haven't found.
  
 Thanks,
 Tomislav


----------



## stuartfang

After researching and trying out many open source players (including Play and Cog, and Fluke plug-in for iTunes), I recommend Clementine. Does about everything and plays any format any specs with no problem; best free player, almost the same as foobar2000 but with different (more) features (such as internet radio, cloud play, streaming, syncing with devices etc.)


----------



## bombjoke

its my favorite as well.  also good for organizing, with batch tag editing and automatic tagging by looking up the sound signature in a db somewhere.  impressive.
 it can get stuttery so you might need to increase the buffer in the settings.
 the only drawback is that you pay for all this functionality in power, which is fine if you are plugged in.  but if youre running on battery power it will noticeably shorten your battery life.  so on battery i use decibel or A+ which use 10x less power according to the activity monitor.


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

I just downloaded the trial version of Audirvana Plus (the newest version 1.5.12).  In the past I've tried Pure Music (a couple of years ago--didn't like the interface, and it was just awkward to use) and more recently I've been using BitPerfect.  I use iTunes, and I have tracks with various sample rates (mostly ripped CDs, but some HD tracks 24/96 and 24/192, etc.).  I liked BitPerfect just because it would switch sample rates on the fly.  I didn't notice much of an audible difference with either it or Pure Music--I just wanted the memory play, hog mode, and auto switching of sample rates that iTunes alone couldn't handle.
  
 It seems that with every OS X update, though, and/or with iTunes updates, BitPerfect would sometimes stutter and crackle when switching tracks.  I tried all of the suggested preference changes and fixes, and although it would work fine for awhile, it was never completely glitch free when starting new tracks.  
  
 With Audirvana, I'm getting all of the above advantages; I get to use iTunes like I always have, I can use my iPhone or iPad as a remote, and there are absolutely no glitches or stutters when switching tracks.  Only silence.  If I'm playing a 24/96 track, I can double click on a 16/44.1 track on the fly, and after a second or two of silence, the new track will begin without issue.  (Not that I hop around that way when I'm listening, but if the software can do that, I'm happy).
  
 And, in addition, I do hear, for the first time, an audible difference with Audirvana.  Everything is just a bit more spacious and open.  It's a slight difference with some recordings, and quite dramatic on others.  I'm going to spend some time with the trial version before I buy the license code, but so far it's looking good.
  
 Also, some info that might be helpful to others:  I've just installed the newest Mavericks (10.9.2), along with the newest iTunes (11.1.5) and Audirvana + (1.5.12), and everything seems to work together very well so far, after a couple of hours of listening and playing with the settings.


----------



## aamefford

red jacket mike said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Nice to hear - your listening setup sounds similar to mine.  I haven't upgraded to Mavericks in part due to worries over bit perfect, and the fact that we have an old whit macbook, and the iPhoto and aperture libraries sometimes become incompatible.  I'll give A+ a test drive when I'll have mer than an hour or two to play with it.


----------



## JHern

red jacket mike said:


> I just downloaded the trial version of Audirvana Plus...With Audirvana, I'm getting all of the above advantages; I get to use iTunes like I always have, I can use my iPhone or iPad as a remote, and there are absolutely no glitches or stutters when switching tracks.  Only silence…audible difference with Audirvana.  Everything is just a bit more spacious and open.  It's a slight difference with some recordings, and quite dramatic on others...


 
  
 I agree Audirvana Plus is quite nice, but there are a few annoying things you should know about. Some functions do not work while Audirvana Plus is running, *even if SysOptimizer is turned off in the preferences*. This includes audio from DVD Player or video clips (e.g., YouTube) from web browsers. Quicktime player cannot play movies. AppleTV does not work, when I try to mirror my display it drops the connection. Etc., etc.. Every time I find something strange has happened and all of a sudden simple things are no longer working on my MBP, then I find that quitting Audirvana Plus solves the problem.
  
 It is maybe a minor annoyance, but I sure wish I could just pause the playback and have everything else on my machine work normally without the need to quit Audirvana Plus (then start-up again later when I want to listen to tunes).


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

Yes, I understand that--and I have the SysOptimizer turned on--this is on a headless Mac Mini, dedicated just for music playback.  I am controlling it from an iPad with Apple Remote.  I leave it on all the time, with iTunes and Audirvana (and formerly BitPerfect) launched and ready.  I'm listening to music right now, and typing this on another laptop.  
  
 I can see that it might be an annoyance if you want to use the Mac for other things while you are listening, but in my situation it's fine.  I'm going to sleep on it, but I think I'm ready to plunk down my $74.00.  I've been listening for hours, and actually trying occasionally to get it to stutter, freeze or crash, and I've not been able to.  
  
 I've got the prefs set to all of the options for improving the audio, except for the track position/time slider--for some odd reason, I like to have that working.


----------



## ISeeDesignHer

I LOVE Audirvana Plus 1.5.12 and I am using it in stand alone mode with 'Direct' and 'Integer Mode' options on, driving a Chord Electronics Chordette QuteEX 32b DAC with great results!
  
 Super high resolution digital audio files with data rates all the way up to 24b/32b, 384 kHz PCM and DSD128 on DoP, both running on a late 2012 rMBP over USB, sound spectacular! 
  
 However, when I "upgraded" from OS X 10.9.1 to 10.9.2, the "*Prevent App Nap*' option box in the Get Info window on Audirvana disappeared; this happened on _most_ of my 3rd party software, BTW.
  
 Now, I have to overwrite an *NSAppSleepDisabled* variable from command line in order to avoid kernel panics with 'spindump' logs reporting '*process Audirvana Plus[nnnn] caught causing excessive wakeups*' - these system log errors occur immediately after hearing audio dropouts.
  
 OS X (especially since Mavericks) has increasingly been embedding aggressive software techniques to extend battery life, and my _resulting_ experience is that both *coreaudio* drivers and *USB* drivers are increasingly challenged to provide contiguous real time audiophile quality data flow from 3rd party digital players out through USB ports to external DACs!
  
 For me, OS X 10.9.2 has removed the ability of the user to permanently preclude *App* *Nap*ping, resulting in dropouts and brief crash-and-restart events. There is a manual workaround, but this has to be applied at each and every launch.
  
 There seems to also be an USB data buffer stream problem (deriving from using indirect, interrupt-based time stamping) that results in the dreaded *IOAudioStream[0xffffff804677da00]::clipifNecessary()* gap-generating excruciating loss of mid-stream data! This is NOT an Audirvana's issue but appears instead to be a DAC driver vulnerability that accrues from following Apple's recommended programming guidelines for indexing buffer time stamps.
  
 Whether accidental or not, Mavericks appears to be less and less friendly to audiophile (read, "better than native iTunes") quality digital audio playback.
  
 However, since it would be slow suicide for Apple to poison the audiophile excellence, much less _usability_, of OS X, I must believe that these easy to resolve but highly damaging problems _will_ be addressed.
  
 Anyone else experiencing either the unpreventable App Nap problem, or the clipifNecessary problem?
  
 Please check your Console logs if you even _think_ you heard a glitch, stutter or gap during audio playback. Suggested search terms are: 'wakeups' or 'clipifNecessary', although you can just look for crash reports for your audio player.
  
 Audio SQ is finally catching up with retina video quality - let's not let this slip-slide away from us guys.


----------



## snowshoe

I can't comment on the USB problem you're having because I use the optical out from my macbook pro. I think it sounds just a wee bit better. As for the app nap, I'll have to do a bit more looking around. I still have the app nap option for all the other apps that had it before, so I suspect this is to do with A+. Like you, I do not have an app nap option for Audirvana Plus. It might be worthwhile uninstalling and then reinstalling A+ if you're having trouble with it. It is performing fine for me.


----------



## ISeeDesignHer

snowshoe said:


> I can't comment on the USB problem you're having because I use the optical out from my macbook pro. I think it sounds just a wee bit better. As for the app nap, I'll have to do a bit more looking around. I still have the app nap option for all the other apps that had it before, so I suspect this is to do with A+. Like you, I do not have an app nap option for Audirvana Plus. It might be worthwhile uninstalling and then reinstalling A+ if you're having trouble with it. It is performing fine for me.


 
 Thanks. Like they say in Maine, "Is that _all_ you done? Yeah, but I done it, _three times!_'
  
 Multiple re-installs of OS 10.9.2 _and_ A+, with Command-S /sbin/fsck -fy reboots/exits and Disk Utility 'Repair Disk Permissions' yada, yada, etc., i.e., "Round up the usual suspects."
  
 Before re-installing A+, I even manually de-installed all remnants of A+ once using *sudo rm -R* on these directory locations:
   

 ~/Library/Application Support~/Library/Caches/com.audirvana.Audirvana-Plus ~/Library/Preferences/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.audirvana.Audirvana-Plus.plist
  
 Get Info *had* the 'Prevent App Nap' box for A+ 1.5.12 on OS X 10.9.1; it disappeared on 10.9.2. Using Time Machine to revert to 10.9.1 CPRs it back to life.
  
 Try this line of code *if* you do experience an audible drop out. Quit A+, and type (or copy and paste) in a Terminal window:
   *sudo defaults write com.audirvana.Audirvana-Plus NSAppSleepDisabled -bool YES* 
 and then 'enter' your admin password; quit Terminal, and relaunch A+.
  
 Also, if you leave A+ running overnight and then launch Console, do you have any A+ crash reports?
  
 If you do not find any, perhaps the S/PDIF drivers don't need as many *wakeups* as the USB 3.0 drivers do?
  
 What I find, running at 352.8 kHz or 384 kHz PCM, is (emphasis added for clarity):
  

Feb 27 10:44:49 Peters-MacBook-Pro kernel[0]: process Audirvana Plus[2934] *caught causing excessive wakeups.* Observed wakeups rate (per sec): 178; Maximum permitted wakeups rate (per sec): 150; Observation period: 300 seconds; Task lifetime number of wakeups: *45001*Feb 27 10:44:49 Peters-MacBook-Pro.local Audirvana Plus[2934]: Strong issue, need to *restart playback*Feb 27 10:44:49 Peters-MacBook-Pro.local Audirvana Plus[2934]: Restarted: 0Feb 27 10:44:50 Peters-MacBook-Pro.local spindump[2943]: Saved *wakeups_resource.spin report* for Audirvana Plus version 1.5.12 (1.5.12) to /Library/Logs/DiagnosticReports/Audirvana Plus_2014-02-27-104450_Peters-MacBook-Pro.wakeups_resource.spin
  
 The math works out to *53,400* wakeups observed within a 300 second period!


  
 I guess Mavericks is a 'guilty-until-proven-innocent' type of oligarchy. The psychometrics intrinsic to the phrase, "_CAUGHT_ causing _excessive_ wakeups" is, well, chilling! It suggests to me something akin to a spousal anti-snoring device commercial rehearsal that was diverted instead to Probate Court for adjudication.
  
 The MCP in TRON comes to mind as well, but that's just me, I guess.


----------



## snowshoe

I laughed at that last comment! Very close to life for me - I'm the one suffering from excessive wakeups.
  
 I left A+ running overnight and, no, there aren't any crash reports in console. Mavericks, as I guess you know, uses a fairly aggressive power-saving algorithm. Since USB draws power and SPDIF does not, it makes sense that you see power-saving messages and I don't. I wish I could be of more help. USB has been a major problem for Apple since Lion. I don't know why they can't get it right!
  
 As for the loss of App Nap, I still suspect it has something to do with A+. Maybe it needs to be updated for 10.9.2? All of the other 3rd party apps I've checked have app nap settings. Have you check with Damien? I don't see any comments about this on the A+ forum.


----------



## ISeeDesignHer

*snowshoe*, thanks for checking your console logs after running A+ overnight; Sorry re 'excessive wakeups'.
  
 It was very interesting to find out that you _don't_ get the power consumption related spindumps while interfacing via SPDIF while I get a bevy of them while using USB.
  
 I emailed Damien just after updating to 10.9.2 re the missing 'Prevent App Nap' option in the Get Info window, but I think he misunderstood me.
  
 Perhaps if more than 'one' person (_hint, hint_) substantiated the missing '*Prevent App Nap*' issue with him, he would jump all over it, as is his usual practice. A+ is such a _great_ player that I hate to see this issue remain unaddressed.
  
 I have 'preferred' USB over SPDIF as optical clock edge detection _should_ introduce more jitter than using USB, but you said you find SQ is better going optical. Do you experience this at all bit resolutions and data rates available to you?
  
 I must personally confess that I have become addicted to the combination of 352.8/384 kHz PCM plus sub-Nyquist lower order slope LPF filtering.
  
 That is true until I switch to DSD64 and listen to Shelby Lynne's, "Just A Little Lovin'.dsf" and I am repeatedly and pleasantly awed.
  
 But, then again, if choosing USB just leads to data DEREZing, then your choice must be more 'en*light*ened.'


----------



## frankty

Back in the Mavericks beta days I sent Damien into on App Napp. He thanked me, but informed me that it was already dealt with. Like you I noticed that there was no Info option. This is because there is no choice, as App Nap prevention is always on. So, if it's not working, then it's a bug. For my part I have noticed NO problem on my MacPro indicating that App Nap is a proplem running the very latest OS X patch level 10.9.2

I have both a Loki and Gungnir. What I'd like him to do is provide a GUI interface so I can switch all the preferences with a click as I run them each on their own USB. I'm sure the way digital is headed that I'll eventually end up with yet another DAC. 

I also have the JRiver 19 Beta, but have not experimented much with it. Now that I'm running 10.9.x, it's supposed to have feature parity with Audirvana.

Cheers!
Franki


----------



## frankty

iseedesignher said:


> *snowshoe*, thanks for checking your console logs after running A+ overnight; Sorry re 'excessive wakeups'.
> 
> It was very interesting to find out that you _don't_ get the power consumption related spindumps while interfacing via SPDIF while I get a bevy of them while using USB.
> 
> ...




The only reason that I use USB with A+ is that the MAC OS will max @ 96kHz. Have you found different? Also, with my Mac Pro clone I can't seem to get the DAC to even see either toslink or SPDIF - even though wired direct to the motherboard. It's damned annoying that the toslink spec maxes out @96kHz because some idiot choose to use cheap plastic and visible light instead of REAL fiber.


----------



## ISeeDesignHer

I have a Hegel HD-11 NOS DAC that I was driving optically with an rMBP, using Channel-D's Pure Music. It wouldn't run faster than 96 kHz, and, since SPDIF is unidirectional, I found that I had to get _Midi_-recognized using USB and then pull the USB cable - it then found the optical port. I'm not sure, but I think the audio and the optical are driven from the same headphone driver IC. 
  
 Despite the existence of widely published specs stating that Apple's coaxial Headphone/SPDIF port can do *192* kHz, it is a *lie*. See *http://www.channld.com/computeraudio.html* and scroll down to the optical section. I pushed _very hard_ on Channel-D before becoming educated on who is to blame for the 96 kHz limitation.
  
 BTW, it is not a cheap plastic limitation of the fiber; it is the fact that *coreaudio* can't send PCM to the headphone/optical driver chip faster than 96 kHz, IMHO.
  
 That is why I switched to USB and started using DAC drivers that shipped with H/S DACs.
  
 With a Chordette QuteHD high-OSR DAC using A+ 1.5.10 on a mid 2012 11" MBA under 10.8.5, I play 176.4/192 kHz PCM and DoP DSD64 all day long, and LOVE it. It is BEAUTIFUL!
  
 Sadly, when I use my late 2012 13" rMBP using A+ 1.5.12 driving an even _more_ over sampled DAC (Chordette QuteEX) on OS X 10.9.2, I run into multiple issues. I can run 352.8/384 kHz PCM and DoP DSD64 and DSD128 over USB and hear great sound out of the QuteEX, *for a while*.
  
 Then, I get stutters and crash-dropout-restart events.
  
 I've tuned everything under _my_ control, and then it is _ALMOST_ good enough to use for a Show Demo; but it is 'almost' good enough like the odds of living through Russian Roulette is 'almost' good enough.
  
 There are 3 'usual' suspects to round up; *1*) A+, *2*) OS X and *3*) Chord USB drivers (from M2Tech, I believe).
  
 The good news is that the bug(s) do NOT 'originate' with A+.
  
 The bad news is that A+'s developer is one of the few people who understands the USB driver buffer wrap time stamp bug _and_ the aggressive App Nap problem. 
  
 Why is that bad news?
  
 Well, notice that the companies involved (other than Avangate) do not have _his_ considerable talent and knowledge directly available to them.
  
 Apple, Chord, Avangate (substitute Channel-D, JRiver, BIT PERFECT, etc.).
  
 It would accrue to everybody's benefit to cooperate in such a way as to _restore_ the ability of Apple laptops to play audiophile quality digital files through 3rd party players out to external ultra-performance DACs.


----------



## rbnjr

wow, nice list of alternatives to itunes as i have ever seen. has anyone reviewed them to rate which was the sonically better one?
  
 thanks again.


----------



## rbnjr

does the software for Audirvana auto update as needed on a mac computer or do you need to visit the website once in a while to check for the updates?


----------



## NinjaHamster

It





rbnjr said:


> does the software for Audirvana auto update as needed on a mac computer or do you need to visit the website once in a while to check for the updates?


 

It has an option for auto updates.


----------



## frankty

The 96kHz/cheap plastic fiber is a chicken/egg problem. Because of the fiber spec, the OS limits the rate to 96k, even if you used glass that would go far faster. Totally artificial limitation. "Nobody will need more than 640KB of memory."


----------



## ISeeDesignHer

rbnjr said:


> does the software for Audirvana auto update as needed on a mac computer or do you need to visit the website once in a while to check for the updates?


 
 Like finding a trans-Australian rest stop driving cross country, you're in luck! (_he he_)
  
 Audirvana Plus *auto notifies* you when an update is available at launch, and, if so, then kindly asks you if you wish to install it. Furthermore, it is very good at finding your license file, so, even if you retro-reinstall from any prior .dmg disk image, you will be 'licensed'. No 'fly once, pay twice' going on here!
  
 I hope this addresses your question, *rbnjr*.


----------



## ISeeDesignHer

rbnjr said:


> wow, nice list of alternatives to itunes as i have ever seen. has anyone reviewed them to rate which was the sonically better one?
> 
> thanks again.


 
 I'm a newby in this forum so I don't know if anyone has published a shoot out on DACs here.
  
 In general, there are two practical ways of learning about DAC competitive performance prior to $he££ing out € ¥; a) Find, and read, full blown test reports done (preferably) with the usual A/P SYS-2722 analyzer, or b) read here where people have voted with their pocketbooks/wallets.
  
 DACs are incredibly satisfying, idiosyncratic but seductive life altering additions; absolutely terrific, until you see the 'next' one walk by and start quoting Robert Frost's, "_The Road Not Taken_." (Remind you of anything else in life?)  IMO, the 'best' DAC playing mp4s from iTunes will sound worse than a mediocre DAC driven by the best player fed by super high resolution digital audio files.
  
Measurable DAC parameters like SNR, THD & IMD evolve quite slowly, actually.
  
 You've got to treat it like buying an HDTV - it is a multi-year investment. Fortunately, the quality of available media will be your true limiting factor for years to come, if you buy one of the top ten DACs and use a player like Audirvana Plus.
  
 Anyway, I believe I've already spilled the beans on my preferred DAC, in earlier posts.


----------



## ISeeDesignHer

frankty said:


> The 96kHz/cheap plastic fiber is a chicken/egg problem. Because of the fiber spec, the OS limits the rate to 96k, even if you used glass that would go far faster. Totally artificial limitation. "Nobody will need more than 640KB of memory."


 
 Well, you have very effectively revealed the true absurdity of this 'artificial' optical speed limit by sending it out over kilo-miles of 'optical fiber' carrying 6 or 8 orders of magnitude more bandwidth than needed for 24b/96 kHz digital audio.
  
 Still, I _believe_ that most MACs split the audio stream so that the DAC/headphone Amp/Equalizer codec chip gets fed data at the _rate limit_ of the DAC only, and the IR SPDIF TXR is typically downstream of this bottleneck whereas, with 3rd party drivers, USB will do 4X as fast or more.
  
 The real thriller is Thunderbolt's 10 Gb/s ability to output HDX-SDI with HD/SD embedded video plus Dolby 5.1/7.1 surround sound audio - and you can _then_ buy a Thunderbolt HDX-SDI converter for your MAC that outputs _all of that_ on its *own* SPDIF optical port.
  
 Go figure.


----------



## Currawong

iseedesignher said:


> DACs are incredibly satisfying, idiosyncratic but seductive life altering additions; absolutely terrific, until you see the 'next' one walk by and start quoting Robert Frost's, "_The Road Not Taken_." (Remind you of anything else in life?)  IMO, the 'best' DAC playing mp4s from iTunes will sound worse than a mediocre DAC driven by the best player fed by super high resolution digital audio files.


 
  
 The Road Not Taken indeed. I disagree with you on your second point, but not specifically with iTunes files, but when it comes to less than "super high resolution digital audio files." Lately my favourite listening has been done with music such NPR Tiny Desk concerts on Youtube. A well-made recording beats all in my experience, even if it is played back from an AAC file.
  
 Lately, for something different, I have been using Vox for playback. It seems to have come quite a long way for a simple player.


----------



## ISeeDesignHer

currawong said:


> The Road Not Taken indeed. I disagree with you on your second point, but not specifically with iTunes files, but when it comes to less than "super high resolution digital audio files." Lately my favourite listening has been done with music such NPR Tiny Desk concerts on Youtube. A well-made recording beats all in my experience, even if it is played back from an AAC file.
> 
> Lately, for something different, I have been using Vox for playback. It seems to have come quite a long way for a simple player.


 
 Yes, I would indeed agree that the production quality trumps all; perhaps I should be more careful to properly narrow the context of my opinions.
  
 My main point was that I was trying to lower anxieties over 'which' DAC to purchase. There are many that are quite good, so waiting around for the 'best' DAC to appear is just delaying catching the wave of accelerating 'audiophile' enjoyment. What that is, Beats me? (_Hey, those blinking blue lights have made it Kool to be geek for the Millennia & CupCake Gens_).
  
 To validate _your_ point, however, have you ever listened to acoustician Evelyne Glennie's performance on ted-dot-com over YouTube? I would be _fascinated_ listening to _that_ through a rubber garden hose standing in the rain during a T-storm. Check it out!
  
 I am thrilled that you are enjoying such a multi-input auditory experience. "There is more *magic* in sound than sight, when done right," to risk self-quoting.


----------



## Silent One

iseedesignher said:


> Yes, I would indeed agree that the production quality trumps all; perhaps I should be more careful to properly narrow the context of my opinions.
> 
> My main point was that I was trying to lower anxieties over 'which' DAC to purchase. There are many that are quite good, so waiting around for the 'best' DAC to appear is just delaying catching the wave of accelerating 'audiophile' enjoyment. What that is, Beats me? (_Hey, those blinking blue lights have made it Kool to be geek for the Millennia & CupCake Gens_).
> 
> ...


 
 A BIG salute to Evelyne Glennie...





 I've been diggin' her for some years now. Seems not many are aware of her music or backstory.


----------



## ISeeDesignHer

silent one said:


> A BIG salute to Evelyne Glennie...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
*Silent One*, YEA 2U!
  
 Honor to you for honoring her.
  
 I think maybe there are 18 different ways that she amazes _me_, the _least_ important of which is the realization that she has uniquely raised diction to the level of mastery, and musicality, of her performance art; and those of us with ears Golden, or at least 'normal' ones couldn't imagine speaking as shockingly perfect, and perfectly effective, as she effortlessly, sinuously, ingenuously does.
  
 I mean, do you even know ANYONE around you that does maybe *18* things far better than you at your very best could ever imagine doing?
  
 Yet, the only takeaway E.G. would 'value' in my praise for her and _another_ of her fans would be, "You heard just a _wee bit more_ of what I tried to convey through my music, acoustically, and I am *proud* of you for listening _better_ today than you _could_ yesterday!"
  
 She wouldn't like my having to use _so many words_ to say it though; that's for sure.


----------



## Silent One

iseedesignher said:


> She wouldn't like my having to use _so many words_ to say it though; that's for sure.


 





 She'd be hard pressed to stop grinning!


----------



## mr.khali

currawong said:


> The Road Not Taken indeed. I disagree with you on your second point, but not specifically with iTunes files, but when it comes to less than "super high resolution digital audio files." Lately my favourite listening has been done with music such NPR Tiny Desk concerts on Youtube. A well-made recording beats all in my experience, even if it is played back from an AAC file.
> 
> Lately, for something different, I have been using Vox for playback. It seems to have come quite a long way for a simple player.


 
 I too just downloaded VOX and it sound pretty good to these ears.  Better than most of the lower costs players from what I can recall from memory.  I would love to hear what others think.


----------



## georgelai57

When using Auditvana+ to play DSD, wouldn't I need a DSD-capable DAC amp if I intend to use headphones?


----------



## ISeeDesignHer

Audirvana Plus will convert DSD into PCM and adjust its output rate to what the DAC capabilities are automatically. If you have an external DAC connected, you can choose between internal and external by launching Audio Midi Setup located in the Utilities ƒolder (which is itself found in the Applications ƒolder.
  
 I just tried this on one of my two setups and it worked without a hitch.
  
 Remember, when you do use an external DAC, you should launch Midi Setup to select the correct DAC, AND, then click on the 'Output' button, click on the twisty to the right of Format: to select the max data rate desired and then click on the twisty just to the right of that one to  select one of the data formats.
  
 For using the native internal DAC, you should (be able to) end up with "*96000.0 Hz*" and "*2ch-24bit Integer*" showing in the Midi Setup App before closing it. When down-converting DSD64 to 24b, 96 kHz PCM (for the Mac's internal DAC), *A+* will actually resample it downward by 32X and you will end up with an 88.2 kHz data rate.
  
 Enjoy!


----------



## georgelai57

Hey thanks for the very detailed explanation. I shall keep this as a reference. I intend to use a Geek with A+ for my DSD files and use a different DAC without A+ for non DSD files. That will then make it easy for me.


----------



## Grodecki

Just downloaded Swinsian because of this thread; dear god is it faster for library and iPod sync. It is getting my money asap!
  
 I tend to use vox for actual playback, mind. I miss foobar2000 dreadfully.


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

I saw some screen shots of the upcoming Audirvana Plus 2.0 over at Computer Audiophile; I'm looking forward to trying it.  Supposedly it will have a companion app like Apple's Remote for iPhone and iPad, which will allow remote control while still allowing operation in the native Audirvana mode, rather than the iTunes integrated mode.


----------



## edwardsean

Hi Mike, 
  
 Could you post a link to the A+ 2.0 information. I'm pretty intrigued but can't seem to find it. Thanks!


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

edwardsean said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Could you post a link to the A+ 2.0 information. I'm pretty intrigued but can't seem to find it. Thanks!


 
 Yes--you can see it here.


----------



## Zoom25

Upgraded my Audirvana Plus today. Going back and forth and comparing between 1.5.10 and 1.5.12 - it's a tough choice. There is indeed a difference in sound quality. They both have something appealing about them. Hopefully a future model will take the best out of them both and combine it. Maybe 2.0


----------



## littletree76

red jacket mike said:


> I saw some screen shots of the upcoming Audirvana Plus 2.0 over at Computer Audiophile; I'm looking forward to trying it.  Supposedly it will have a companion app like Apple's Remote for iPhone and iPad, which will allow remote control while still allowing operation in the native Audirvana mode, rather than the iTunes integrated mode.


 
  
 Accroding to developer damien78 replies in Computer Audiophile website, the new Audirvana Plus 2.0 will have its own music file management feature and remote control app on iOS device just like iTunes. So you can do away with iTunes completely and iTunes integrated mode will not be needed in Audirvana Plus anymore. That is what I wanted for long time to have my Mac as audio source feeding audio chain comprises of DAC + class D amplifier + passive speakers. Time to start shopping for decent DAC, amplifier and desktop speaker again (I have sold all of them and has been relying on Sonos system).
  
 I suppose the developer has enough of tweaking Audirvana player for good sound reproduction, so it is the right time now to vastly enhance the user interface for better user experience.


----------



## georgelai57

littletree76 said:


> Accroding to developer damien78 replies in Computer Audiophile website, the new Audirvana Plus 2.0 will have its own music file management feature and remote control app on iOS device just like iTunes. So you can do away with iTunes completely and iTunes integrated mode will not be needed in Audirvana Plus anymore. That is what I wanted for long time to have my Mac as audio source feeding audio chain comprises of DAC + class D amplifier + passive speakers. Time to start shopping for decent DAC, amplifier and desktop speaker again (I have sold all of them and has been relying on Sonos system).
> 
> I suppose the developer has enough of tweaking Audirvana player for good sound reproduction, so it is the right time now to vastly enhance the user interface for better user experience.



This file management feature, is it what I'm looking for? 

I'm a new user and got Audirvana+ to play FLAC and DSD files on a separate HDD, leaving the normal MP3 files on my iMac to be handled by iTunes. I do not intend to use A+ to play my iTunes music.


----------



## littletree76

Yes, in fact user interface of Audirvana Plus 2.0 will look very much like that of iTunes with main window showing album tittles/artworks, artist and song names. Both applications can be used separately without interference. Of course the only way to know final implementation is to wait for its launch in near future.


----------



## Slaphead

To be honest I don't want two library's, even if A+ is able to provide such a function. I still need to sync my IToys so what would be ideal for me is that I could point A+ to my iTunes library and have it access the music from there while giving me a nice library view. 

Maybe that's what's in the works given the already existing iTunes integration.


----------



## kazsud

georgelai57 said:


> This file management feature, is it what I'm looking for?
> 
> I'm a new user and got Audirvana+ to play FLAC and DSD files on a separate HDD, leaving the normal MP3 files on my iMac to be handled by iTunes. I do not intend to use A+ to play my iTunes music.




It can be done now


----------



## Silent One

I have been thinking of giving Liztic a try:





  
 https://www.liztic.com/#/index


----------



## miceblue

silent one said:


> I have been thinking of giving Liztic a try:
> 
> 
> https://www.liztic.com/#/index



Dem Beats.


----------



## Silent One




----------



## Bflatmajor

So with this liztic product you pay a monthly fee to listen to YOUR music.....
 'Cus me, but that is lame!


----------



## Solrighal

bflatmajor said:


> So with this liztic product you pay a monthly fee to listen to YOUR music.....
> 'Cus me, but that is lame!




I agree.

I downloaded the demo of Fidelia on my Mac but could I get to to play a track? Could I hell. It's gone.

It looks like it's JRiver for me.


----------



## Silent One

bflatmajor said:


> So with this liztic product you pay a monthly fee to listen to YOUR music.....
> 'Cus me, but that is lame!


 





 Your very first post and you got ticketed for _speed reading? _Not a monthly subscription...


----------



## Silent One

solrighal said:


> I agree.
> 
> I downloaded the demo of Fidelia on my Mac but could I get to to play a track? Could I hell. It's gone.
> 
> It looks like it's JRiver for me.


 
 I demoed both of these platforms 18 months ago and liked them. I just happen to like the latest by A+ better. If your choice works for you, then...


----------



## Bflatmajor

Speed reading...
  
 http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/blog/atlantech/2014/01/atlanta-startup-develops.html
  
  
 So what is it... Monthly subscription or Annual Subscription or neither... Maybe the author of the article is wrong...


----------



## Bflatmajor

Quote:


silent one said:


> I demoed both of these platforms 18 months ago and liked them. I just happen to like the latest by A+ better. If your choice works for you, then...



  
  
 If you go to their website, click on their Press releases and Articles link, click on the Atlanta Business Chronicle press release and read the article, you will see where I got my information. 
 Do you know which one is right?


----------



## Silent One

bflatmajor said:


> If you go to their website, click on their Press releases and Articles link, click on the Atlanta Business Chronicle press release and read the article, you will see where I got my information.
> Do you know which one is right?


 
 Ah... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm the ONE with egg on my face for not initially reading carefully last month. I merely glanced at the front page and noted the "No Subscription Required." Had I looked at account types, that would have tipped me off. Well, at least the eggs were from "Cage free & Vegetarian fed Hens." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  





 Yes, you were right... subscription model. But "Free" for a measly 250 songs a month across 3 devices, I'll note.


----------



## Currawong

I've updated the first post and the wiki. Songbird (the company) folded last year and the app lives on as Nightingale.
  
 I've updated the descriptions for Vox and Audirvana and removed the non-updated programs.


----------



## stuartfang

Clementine for lossy music files
 Cog for lossless 
  
 EDIT: Just downloaded Audirvana Plus and using the trial for now, since so many head-fiers on this thread and others recommend it so. Wow! I am loving it, the sound quality, practicality, and resource-handling just blows me away. I think it might be my only alternative player to iTunes on Mac OS X


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

Agreed; I'm anxiously waiting for version 2, which supposedly will eliminate the need for iTunes, and also provide its own iPad/iPhone Remote style app.


----------



## Solrighal

red jacket mike said:


> Agreed; I'm anxiously waiting for version 2, which supposedly will eliminate the need for iTunes, and also provide its own iPad/iPhone Remote style app.




Colour me suddenly interested. I detest iTunes with a passion!


----------



## stuartfang

red jacket mike said:


> Agreed; I'm anxiously waiting for version 2, which supposedly will eliminate the need for iTunes, and also provide its own iPad/iPhone Remote style app.


 
 Really looking forward to it as well myself!


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

Of course, you can use Audirvana in stand alone mode now, but version 2 will supposedly offer more in the way of library/organization features.  I use it in iTunes integrated mode now.  I like the look of iTunes, but enjoy bypassing it as the default music player.


----------



## Solrighal

I want true folder navigation and an app that works as a remote. Not much to ask.


----------



## Silent One

red jacket mike said:


> Agreed; I'm anxiously waiting for version 2, which supposedly will eliminate the need for iTunes, and also provide its own iPad/iPhone Remote style app.


 
 Although I enjoy using A+, I haven't kept up with development news. Any idea when v.2 will hit the street?


----------



## miceblue

littletree76 said:


> Yes, in fact user interface of Audirvana Plus 2.0 will look very much like that of iTunes with main window showing album tittles/artworks, artist and song names. Both applications can be used separately without interference. Of course the only way to know final implementation is to wait for its launch in near future.



Really? I don't like the look of iTunes though...


----------



## Silent One

miceblue said:


> Really? I don't like the look of iTunes though...


 
 Gotta screenshot of a music database you really like?


----------



## miceblue

silent one said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > [CONTENTEMBED=/t/539740/mac-os-x-music-players-alternatives-to-itunes/2055#post_10387701 layout=inline] [/CONTENTEMBED]
> ...



I don't use a database though. I like drag-n-drop files like the current Audirvana Plus does, which allows me to listen to certain tracks as I want without having to sort them manually in a database and make separate playlists for them.

If I want to listen to a specific playlist, I simply open the .m3u file saved on my desktop.


----------



## Silent One

miceblue said:


> I don't use a database though. I like drag-n-drop files like the current Audirvana Plus does, which allows me to listen to certain tracks as I want without having to sort them manually in a database and make separate playlists for them.
> 
> 
> If I want to listen to a specific playlist, I simply open the .m3u file saved on my desktop.


 
 I too, use A+ in this way. But when enjoying 8 hour + listening sessions overnight...


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

There is a thread over in Computer Audiophile  with some discussion of version 2.  Damien Plisset, the author of the program, occasionally posts there.  Back in early March, he cryptically mentioned that spring would come a bit late this year.  Here's a link:
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/audirvana-1-5-12-a-19028/index8.html
  
 There are some screen shots of what the interface might look like, also.


----------



## Zoom25

miceblue said:


> *I don't use a database though. I like drag-n-drop files like the current Audirvana Plus does*, which allows me to listen to certain tracks as I want without having to sort them manually in a database and make separate playlists for them.
> 
> If I want to listen to a specific playlist, I simply open the .m3u file saved on my desktop.


 
 +1
  
 Even if I wanted to use a library, it'd be small and/or mostly MP3s. All my FLAC is on an external hard drive. I have way too much music to keep on any of my mac's internal hard drive.


----------



## Solrighal

miceblue said:


> I don't use a database though. I like drag-n-drop files like the current Audirvana Plus does, which allows me to listen to certain tracks as I want without having to sort them manually in a database and make separate playlists for them.
> 
> If I want to listen to a specific playlist, I simply open the .m3u file saved on my desktop.







zoom25 said:


> +1
> 
> Even if I wanted to use a library, it'd be small and/or mostly MP3s. All my FLAC is on an external hard drive. I have way too much music to keep on any of my mac's internal hard drive.




+ 2


----------



## Silent One

red jacket mike said:


> There is a thread over in Computer Audiophile  with some discussion of version 2.  Damien Plisset, the author of the program, occasionally posts there.  Back in early March, he cryptically mentioned that spring would come a bit late this year.  Here's a link:
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/audirvana-1-5-12-a-19028/index8.html
> 
> There are some screen shots of what the interface might look like, also.


 





 Though I lurked head-fi for 7 years before registering mid-2010, I took interest at CA much earlier; have a diff username over there. Occasionally have exchanges with Damien but haven't followed CA of late (business).  That's for getting me up to date!


----------



## snowshoe

I too would like to know what's going on with A+ development. A version 2 is all well and good, but I've been having quite a few problems with 1.5.12. An update wouldn't be unappreciated!


----------



## Zoom25

snowshoe said:


> I too would like to know what's going on with A+ development. A version 2 is all well and good, but I've been having quite a few problems with 1.5.12. An update wouldn't be unappreciated!


 
 What's wrong with it? I'm personally on 1.5.10 although did try 1.5.12 for about a week without any glitch.


----------



## netsky3

Anyone which have tried to do a porting of foobar in Mac usinge winery/wineriskin??


----------



## miceblue

netsky3 said:


> Anyone which have tried to do a porting of foobar in Mac usinge winery/wineriskin??



I did a long time ago. 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/427992/simple-way-to-run-foobar2000-on-mac#post_7609144


----------



## netsky3

miceblue said:


> I did a long time ago.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/427992/simple-way-to-run-foobar2000-on-mac#post_7609144


 
  
 Yes, perfect.
 I have mine portable version of foobar and i want use it again on mac without do all my tweaks again and again, but i didn't how to do  
 You know if with the porting capable of a bit-perfect playback?


----------



## Lohb

Does anyone know the difference between integer mode 1 + 2 on Audirvana + ?
 Which one do you prefer if you can use it ?


----------



## StudioSound

currawong said:


> I've updated the first post and the wiki. Songbird (the company) folded last year and the app lives on as Nightingale.
> 
> I've updated the descriptions for Vox and Audirvana and removed the non-updated programs.



 
No mention of JRiver on the list? It's been out of beta for a while and is still under active development. (constant updates)


----------



## aamefford

studiosound said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I've updated the first post and the wiki. Songbird (the company) folded last year and the app lives on as Nightingale.
> ...


 

 Any comments on the Mac version of J-River?  I'm interested....


----------



## GarySaville

aamefford said:


> Any comments on the Mac version of J-River?  I'm interested....


 
 JRiver Media Centre is now my main player on my Mac. I have Amarra, but the interface sucks. It really makes me question their ability to program. I also own Fidelia, but it lacks an EQ, unless you want to load a VST/AU. 
 While there is something smooth about Amarra's sound quality, I find that with a touch of tweeking with JRiver's EQ, I can get a very similar sound sig out of JRiver, and JRiver's track management and IOS remote are both fantastic.


----------



## Solrighal

Agreed. Although sadly the only app available for Android is not very good at all.


----------



## StudioSound

solrighal said:


> Agreed. Although sadly the only app available for Android is not very good at all.



 
Gizmo is a good app in my opinion, though the interface is a bit plain. The good news is that they just acquired the developer of JRemote (the iOS app) so hopefully they will bring that over to Android.


----------



## Currawong

studiosound said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I've updated the first post and the wiki. Songbird (the company) folded last year and the app lives on as Nightingale.
> ...


 
  
 I forgot! Thanks for reminding me.


----------



## Preacherdaniel

netsky3 said:


> Yes, perfect.
> I have mine portable version of foobar and i want use it again on mac without do all my tweaks again and again, but i didn't how to do
> You know if with the porting capable of a bit-perfect playback?


 
  
 Thanks a lot! Does this work on Mavericks?!


----------



## netsky3

preacherdaniel said:


> Thanks a lot! Does this work on Mavericks?!




Ehm...mine version is still for windows only because I Dont know how to port a portable software with winery.
I wait for a reply from miceblue if knows how to do...


----------



## Preacherdaniel

Well it works. Set it up easily. Now I just need to figure out how place the alias file of Foobar on my dock...


----------



## netsky3

preacherdaniel said:


> Well it works. Set it up easily. Now I just need to figure out how place the alias file of Foobar on my dock...




Yes, my problem is that i know only how to do with a normal installation of foobar with winery. I'd like to port mine portable version which i made time ago on windows (just the folder, not the .exe setup). I don't want to do all my customization from zero :/


----------



## Mimaki

Going to try out Jriver today


----------



## Preacherdaniel

netsky3 said:


> Yes, my problem is that i know only how to do with a normal installation of foobar with winery. I'd like to port mine portable version which i made time ago on windows (just the folder, not the .exe setup). I don't want to do all my customization from zero :/


 
  
 Just customize it. Took me 3 minutes and I'm set


----------



## netsky3

preacherdaniel said:


> Just customize it. Took me 3 minutes and I'm set


 
  
 Maybe your.
 Mine customization with all my plugin, vst, etc took me a lot of time and settings 
 I don't want to lose them..


----------



## snowshoe

lohb said:


> Does anyone know the difference between integer mode 1 + 2 on Audirvana + ?
> Which one do you prefer if you can use it ?


 

 Check the manual. The explanation is there. If I remember correctly, 1 is more accurate, 2 is a wee bit warm.


----------



## snowshoe

zoom25 said:


> What's wrong with it? I'm personally on 1.5.10 although did try 1.5.12 for about a week without any glitch.


 

 Honestly, I'm not sure if it's A+ or Mavericks or my XDA-2. I'm sure it's a combination of the three. About once a day, I'll load up some music in A+ and it will just freeze. I force close, check connections (audio from iTunes is fine), reopen A+ and try again. Same thing. Usually the only fix is a full restart of the computer. Drives me mad and I can't seem to find a culprit.


----------



## Zoom25

snowshoe said:


> Honestly, I'm not sure if it's A+ or Mavericks or my XDA-2. I'm sure it's a combination of the three. About once a day, I'll load up some music in A+ and it will just freeze. I force close, check connections (audio from iTunes is fine), reopen A+ and try again. Same thing. Usually the only fix is a full restart of the computer. Drives me mad and I can't seem to find a culprit.


 
 Try uninstalling it or get 1.5.10 and see if that fixes anything.


----------



## Solrighal

An update for the JRiver iPad app became available. More eye-candy.


----------



## snowshoe

zoom25 said:


> Try uninstalling it or get 1.5.10 and see if that fixes anything.


 

 I seem to recall from the A+ forum that 1.5.10 is not readily available to download. I should have a look.


----------



## ouchia

lohb said:


> Does anyone know the difference between integer mode 1 + 2 on Audirvana + ?
> Which one do you prefer if you can use it ?


 
 Yeah I played with it for awhile.  1 seems to have a wider soundstage, little bit more treble emphasis.  2 I liked for the bass control and the warmth but the soundstage was more compressed.  I'm sure this is going to be different depending on your dac.  
  
 I've tried A+ and Amarra - Amarra sounds way better to me, not as wide a soundstage but the overall balance is levels better than A+.  Unfortunately the design sucks.  Like really sucks.   Not just the graphic design but the interface design.  I feel like I'm on an IBM from 1980 using it.  They seriously need an interface designer.  Sound is great though, really nice.


----------



## Lohb

ouchia said:


> Yeah I played with it for awhile.  1 seems to have a wider soundstage, little bit more treble emphasis.  2 I liked for the bass control and the warmth but the soundstage was more compressed.  I'm sure this is going to be different depending on your dac.
> 
> I've tried A+ and Amarra - Amarra sounds way better to me, not as wide a soundstage but the overall balance is levels better than A+.  Unfortunately the design sucks.  Like really sucks.   Not just the graphic design but the interface design.  I feel like I'm on an IBM from 1980 using it.  They seriously need an interface designer.  Sound is great though, really nice.


 

 Thanks. I hated amarra interface though A+ is a really cheesy GUI too. Must be so easy to provide sleeker skins, but he doesn't.


----------



## NinjaHamster

ouchia said:


> Yeah I played with it for awhile.  1 seems to have a wider soundstage, little bit more treble emphasis.  2 I liked for the bass control and the warmth but the soundstage was more compressed.  I'm sure this is going to be different depending on your dac.
> 
> I've tried A+ and Amarra - Amarra sounds way better to me, not as wide a soundstage but the overall balance is levels better than A+.  Unfortunately the design sucks.  Like really sucks.   Not just the graphic design but the interface design.  I feel like I'm on an IBM from 1980 using it.  They seriously need an interface designer.  Sound is great though, really nice.


 
 EXACTLY mirrors my own experience over the past few days.  Amarra is the slowest, buggiest, most awkward piece of software I have ever used on a Mac.  Unfortunately, it also sounds just that little bit better than the superb Audirvana Plus  
  
 I also agree with your assessment of the differences between Type 1 and Type 2 Integer.


----------



## georgelai57

For those using Audirvana+ can you share with us how much memory you allocate to it under Audio Volume Settings and what is the total memory on your Mac? Thanks


----------



## miceblue

I apparently have 5 GB allocated. My MacBook Pro has 8 GB total. XD


----------



## Lohb

georgelai57 said:


> For those using Audirvana+ can you share with us how much memory you allocate to it under Audio Volume Settings and what is the total memory on your Mac? Thanks


 
 For A+ ..... 512 MB of 2 GB with no up-sampling and it runs fine. Does more memory just enable more tracks loaded into memory or is there another advantage to allotting more memory ?
 I had thought of getting a 4/8GB MBA soon.


----------



## Solrighal

I've got my 16GB RAM allocated 50/50. My Mac mini won't consume more than 6GB for the system though, no matter what I do.


----------



## rodomo

I would recommend audirvana plus, since Amarra doen´t work on my mac.


----------



## csnr

rodomo said:


> I would recommend audirvana plus, since Amarra doen´t work on my mac.




+1


----------



## miceblue

I prefer Audirvana Plus as well. It combines the best of a good user interface, customisable sound options, sound quality, resource management, and overall ease of use. I tried the Amarra trial and I quit using it after a day since it was so unintuitive and I don't use iTunes all that much. Fidelia was good too, but you needed to purchase separate packages to get the full functionality out of it. I like the pseudo VU meters it has on the front panel display though.

I would try JRiver Media Center...but my trial expired when I tried it in its beta phase and upon "extending" my trial period to try it when it got out of the beta phase, nothing happened. >.>


----------



## Lohb

So as a few people have shared their allocated RAM for A+   512M up to 8GB and beyond.... is there any benefit beyond caching/readying of the tracklist after the song currently playing if you are not up-sampling ?


----------



## georgelai57

lohb said:


> So as a few people have shared their allocated RAM for A+   512M up to 8GB and beyond.... is there any benefit beyond caching/readying of the tracklist after the song currently playing if you are not up-sampling ?


 
 I wanted to ask the question on the A+ forums but they still haven't activated my account hence my asking on head-fi. I was allocating some 6GB of my iMac's 8GB and without using the iMac for other duties when listening to DSD. Since then I've been advised that the less I allocate to A+ the better.


----------



## Lohb

Does anyone know if it is possible to stream Audirvana+ and my FLAC library to an ipad mini over the net to a coffee shop etc with VNC server software ? (I don't subscribe, nor will I, to cloud based services.)
 I was looking at the iPad mini but no A+ for it I think (?)
 EDIT : I just found this free VNC below, but wonder if it is feasible (Devil in the details and all that...) as I don't have the iPad Mini yet.
  
  
http://www.teamviewer.com/en/download/mac.aspx


----------



## thievesarmy

So, what is the current consensus on the best sounding Mac player? I have Vox and like how slick, simple, and user-friendly it is. Also have Audirvana but don't like it as much, the UI isn't very well done, but it works alright. I just downloaded JRiver Media Center (already don't like the UI but haven't listened to it yet) & Fidelia (which looks very nice), but wondering if there is a majority agreement as far as which produces the best audio.


----------



## kazsud

I bounce between iTunes, Audirvana,+ Fiidelia and Vox.


----------



## notox101

lohb said:


> So as a few people have shared their allocated RAM for A+   512M up to 8GB and beyond.... is there any benefit beyond caching/readying of the tracklist after the song currently playing if you are not up-sampling ?


 
 Increasing allocated RAM is useful when you need to store temporary a large amount of computed data ready to be consume in another computation cycle. In our case, we're dealing with piece of data (tracks), which have to be loaded in RAM, treated to be ready to be sent to audio interface, and finally consumed by it. Preparing a whole track helps to prevent input buffer from interface getting empty. Preparing the next track is even better, so you will move from one track to another without any latency. Preparing the whole tracklist could be interesting if you want to play suddenly a track from your list, or if your player would compute the next track index at the very end of the current one when playing randomly. Also, reserving larger amount of memory let the player deals with several tracks in once, resulting in less multiple hard disk accesses so it (may) reduce interferences.
 BUT, this is a very theoretical point of view, because we need to consider that :
 1) Dealing with digital playback audio stream nowadays is kind of a piece of cake for processors from desktop & notebook, even with a need of up-sampling. So unless your listening your music on a production server whose procs are fully loaded, most of time, your will be able to do that pretty much on the fly. This argument is of course balanced by the fact that doing very high quality up-sampling is not that simple, and can lead to cpu cycle starvation.
 2) Reserving a large amount of memory means your processor has reached its limits for the audio processing you'd like to do. So I guess, if you have an average hardware configuration, that you also don't have that much memory to give to A+. If you don't let enough memory for other processes to run (especially the hungry ones like a good-old safari opened with a tons of javascript running on and some not-as-good-old flash plugins opened), your system will start swapping (yes it's not an exclusive Ms Windows feature), meaning it will get the extra memory from...the hard disk, which will be the worst thing you could expect if your system has been set up to do the swap on one mechanical hard disk.
 3) Talking about interferences, if you do have a SSD disk, you probably won't get into that problem. 
  
 So actually it makes a little sens to reserve larger amount of memory, but if you're reading your audio files from a SSD, without any up-sampling  on a decent computer you wouldn't need it at all. However, if you're having some trouble while reading your music like latency from playing one track to another, you can try to increase the shared memory of A+, but just don't forget to let some for the others


----------



## Zoom25

thievesarmy said:


> So, what is the current consensus on the best sounding Mac player? I have Vox and like how slick, simple, and user-friendly it is. Also have Audirvana but don't like it as much, the UI isn't very well done, but it works alright. I just downloaded JRiver Media Center (already don't like the UI but haven't listened to it yet) & Fidelia (which looks very nice), but wondering if there is a majority agreement as far as which produces the best audio.


 
  
 The newest Audirvana Plus would definitely have to be there in terms of sound. I use it exclusively because it's the least buggy out of any players I've ever used. I tried Amarra for about a week but gave up eventually due to how annoying the user interface was and the periodic crashing. It wasn't worth it. Audirvana beat Decibel and Bitperfect for me in terms of sound and also how it was easier to use.
  
 Now if I can only reroute the audio from VLC to Audirvana while VLC processes the video. Any tips?


----------



## notox101

I totally agree with putting Audirvana + on the top of list. However, I dislike to be forced to use Itunes to get a correct media player with a library manager (Using Audirvana alone is just a step back to early 2K's).
 I used to like Clementine for some reason (I'm more a Linux guy), but Maverick still hates it, and it's just got bearly usable, controls lagging as hell
 I also really enjoy JRiver on Windows (never test on MacOS), it's a really good one for audio, well optimized (with thousands of files in library, manipulations are really smooth and fast) and I really like the filter system (you can create your own view with all the filters you want : from the artist, album tag... up to the codec & sampling rate !). It has also some really powerful migration tools to rename/replace your files according to regular expression.
 And for some usage Music Player Daemon has to be considered too, providing a different solution based on Client/Server architecture, and which can provide bit perfect too. It's the best thing in a diner/party to remotly control your music !


----------



## georgelai57

Oh no. Audirvana+ is buggy with Mavericks? That puts a damper on my plans for a new MBP. My iMac on Mountain Lion works fine.


----------



## Zoom25

georgelai57 said:


> Oh no. *Audirvana+ is buggy with Mavericks?* That puts a damper on my plans for a new MBP. My iMac on Mountain Lion works fine.


 
 Where are you getting this from?


----------



## miceblue

I'm still not going to upgrade to Mavericks. Too many bugs and problems. >.>


----------



## Lohb

miceblue said:


> I'm still not going to upgrade to Mavericks. Too many bugs and problems. >.>


 

 A while back Mavericks was prone to crashes, but after this current version it is solid for me anyway. Also, getting zero issues with A+ and Mavericks combo.
 24/44 does surprisingly well with my Fostex T50's straight out the 3.5". I think NWAVguy did some run down on Airs and said the 24 bit setting improved things with objective measurements. Anyway, pretty darn good running a pair of planars straight off an Air with A+. Sometimes I just cannot be bothered taking mobile DAC's/amps etc.
  
@notox101 thanks for your run-down on RAM allocation. Honestly, when you don't upscale or use DSD etc 512MB is fine as any track I jump to instantly starts and the rest of it loads in pretty fast with my FLAC-only library.
  
 Mr A+ please update your GUI to something slick and modern looking....!


----------



## notox101

I don't think you can, at least easily.
 I try to do a 3-thrids soft. architecture to reroute VLC to Audirvana + through iTunes & using Audirvana+ as integrated to iTunes.
 The idea was to stream the audio from Vlc to iTunes through the network. That part works (with the need of recode the stream, which means degrading the SQ).
 However, even if A+ is launched and set up as integrated to iTunes, it doesn't capture stream, whatever stream it is (neither from vlc nor from a webRadio...)
 On other way to do it would be to do the "iTunes integration" of A+ for VLC, but That, is another story, and without the source code of A+, I don't see
 even if we find out how it works in details, how to implement it above A+ & VLC itself.
  
 Also you can split your movie into two files (audio + video), and ... try to start playing them, one in A+, one in VLC... in the same time !


----------



## Solrighal

I also can report zero issues with Mavericks.


----------



## notox101

No no, I said that Clementine was buggy with Mavericks !
 A+ rocks with it !
  
 And aside Clementine, and few complete freeze (I had to restart my laptop) I cannot explain, I'm pretty happy with Mavericks !


----------



## ouchia

If I'm reading correctly, pure music seems like the best dsd player for mac?  
  
 Anyways I'm using the trial version - What i have to leave "organize iTunes media" unchecked if i want to use it with dsd? So weird.  So now i have one version of the album "pointing" to the dsd file (which i understand the need for, but...).  Am I not doing something right?  I read some people have a separate folder for dsd within their iTunes folder but I don't understand how pm can still point to the album that way...


----------



## Neuromance

ouchia said:


> If I'm reading correctly, pure music seems like the best dsd player for mac?
> 
> Anyways I'm using the trial version - What i have to leave "organize iTunes media" unchecked if i want to use it with dsd? So weird.  So now i have one version of the album "pointing" to the dsd file (which i understand the need for, but...).  Am I not doing something right?  I read some people have a separate folder for dsd within their iTunes folder but I don't understand how pm can still point to the album that way...


 
  
 FYI, just got an email that they released version 2.0 today.  It's a tad buggy (as all x.0 software is).
  
 I use FLAC files and have the same issue as you.  I might be wrong, but I assume that folks who have the separate folder for DSD just manually move those files in, and then they have the "pointer" files pointing to the original music files (FLAC or DSD) in that */iTunes/DSD folder (or whatever it is).


----------



## ouchia

Yeah it's pretty lame.  Hopefully the new Amarra will have native dsd and do it well.


----------



## snowshoe

georgelai57 said:


> Oh no. Audirvana+ is buggy with Mavericks? That puts a damper on my plans for a new MBP. My iMac on Mountain Lion works fine.


 

 It may be Mavericks that's buggy. I just can't get it to play nicely with any of my DACs via USB. The thing is, iTunes will only play music at 44.1kHz (unless I'm doing something wrong) so I play hd music through A+. Since there seem to be problems with hd music, either A+, Mavericks, my computer, or both of my DACs is the problem. I can rule out my computer and the DACs, but I have no idea if A+ or Mavericks is the problem. The problems, by the way, are:
  
 Incorrect bitrate information about DAC after computer sleeps (this is definitely a Mavericks problem)
 "stuck" bitrate/bitdepth information. A+ can't change to music with different bitrates/bit depths (i.e. song one at 16/44.1, song two at 24/48). This doesn't happen all of the time. A+ crashes when this happens.
 A+ unable to correctly read bitrate or bit depth information. A+ crashes when this happens.


----------



## AnakChan

snowshoe said:


> It may be Mavericks that's buggy. I just can't get it to play nicely with any of my DACs via USB. The thing is, iTunes will only play music at 44.1kHz (unless I'm doing something wrong) so I play hd music through A+. Since there seem to be problems with hd music, either A+, Mavericks, my computer, or both of my DACs is the problem. I can rule out my computer and the DACs, but I have no idea if A+ or Mavericks is the problem. The problems, by the way, are:
> 
> Incorrect bitrate information about DAC after computer sleeps (this is definitely a Mavericks problem)
> "stuck" bitrate/bitdepth information. A+ can't change to music with different bitrates/bit depths (i.e. song one at 16/44.1, song two at 24/48). This doesn't happen all of the time. A+ crashes when this happens.
> A+ unable to correctly read bitrate or bit depth information. A+ crashes when this happens.


 
  
 That's weird. I've got A+ working on the Invicta, Oppo BDP-105, Apex Glacier, Tralucent DacAmp One, Herus, etc. all without problems. I'm on 10.9.2 & 1.5.12. I do use A+ in iTunes integrated mode and have AAC, MP3, FLAC, and DSD. I've not noticed any bitrate issues but I'll pay more attention to that in the future.


----------



## snowshoe

I'd really like to know if anyone else is seeing something like this:
  
 Queue up one song at 16/44 followed by another at 24/192 (All FLAC files). The 16/44 song will play but A+ will just stop when it moves to the 24/192 song. This does not always happen, but a way of making it happen is to let the computer sleep for 15 mins or more. Wake up the computer and then try again. The only fix is to change USB ports.
  
 (BTW: I never use integrated mode. If I want music from iTunes, I use the little Music icon in the A+ file browser.)


----------



## Twangsta

Great thread, I'm on Mavericks. 
  
 Audirvana Plus just crashes, almost blew my ears with noise! 
 [edit: got this to work too]
 Fidelia sounds great but is buggy, sporadically kills the left channel.
 [edit1: Fidelia seems to have settle down with using it in exclusive mode.]
  
  
 JRiver has no retina support and didn't manage to play 192 formats, buggy clock switching too.
  
 I'm using an UA Apollo Duet Duo into an HD800.
  
 Trying the other options. Fedelia really sounds the best, much better than VOX.
  
 edit2:
  
 I think I like the sound of VOX the best with flac, Fidelia seem to be adding some thing with MBIT+ muddying the highs to my ears, I could live with VOX, the interface seem to feet into my workflow better too, quite slick in it's simplicity.


----------



## snowshoe

So you got A+ to work? What caused the noise? I've never had noise caused by A+. Interesting that you like VOX. I agree it has a nice interface, but I didn't feel it added an improvement over iTunes. Fidelia has been a huge letdown over the last couple of years. I liked it and thought it offered a lot of promise, but it's too buggy.
  
 I won't use JRiver until they make a proper mac app. I don't understand why they seem intent on creating what in effect is a port of a Windows program. Menus go in the menubar, not in the app window, for example!


----------



## Twangsta

snowshoe said:


> So you got A+ to work? What caused the noise? I've never had noise caused by A+. Interesting that you like VOX. I agree it has a nice interface, but I didn't feel it added an improvement over iTunes. Fidelia has been a huge letdown over the last couple of years. I liked it and thought it offered a lot of promise, but it's too buggy.
> 
> I won't use JRiver until they make a proper mac app. I don't understand why they seem intent on creating what in effect is a port of a Windows program. Menus go in the menubar, not in the app window, for example!


 
 Since I use this system to track guitars I usually keep the sample rate at 192kHz.
  
 I've been testing all players, kind like a roulette, play pause, next player, play pause and so on.
  
 What I found is there are two types of playback, ones that up sample to a preset sample rate, and others that switch the DAC's sampling rate itself.
  
 The noise I heard from A+ was when after I pause it playing an up sampled track, and move to another player that doesn't upsample, so the audio interface is not in the right sampling rate when I go back to any of the up sampling players. Noise here is track being played at the wrong sample rate, sometimes they recover on re caching, sometimes they don't, may be how my AU interface handles things as well.
  
 I do find the upsampling players  sound better vs sample rate switching. Specially when using the iZotope up sampling library. It took me a while to wrap my head around all this.
  
 A+ was hard crashing my system today before I cleared the old playlist for some reason, unacceptable, but does sound nice up sampling.
  
 In the end I realise I need the iZotope upsampler to always keep my DAC at 192kHz. The improvement I'm hearing is this up sampling.
  
 As for which player? It then comes down to interface and stability between the iZotope capable players. Can you confirm I've got this right up to now?
  
 I'm using a flagship mac book pro with an i7 with 16GB and SSD, I find no difference with cached playback. I was confused earlier when I though it helped. The AU Apollo Twin is over thunderbolt. My hearing tops out just over 16kHz.
  
 I assume lot of the instability was cased by the running multiple players some up sampling, and some sample rate switching concurrently, although not playing at the same time needless to say.
  
 This iZotope up sampling I assume is equivalent to traditional HiFi CD players that claim things like 'x8 oversampling', am I right?
  
 Since I don't think any of the free players upsample, I'll need to pick one.
  
 I agree with you about JRiver, it's atrocious on OSX, specially retina display, another issue is it's inability to handle multiple displays which is shocking to say the least, while charging a fair price!
  
 I wish VOX had up sampling, the interface is the ONLY modern one around it seems, I'd pay for it.
  
 The others are so bad, trying to make paid applications look like hifi separates is so dumb!
  
 I haven't decided on which player of the iZotope capable players to settle down with. On the caching thing I'd guess that using higher processing while upsampling would benefit from it.
  
 I hope what I trying to say is making some sense, do let me know if I've got the bull by the tail here


----------



## Twangsta

I'm going to stick with A+, I like the iTunes integrated mode, adding tracks to iTunes bit is awesome.
  
 Suddenly the UI doesn't look so bad either, it can safely be ignored for what it does.
  
 SOLD!


----------



## Lohb

Any of you run A+ and Macbook Air etc direct to your cans for transportable use...no DAC/AMP ?
 Pretty good sound considering at 24/44 for lower impedance cans such as Fostex T50RP's NAD HP-50s.
 Nwavguy did an appraisal of the Air as it is then if you add in A+ on direct/integer mode it is a pretty simple route to quality sound 24-bit on battery power with A+ lifting the FLAC out of the OSX native sound processing domain.


----------



## Torai

I use Cog, and am quite happy with it.


----------



## Twangsta

torai said:


> I use Cog, and am quite happy with it.


 
 If you like COG you might be happier with VOX, it's slick and fits in better on OSX.


----------



## Solrighal

Why does Vox sound so much darker than Cog? Anyone?


----------



## Twangsta

solrighal said:


> Why does Vox sound so much darker than Cog? Anyone?


 
 I don't know if it sounds better, but to me the interface is far superior.
  
 I do think A+ and other up sampling libs sound better but I could just be that it brings the audiofool out in me 
  
 Then again it could be that these things depend upon your partnering equipment, or maybe by saying that I'm guilty of one or more on this list.
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Fun/Woo.htm


----------



## Torai

twangsta said:


> If you like COG you might be happier with VOX, it's slick and fits in better on OSX.


 
 Thanks for the suggestion. Are you talking about the UI ? I'll try later today


----------



## Solrighal

I don't like the UI on Vox. If I could make it full - screen it might be better. It definitely sounds warmer than either Cog or JRiver.


----------



## Zoom25

Anyone know how to control Audirvana Plus in standalone mode through iPad without involving iTunes at all?


----------



## Twangsta

torai said:


> Thanks for the suggestion. Are you talking about the UI ? I'll try later today




Yes. Just the Ui. I think it's great. But I guess it's a personal thing as zorrofox above would like some thing different. 

But I bought the snake oil mad love audrivana+, personally. I love the iTunes integration and the upsampling. Feel spoilt using the remote on my ipad in bed. Technology has come a long way, it's ridiculous.


----------



## Twangsta

zoom25 said:


> Anyone know how to control Audirvana Plus in standalone mode through iPad without involving iTunes at all?




Maybe some sort of Remote Desktop app?


----------



## Kiats

twangsta said:


> Maybe some sort of Remote Desktop app?




Try Screen VNC by Edovia. Works great within your home LAN. You can even control your desktop over the internet.


----------



## notox101

zoom25 said:


> Anyone know how to control Audirvana Plus in standalone mode through iPad without involving iTunes at all?


 
 Remote Desktop or implementing your own api to remotely control Audirvana are the only ways in standalone mode since Audirvana itself doesn't have any server module to be accessed through network.
 A good alternative for Mac to iTunes+Audirvana in order to have a remote access to your music library and control the playback would be the Music Player Daemon server which can ben installed on OS X and whose the Ipad client app. is pretty well designed.


----------



## Solrighal

Or use JRiver which has an official iOS app and an unofficial Android app (Gizmo).


----------



## Lohb

zoom25 said:


> Anyone know how to control Audirvana Plus in standalone mode through iPad without involving iTunes at all?


 

http://www.teamviewer.com/en/index.aspx
 Free.


----------



## Torai

zoom25 said:


> Anyone know how to control Audirvana Plus in standalone mode through iPad without involving iTunes at all?


 
 Just use the Apple's remote app. I think it has more than enough basic operations, yet simple. I don't like to control the whole desktop - just the music player itself.


----------



## littletree76

Apple's remote app can be used for controlling Apple products such as iTunes and Apple TV but not other third-party applications. But Lohb want to control Audirvana Plus without involving iTunes at all (running in standalone mode instead of iTunes integrated mode). Instead I have been using Rowmote Pro app on my iPhone 5 to control all applications include latest Audirvana Plus 1.5.12 in Mac OS 10.9.3 on iMac without any issue. In fact if you have jailbroken Apple TV, it can be used for Apple TV as well and you can forget about Apple Remote app all together. Rowmote Pro app is Apple Magic Trackpad and Apple Remote Control rolled into one with smooth handling of user gestures.


----------



## Torai

Thanks littletree for pointing that out. I didn't read carefully and thought Audirvana has a separate mode for iTunes-like remote app just like I do with foobar2000.


> You can remote control playback using the iPad/iPhone Apple Remote App that controls iTunes. You use the iTunes integrated mode of Audirvana Plus for this. In this mode iTunes acts only as a remote control for A+. If your files that are not recognized natively by iTunes (e.g. FLAC, Cue Sheets, DSD, …) you can use the “Add Files to iTunes” command in the Audirvana Plus menu to create small proxy files that’ll be catalogued in iTunes and enable playing of all those files using the iPad/iPhone Remote app.


 
 For desktop remote app, I used Splashtop occasionally on my iPad. On the iPhone it would be painful for your eyes, that's why I still prefer the simpler music-only remote if available.


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

zoom25 said:


> Anyone know how to control Audirvana Plus in standalone mode through iPad without involving iTunes at all?


 
 Supposedly the upcoming A+ V2 will have its own IOS app that will do exactly what you are asking.  The current Apple Remote, as mentioned above, will work fine with A+ in iTunes integrated mode, though.  I control things that way, and it works very well.


----------



## miceblue

Where do people get these rumours about Audirvana Plus V2?


----------



## AnakChan

miceblue said:


> Where do people get these rumours about Audirvana Plus V2?


Here. There's a link & from there a sample screen shot of A+ v2.0
http://www.head-fi.org/t/539740/mac-os-x-music-players-alternatives-to-itunes/2080_20#post_10496334


----------



## Lohb

I think we only get license free upgrades all the way to 1.9.x on A+ so I guess 2 will require a new license upgrade. Great thing about A+ though is all the formats are not restricted to higher tier pricing upgrades for FLAC like that other one which is ludicrous.
  
 Is that 2.0 ported to iTunes or are they re-making the GUI like iTunes ?
 They could have made an excellent sleeker GUI than the current one...silver and neon green display would be excellent !
 He should have just opened it up to community skinning add-ons they he can focus on audio code.


----------



## Silent One

Why do you suggest current licensees will need to pony up again?


----------



## Lohb

silent one said:


> Why do you suggest current licensees will need to pony up again?


 
 I remember reading that we get free upgrades up to 1.9.x on his blog I think, but that may have changed.


----------



## miceblue

anakchan said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > Where do people get these rumours about Audirvana Plus V2?
> ...



Interesting...I guess they felt they needed to update the interface to be more of a library manager like iTunes or JRiver. I personally don't like that too much, but it is useful for some.


Just so people don't have to click on a link to click on another link to get to the screenshot:








And this:
http://www.phileweb.com/news/audio/201405/11/14439.html
From Google Translate:


> In addition, a prototype of the next version is a classic player for Mac software "Audirvana Plus" was on display in the booth. The company has worked on the development in testing the new version of Audirvana Plus so far, but this time with was supposed to be by courtesy of Damien Pillson Mr. developer, is carried out in the company's booth showing off the new design. Design that can be direct selection of music iTunes music library is adopted, it's also possible stepless adjustment of the size of the artwork in the new version. With the beta version at this stage, there is a possibility that such design may be changed in the final version, but it is encouraging to this sophisticated design.









If you ask me, it looks more primative than native Mac-like apps since the grey colouring looks odd to me as if it were a Mac OS X 10.4 app or something like that.


----------



## Lohb

If it at least minimizes down to something like original VOX that would be fine for me !
 Can any of you hear a major difference between integer mode 1 and 2 ?


----------



## ouchia

I'm really finding Amarra and Pure Music to be the best sounding...  I now have the Chord Hugo and Pure Music is killing everything else...  Only problem being is that functionally it sucks ass and doesn't always connect, looks like a pop up ad from soviet russia, sometimes doesn't play certain albums until you reboot...  Other than that it's rad.


----------



## miceblue

If there's one thing I want from Audirvana Plus V2 considering it's radical new user interface, it's that I would like to see usb drives detected and scanned similar to JRiver Media Center. It really makes it easy for people to use during local meets since they just plug in their USB stick into a computer and click on their drive to browse music.


----------



## Silent One

Sounds good to me, miceblue!


----------



## Twangsta

... that and secure CD ripping for mavericks, would like to see some real value added.


----------



## miceblue

To this day I don't completely understand what secure ripping is. I boot into Windows via Boot Camp and use EAC to rip CDs for peace of mind. I've tried XLD in the past, but I don't know what half the settings do and every time I've tried to rip something, it would take many hours.

I think it would be cool if Audirvana Plus had that feature, but I don't think it should be the main focus. After all, we're talking about a dedicated audiophile media player, not an all-in-one solution.

Does anyone know if CDs can be played with JRiver Media Center? If you try to open a CD in Audirvana Plus, it takes way too long to play through a single song.


----------



## Lohb

Cannot seem to get *24/44* on my Sabre U2 DAC for portable use on A+
 The Macbook Air defaults to this after I chose 24-bit in midi settings on OSX but the settings with
 ES9018 USB DAC seem to be 16/44 or 24/anything higher than 44. I did not find much of a difference with anything higher than original 44 (more air/separation or just pure imagination ????!!!!) but I would like to get the bit-length at max it can do....frustrating !


----------



## snowshoe

miceblue said:


> Interesting...I guess they felt they needed to update the interface to be more of a library manager like iTunes or JRiver. I personally don't like that too much, but it is useful for some.
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask me, it looks more primative than native Mac-like apps since the grey colouring looks odd to me as if it were a Mac OS X 10.4 app or something like that.


 
  
 I didn't 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, but since you mention it, I don't agree that it looks like something from 10.4. Non-native mac-like is JRiver! (I honestly have no idea what the attraction is to JRiver). However, I'm with you on the library manager front. Library manager means that the app gets bigger and heavier - something I'm not particularly keen on.  What I'd like is a mini player that stays on top of other windows. Also, whatever you think of the interface, surely it's better that what there is now?! I really wish we could at least resize that great atrocity of an amp!
  
@Lohb: If you are using A+, you shouldn't need to go into the Midi settings unless you are checking something (i.e. you don't need to manually change bitrates). Once you've selected the device in the A+ settings, what bitrates does it show? If it's not showing the full range of bitrates, check the Midi settings. Does it show the full range? If not, try unplugging then plugging back in the USB cable if the DAC is not independently powered (i.e. by a battery or electric source). If the DAC is powered, turn it off and turn it back on again while it is still plugged into the computer.


----------



## Lohb

Anyone know how to bump the volume just a little on A+ past its maxed out volume button.....I looked through the Audio Units list for something to dial up just a little OVERALL vs parametric EQ.
 I'm running a pair of D2K off my DAC and it is just that TINY bit below where I need it volume-wise (about 80% there) without putting a small Altoid amp that is a bit bright in the mix and messing up the current sound I have....


----------



## Lohb

snowshoe said:


> I didn't
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Hi, I don't think it is the bit rates (?) just my DAC is 200mWatts so it is just that BIT underpowered to get the cans kicking along alone....I know you should not stress the DAC out with cans but I've not yet installed balanced cables on my D2k so just trying to run them of SE for the moment.If i could increase gain overall that should be enough unless that takes everything into distortion... What I'm liking from A+ and the DAC is it is not adding treble bite to the sound.


----------



## Zoom25

Okay, I might be going craze. I just noticed this out of nowhere on my two Apple devices.
  
 1) iMac Late 2009 - Lion - spinning hard drive 1 TB
  
 2) Macbook Pro Retina Mid 2012 - solid state 500 GB
  
 Both running the same Audirvana Plus 1.5.10 via the same setup, cables, phones etc. I had music on both their internal memory and avoided my external drives for both.
  
 I swear music sounds cleaner through my Macbook pro. The iMac sounded almost blurred and noisy. I'm not sure if it's because it's Lion vs. Mountain Lion, or music stored on a spinning hard drive vs solid state, or maybe something else?
  
 Anyone else experience this or have an explanation for it (besides me going crazy)?


----------



## notox101

Hard drives don't make any difference in the sound restitution, the only difference can be the access time.
 If the configuration of Audirvana Plus is the same on both of your computers, and if it has an exclusive and direct access to your external sound card (btw, i guess you're using the same sound card for your comparison), OS doesn't have any effect on SQ.
 The last factor is the electrical / static noise generated by the computer which could be more important, and noticeable on you iMac since it's plugged on your electrical circuit...


----------



## Zoom25

Yeah I'm using a Dangerous Source DAC with both machines. iMac is obviously plugged into the wall, but I also tried using the macbook pro's battery alone and via it connected to wall power supply. There was no difference in sound in the macbook pro's sound when running off of battery or wall power supply.


----------



## Lohb

Audirvana+ work OK with Bluetooth speakers ?


----------



## miceblue

I'm not sure if you guys know about it, but Light Harmonic has negotiated with the folks who made BitPerfect and is offering the stock BitPerfect plus a DSD plugin as a package for $20 until their Geek Wave Indiegogo campaign ends in 6 days (it's the $20 GeekPerfect perk).

Campaign: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/geek-wave-it-s-not-a-next-gen-ipod-it-s-a-no-compromise-portable-music-player

Details:


> *GeekPerfect Playback Software for Mac*
> 
> We're pleased to announce a new agreement that was recently inked with our pals at BitPerfect. As you might know, BitPerfect makes the best playback Macintosh software for high-resolution music in the world. It's awesome. They make two software suites: BitPerfect ($10), which is a playback engine for Mac, and DSDMaster ($30), which makes "hybrid" PCM/DSD files so you can play DSD music in iTunes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Silent One

Thanks, miceblue. I didn't know about this and will swoop to have a closer look.


----------



## tagosaku

I never compared between a HD and SSHD, but changing HD does change sound for me. 
  
 *disclaimer; I understand this is not supposed to happen from 'digital is digital' rule - like all USB cables are made same theory 
  
 Quote:


zoom25 said:


> Okay, I might be going craze. I just noticed this out of nowhere on my two Apple devices.
> 
> 1) iMac Late 2009 - Lion - spinning hard drive 1 TB
> 
> ...


----------



## Zoom25

tagosaku said:


>





> I never compared between a HD and SSHD, but changing HD does change sound for me.
> 
> *disclaimer; I understand this is not supposed to happen from 'digital is digital' rule - like all USB cables are made same theory


 
  
 Yeah like I've experimented with interconnect analog and headphone cables and noticed some improved transparency on high end systems, but I never really cared too much as the difference seemed trivial and it might have been my head playing tricks. But this time I am consistently noticing it. For an hour session, I am getting almost fatigued by the sound on the iMac.
  
 This isn't something I noticed because I went looking for it specifically, like as I were to have bought a high end USB cable vs. stock USB cables and then went looking for sound difference. I didn't consider this possibility, this just came naturally to me and I only noticed it because I had to keep stopping the music on the iMac because of how irritating it was.


----------



## tagosaku

to Zoom
 Yep, same here. I noticed it when the external HD for my speaker system failed - the new one sounded different. And the latest I bought turned into a back up as I liked it less than the current one.
 Though I don't think I want to go into HD rolling any time soon


----------



## Zoom25

tagosaku said:


> to Zoom
> Yep, same here. I noticed it when the external HD for my speaker system failed - the new one sounded different. And the latest I bought turned into a back up as I liked it less than the current one.
> *Though I don't think I want to go into HD rolling any time soon *


 
 HAHAHA
  
 LOL the reason I also brought this up is because I am considering getting a iPod Classic and connecting it to a dock that has a digital out to feed into my DAC. The iPod Classic is indeed a spinning hard drive whereas the iPad or some other dedicated music servers use solid state drives or very low noise HD. Apparently a few people like the sound through the iPad more than iPod when connected to same dock and DAC.
  
 To further compound this, not all of these docks have equal performance with consideration to noise, jitter and other transport issues. Apparently, the Wadia ones are good, but still fall short of say a PC based system. I was personally looking at a Pure I-20 as it's only $100 as a digital dock out system for iPod Classic, but my recent observations with the iMac vs. Macbook Pro got me thinking if I should hold on and invest in a proper music server.


----------



## Zoom25

My MP3 sounds cleaner on Macbook Pro than the FLACs on iMac. I went looking for answer on the Audirvana 1.5.12 thread and it seems others have also noticed something similar. One user had the same experience between his Macbook Pro vs. Mac Mini. He preferred the macbook pro more with a more sense of clarity and dynamics.
  
 This is some major BS. I can't explain this, but it's definitely there.


----------



## aamefford

zoom25 said:


> HAHAHA
> 
> LOL the reason I also brought this up is because I am considering getting a iPod Classic and connecting it to a dock that has a digital out to feed into my DAC. The iPod Classic is indeed a spinning hard drive whereas the iPad or some other dedicated music servers use solid state drives or very low noise HD. Apparently a few people like the sound through the iPad more than iPod when connected to same dock and DAC.
> 
> To further compound this, not all of these docks have equal performance with consideration to noise, jitter and other transport issues. Apparently, the Wadia ones are good, but still fall short of say a PC based system. I was personally looking at a *Pure I-20* as it's only $100 as a digital dock out system for iPod Classic, but my recent observations with the iMac vs. Macbook Pro got me thinking if I should hold on and invest in a proper music server.


 
 I use a Pure I-20, and connect via coax.  It works well for me.  Oh, source is iphone 5S 64gb.


----------



## Zoom25

aamefford said:


> I use a Pure I-20, and connect via coax.  It works well for me.  Oh, source is iphone 5S 64gb.


 
  
 Thanks for the feedback. The thing is that previously when I used to use my iMac, I never noticed the problem as that was my reference. It was only when I switched over to Macbook pro and used it for months. Then when I went back, it was only then I had two points to compare and the iMac sounded terrible. I'm hoping I don't run into the same problem when I switch over to iPods with docks.
  
 I might try to audition if possible. I was looking at the new iPods of 64 GB max, but that's still too little. I'm only selecting the top albums out of my 2TB+ library, so figured the 160 GB would be enough, but the 64 GB might me pushing it too much. The 128 GB on Ipads are nice but they are priced ridiculously.


----------



## bixby

zoom25 said:


> Okay, I might be going craze. I just noticed this out of nowhere on my two Apple devices.
> 
> 1) iMac Late 2009 - Lion - spinning hard drive 1 TB
> 
> ...


 
 My experience is that Mountain Lion was a noticeable upgrade in sound vs Lion.  Also the SS drive should sound a bit better than the internal standard HD.  I have found through extensive experimentation that playing music via an external drive hooked up via ethernet to an airport extreme USB drive to give the "best" sound in  my system.
  
 And no I will not respond to anyone who says it cannot be, it does sound better in my system.  Link


----------



## tagosaku

bixby said:


> My experience is that Mountain Lion was a noticeable upgrade in sound vs Lion.  Also the SS drive should sound a bit better than the internal standard HD.  I have found through extensive experimentation that playing music via an external drive hooked up via ethernet to an airport extreme USB drive to give the "best" sound in  my system.
> 
> And no I will not respond to anyone who says it cannot be, it does sound better in my system.  Link


 
 does this mean that your external HD is read via Wi-Fi then fed into external DAC via USB cable? 
 And it sounds better than both external HD and DAC connected to MAC via USB cables? 
  
 And thanks a lot for the link, it is way beyond me but was still fun to try follow


----------



## bixby

tagosaku said:


> does this mean that your external HD is read via Wi-Fi then fed into external DAC via USB cable?
> And it sounds better than both external HD and DAC connected to MAC via USB cables?
> 
> And thanks a lot for the link, it is way beyond me but was still fun to try follow


 
 I'll try to explain.  Wifi and Bluetooth are off in the mac mini as it causes noise in the system.  The hard drive is 2TB and is hooked up to the USB port of the Airport Extreme router.  The music flows from the external USB drive to the Airport Extreme router then over Ethernet to the Mac Mini via a 30 foot CAT 6 ethernet cable.  No latency issues since the track is read very quickly into memory of the music player on the Mac.  (Currently J River which I am testing but previously Audirvana Plus.)
  
 This solution is noticeably better sounding in my system than either Firewire or USB drives directly connected to the Mini.  And much better than files played from the spinning drive in the mini.
  
hope that helps.


----------



## Zoom25

Hmmm, what about using SD cards or USB flash drives connected directly to Macbook pro, instead of hard disk drives?


----------



## tagosaku

bixby,
  
 thanks, yes I can picture it now. But can't say I understand. Very interesting though 
  
 Zoom,
  
 if you ever do that experiment, please post result.
  
 So far I prefer Tohisba external HD to U32 Shadow - both 1T version - have not tried other types of storage.


----------



## Zoom25

I'll definitely report back. I have a 64 GB flash drive on me atm. I have two portable USB 3.0 hard drives. One of them being a 750 GB Hitachi and the other is a 2TB Western Digital.
  
 I was connecting the Source directly to one of the Macbook pro's USB port. The other two hard drives are connected to a 4 slot USB 3.0 hub. Then that hub is connected to the other USB port of the Macbook pro. The hub also runs on it's own power supply via wall wart.
  
 The only thing I don't have at the moment is a SD card. I am looking to get a USB flash drive or preferably a SD card (so I can keep it stored inside the Macbook pro without it protruding out). Looking at a high performance 128 GB or 256 GB solution.
  
 I'll try out the various combination and report them.


----------



## bixby

zoom25 said:


> Hmmm, what about using SD cards or USB flash drives connected directly to Macbook pro, instead of hard disk drives?


 
 slightly worse sounding than external hard drives in my experience with the mini


----------



## Zoom25

bixby said:


> slightly worse sounding than external hard drives in my experience with the mini


 
 Wow. I was expecting the SD card at least to sound better than hard drives consider it's so small and shouldn't use much power.


----------



## tagosaku

Maybe this should be moved to something like 'storage rolling' thread 
 And it might actually belong to 'dedicated source' forum....


----------



## bixby

zoom25 said:


> Wow. I was expecting the SD card at least to sound better than hard drives consider it's so small and shouldn't use much power.


 
 that is what I would have expected but it sounded thin and a bit hard by comparison to the external firewire drive I compared.


----------



## NinjaHamster

If we are going to start "rolling" Hard-Drives, the ones made in the 1940's,50's and 60's should sound best ... I'm off to look for a Telefunken SSD ...


----------



## 65535

Can we get some empirical data on any of these claims, or more information about perceived differences?


----------



## Lohb

How about an SSD in a Mac mini ? That was my next source system.
  
 Any ETA on A+ V2 ?


----------



## Zoom25

65535 said:


> Can we get some empirical data on any of these claims, or more information about perceived differences?


 
  
 I would love to get some as well or even explanations. In my case I have at least three different variables between iMac and Macbook Pro acting at the same time, so it's hard to do it in a  controlled setting. Not to mention I don't have any devices to record what I'm noticing.
  
 1) SSD vs HDD
  
 2) Power supply differences
  
 3) Lion vs. Mountain Lion
  
 Regarding sound differences I personally noticed, it sounds cleaner and a bit more laid back because there's less going in (less noise?) which results in less fatigue and more dynamics. The more dynamics and punch could make sense as there's less auditory masking. As far as running signal detection experiments, it might not be the easiest to setup due to it's nature of taking a long time to fully realize the fatiguing effects (or lack of) of the two systems.


----------



## Zoom25

lohb said:


> How about an SSD in a Mac mini ? That was my next source system.
> 
> Any ETA on A+ V2 ?


 
 Having recently added a DC-1 under my TV stand for home theatre, I was also considering adding a Mac Mini to finally finish it off as a standalone. I remember hearing something about upgrading power supply. I was recently reading Paul Gowan's (PS Audio) take on how to build a system around Mac Mini as a music server. He also talks a bit about this and I do remember him mentioning something about power supplies and the Mac Mini not having the best power supply (maybe that last part was from another article).
  
 A+ 2.0 is still in testing. Damien hasn't released a date yet. Can't wait till it comes out though, it's been long overdue.


----------



## Silent One

SSD inside Mac mini :  :
  
 Though, I lack any hard evidence, Jamming a SSD down my mini's throat was the first thing I did upon purchase. Probably during 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





the first 48 hours. Just seemed like an optimum solution.


----------



## kazsud

ninjahamster said:


> If we are going to start "rolling" Hard-Drives, the ones made in the 1940's,50's and 60's should sound best ... I'm off to look for a Telefunken SSD ...




Lmao


----------



## Lohb

I thought something like a HifimeDIY USB mains isolation device would kill any mains noise at the output stage that gets in the Mac audio system ?


----------



## Zoom25

bixby said:


> My experience is that Mountain Lion was a noticeable upgrade in sound vs Lion.  Also the SS drive should sound a bit better than the internal standard HD.  *I have found through extensive experimentation that playing music via an external drive hooked up via ethernet to an airport extreme USB drive to give the "best" sound in  my system.*
> 
> And no I will not respond to anyone who says it cannot be, it does sound better in my system.  Link


 
  
 Mind explaining how I am setting this Airport Extreme up if I were to do it with my USB 3.0 external hard drives and my macbook pro which only has USB and Thunderbolt ports. Also, could I use Airport express in this. I'm not very familiar with these two products. Thanks.


----------



## bixby

zoom25 said:


> Mind explaining how I am setting this Airport Extreme up if I were to do it with my USB 3.0 external hard drives and my macbook pro which only has USB and Thunderbolt ports. Also, could I use Airport express in this. I'm not very familiar with these two products. Thanks.


 
 not sure if the airport extreme is 3.0 or not, look it up.  As for usb 2.0 drives just plug into the extreme and set to share the drive with your mac os.  Search up how to do it on the apple site.  The extreme connects to the mac via ethernet not usb or thunderbolt.
  
 So in essence what you are doing is setting up a network derive.  Apple site has all the info you need to set it up.


----------



## Lohb

bixby do you guess that a USB isolator device could remove this noise you hear in various OSX hardware configs ?
 On an SSD MBA on battery power with the HiFimeDIY USB noise isolator it seems fine to me no with discernible background 'dirt'.


----------



## bixby

lohb said:


> bixby do you guess that a USB isolator device could remove this noise you hear in various OSX hardware configs ?
> On an SSD MBA on battery power with the HiFimeDIY USB noise isolator it seems fine to me no with discernible background 'dirt'.


 
 not sure since I have never used a usb isolator.  I can hear a noticeable improvement when using a usb dac with the mini and connected with a powerless usb cable.  It's not just perceived background dirt, but space and more natural timbre are more apparent.  Many of my fellow Colorado geeks are running xmos based dacs that do not need usb power from the computer and all have reported nice increases in fidelity with powerless cables.
  
 I assume you are using the isolator to clean up the usb power leg to your dac?
  
 One other tip about battery vs plugged in laptops.  My macbook (when I used it for music) sounded better with the power cord in vs running on battery.  Gordon Rankin also has mentioned this and it may be due to the battery management software that is running when on battery power.  In all cases though, trust your ears.


----------



## Zoom25

bixby said:


> not sure since I have never used a usb isolator.  I can hear a noticeable improvement when using a usb dac with the mini and connected with a powerless usb cable.  It's not just perceived background dirt, but space and more natural timbre are more apparent.  Many of my fellow Colorado geeks are running xmos based dacs that do not need usb power from the computer and all have reported nice increases in fidelity with powerless cables.
> 
> I assume you are using the isolator to clean up the usb power leg to your dac?
> 
> One other tip about battery vs plugged in laptops.  My macbook (when I used it for music) sounded better with the power cord in vs running on battery.  Gordon Rankin also has mentioned this and it may be due to the battery management software that is running when on battery power.  In all cases though, trust your ears.


 
  
 The DM Source also shows up as XMOS when I go to select it. I didn't know that it was anything specific until now. Powerless cables? Like basic USB cables or am I missing something here.


----------



## bixby

correct, I just cut the red power leg of a cheap usb cable I had lying around to see if it would work and it did.  That cheap cable became quite good sounding 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I am not sure if I tried it with the Dangerous dac when I had it in for review, seem to think I did and it did not work, but I may be wrong.  Not sure about every xmos implementation.
  
 Just be sure you know which wire to cut and then insulate it with electrical tape since it is still getting 5 volts from the computer.


----------



## Zoom25

I never knew that. I probably won't be messing around with my USB cables for now. Although am open to the idea and could ask Dangerous if powerless cables are supported. Any idea on where I could buy a powerless USB cable rather than go around messing with one.


----------



## Lohb

bixby said:


> not sure since I have never used a usb isolator.  I can hear a noticeable improvement when using a usb dac with the mini and connected with a powerless usb cable.  It's not just perceived background dirt, but space and more natural timbre are more apparent.  Many of my fellow Colorado geeks are running xmos based dacs that do not need usb power from the computer and all have reported nice increases in fidelity with powerless cables.
> 
> I assume you are using the isolator to clean up the usb power leg to your dac?
> 
> One other tip about battery vs plugged in laptops.  My macbook (when I used it for music) sounded better with the power cord in vs running on battery.  Gordon Rankin also has mentioned this and it may be due to the battery management software that is running when on battery power.  In all cases though, trust your ears.


 

 Yep, that is its purpose it isolates everything behind it from the DAC output in front..."according to the company".
 I would never have guessed that about mains being better than battery power in theory but it sounds interesting.
 I had actually been aiming for total mains isolation with my next DAC/AMP before reading this.
  
 I do use internal DAC on Air @ 24/44 occasionally with A+,
 and while it is OK.....slightly muddy imaging but that is with Fostex T50RP's.


----------



## miceblue

Is there any word about when Audirvana Plus v2 will be released? Will there be library support for DSD files?


----------



## Silent One

I too, am waiting. Perhaps, I'll jump to both the site and CA's forum.


----------



## RUMAY408

Is there anyone else on this thread updated to Amarra 3.0?


----------



## Currawong

miceblue said:


> Is there any word about when Audirvana Plus v2 will be released? Will there be library support for DSD files?


 
  
 Do you mean in the iTunes Library? I know that Bitperfect can create special files that can reside in iTunes that contain DSD. I haven't tested to see if this works with Audirvana Plus though.
  


rumay408 said:


> Is there anyone else on this thread updated to Amarra 3.0?


 
  
 Yes, I did, after emailing in a request for a discount code.
  
 So far so good, though it refused to work with my Geek Out and the music pauses when you add files to the playlist, which I consider crazy.


----------



## Silent One

I'd had been my hope the past couple of years that Amarra would return a trouble free playback experience with Playlists.


----------



## Kiats

currawong said:


> Do you mean in the iTunes Library? I know that Bitperfect can create special files that can reside in iTunes that contain DSD. I haven't tested to see if this works with Audirvana Plus though.
> 
> 
> Yes, I did, after emailing in a request for a discount code.
> ...




A+ plays DSD bit perfect through the creation of proxy files. It's a manual process, just like Pure Music. A bit tedious.

As for for Amarra 3.0, the SQ had definitely improved from Amarra Hifi I was tried previously. However, it only has DSD support, ie everything is downsampled to PCM for playback. Not quite optimal.


----------



## Silent One

Currently have Amarra 2.4; Amarra Hi-Fi. The latter hasn't really moved me. And improvements may have left the former behind a bit. Want to get Amarra 3.0 but have bigger Catfish to deep-fry. I'm riding the latest gen A+ for now and hope to get the completely overhauled version soon!


----------



## RUMAY408

Amarra 3.0 is an upgrade over the previous models, love the sound, it synchs with my AQ Dragonfly as well as previous versions.
  
 The SQ is a nice addition.
  
 My biggest beef is the support.  The manual is OK, but if I want answers to questions I don't want to search thru FAQ pages.


----------



## miceblue

currawong said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any word about when Audirvana Plus v2 will be released? Will there be library support for DSD files?
> ...



Oh, I meant that since Audirvana Plus 2.0 will feature a library-like browsing method similar to iTunes or JRiver Media Center if it will support DSD in there as well. I don't know why, but I was thinking that since DSD music is pretty rare, that support for it in the library might have been a secondary priority or something.


----------



## Lohb

Audirvana Plus 2.0 free ugrade ?


----------



## NinjaHamster

lohb said:


> Audirvana Plus 2.0 free ugrade ?


 

 No. It will be a paid for upgrade. Probably still be the best value on the market by miles even so.


----------



## Silent One

Audirvana Plus 2.0 can't get here fast enough!


----------



## miceblue

What in the...
Is JRiver Media Center free for OS X now? I just downloaded JRMC19 and it works for me. Previously I couldn't use it since my free trial period was expired...

If anyone is interested in a special upgrade price for JRMC 20?
http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Upgrade_to_MC20


The interface is just as clunky as I remember and it feels like a legacy piece of software or something emulated through Wine.


----------



## bpcans

Been listening to the Amarra 3.0.2 music player with my MBP. My early assessment is that it has a richer sound than the Audirvana+ player.


----------



## Kiats

bpcans said:


> Been listening to the Amarra 3.0.2 music player with my MBP. My early assessment is that it has a richer sound than the Audirvana+ player.




It does. Pity about the non-native dsd playback though


----------



## bpcans

kiats said:


> It does. Pity about the non-native dsd playback though


Agreed sir. I have yet to acquire any DSD recordings so I'm not familiar with its much ballyhooed wonderfulness given my poor knowledge. I'm listening to Steely Dan 1972-1980 and it's never sounded so good through my headphones. And these are old recordings, even though they are remastered, the better EQ in Amarra lets the music speak in its totality.


----------



## bpcans

Kiats, the Amarra 3.0.2 actually improves the musics presentation instead of being just a series of clever screen fonts that one can sell to unsuspecting laptop owners. Geez, that was harsh. Sorry, I got a little snarky there.


----------



## Lohb

Going to give Amarra a try. I see they offered it for $99 on the demo download page which is quite a discount.


----------



## bpcans

lohb said:


> Going to give Amarra a try. I see they offered it for $99 on the demo download page which is quite a discount.


I was truly taken aback when I also saw the heavily discounted download price. For that amount of pesos it's worth it just to have as an alternative to whatever other music player software you might be using. There are no real proprietary software secrets anymore. If at some point Amarra breaks through with some game changing software for my MBP I don't want to be left out or charged an arm and a leg to get it.


----------



## Kiats

bpcans said:


> Kiats, the Amarra 3.0.2 actually improves the musics presentation instead of being just a series of clever screen fonts that one can sell to unsuspecting laptop owners. Geez, that was harsh. Sorry, I got a little snarky there.




Haha! No worries. I wasn't poking holes at Amarra at all. I was one of the first adopters: I lasted just half a day on demo before I took up their generous offer. I do like it. If they had native DSD playback, that would been perfect.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

According to the Audirvana website the 2.0 update should be available within the next few days.
  
 The price for newcomers will remain $74.
 Anyone who purchased after August 1st will get the upgrade free.
 For the rest of us the update will be $39
  
 Definitely excited to see how it works and will be forking up some cash upon release!


----------



## Lohb

jmstrmbn said:


> According to the Audirvana website the 2.0 update should be available within the next few days.
> 
> The price for newcomers will remain $74.
> Anyone who purchased after August 1st will get the upgrade free.
> ...


 

 I'll hold off, there were a few 1.5.x revisions that were a bit wonky if I remember. $39 a bit steep for the upgrade....so new buyers get it at $74 and long-term supporters get it for $113 total basically ?


----------



## Currawong

jmstrmbn said:


> According to the Audirvana website the 2.0 update should be available within the next few days.
> 
> The price for newcomers will remain $74.
> Anyone who purchased after August 1st will get the upgrade free.
> ...


 
  
 Indeed, after the disappointment that was Amarra 3, I'm looking forward to this.


----------



## Kiats

currawong said:


> Indeed, after the disappointment that was Amarra 3, I'm looking forward to this.




Totally agree, Currawong!


----------



## Krutsch

lohb said:


> I'll hold off, there were a few 1.5.x revisions that were a bit wonky if I remember. $39 a bit steep for the upgrade....so new buyers get it at $74 and long-term supporters get it for $113 total basically ?


 
  
 +1 ... Audirvana 1.5.X still has unresolved issues, so I will be patient, as well.  Look at how many revisions of JRiver there have been to get their library manager to work well; forget about iTunes and the zillions of revisions there.
  
 I for one am really, really hoping A+ 2.0 is more than just a local library manager replacement for iTunes.  I am using DLNA/uPnP more and more (lately with MinimServer and streaming over the Internet with BubbleUPnP Server).  Wouldn't it be great to see a high quality, Mac OS hosted playback engine that would leverage my music from these servers, as a renderer and/or control point, as opposed to yet another local collection of tracks I have to manage and sync across devices?
  
 I can only dream...


----------



## MacedonianHero

currawong said:


> Indeed, after the disappointment that was Amarra 3, I'm looking forward to this.


 
 Really Amos? What didn't you like about Amarra 3? I thought it was a good upgrade over 2.6 (which I thought was a disappointment).


----------



## miceblue

I just saw Amarra's pricing. To get FLAC, DSD and DXD file playback, I need to pay $189 for it........................yeaaaaaaah no.
$74 for Audirvana Plus and it does all of that natively. Sounds like a good plan.

That being said, I'll probably purchase A+ 2.0 after I read some impressions on how the UI is.


----------



## Currawong

macedonianhero said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, after the disappointment that was Amarra 3, I'm looking forward to this.
> ...


 
  
 It sounds good, but stupid things such as switching back to iTunes mode being buggy and the music pausing if tracks are added or removed from the playlist.


----------



## RUMAY408

macedonianhero said:


> Really Amos? What didn't you like about Amarra 3? I thought it was a good upgrade over 2.6 (which I thought was a disappointment).


 
 The 3.02 has been a very nice upgrade, strongly recommend the free demo's on all the players as a way to tell what works and what doesn't.


----------



## MacedonianHero

currawong said:


> It sounds good, but stupid things such as switching back to iTunes mode being buggy and the music pausing if tracks are added or removed from the playlist.


 
 I've only used it in iTunes mode; might explain why I didn't experience that bug. Actually I found 2.6 had a pausing issue 10-12 seconds into every song that was a major pain so I stopped using it altogether. Hopefully Amarra works out these other bugs moving forward. What did you think of the sonic improvements? I much preferred Audirvana over Amarra 2.6. But now it's the other way around. Looking forward to see what Audirvana 2.0 will be like in a few days.


----------



## RUMAY408

macedonianhero said:


> I've only used it in iTunes mode; might explain why I didn't experience that bug. Actually I found 2.6 had a pausing issue 10-12 seconds into every song that was a major pain so I stopped using it altogether. Hopefully Amarra works out these other bugs moving forward. What did you think of the sonic improvements? I much preferred Audirvana over Amarra 2.6. But now it's the other way around. Looking forward to see what Audirvana 2.0 will be like in a few days.


 
 I switch off iTunes with Amarra on, pop up the playlist and port the iTunes album directly onto Amarra as a step around, but agree this could be better.


----------



## kazsud

Well it's live
http://audirvana.com/

Upgrades coming soon


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Just downloaded the trial version of A+ 2.0.  Listened for about 30min and it seems to be working well.  There are a few things I miss about the old version, like the volume knob which displayed the overall attenuation.  
  
 I can't be too sure yet but I feel it sounds marginally better, this is likely due to the fact that 90% of my listening prior was with iTunes integrated and there has been solid evidence that this degrades the quality slightly compared to A+ alone.  Overall, I'm not sure it would be worth $40, but since there appears to be a discount if you purchase within the first few days of release I might as well buy it before they up the price.


----------



## miceblue

I'm trying the trial version of Audirvana Plus 2.0...and I actually surprisingly really like it. Performance is very smooth with no hiccups. I am very happy with this update so far.


Spoiler: screenshots



High resolution cover art supported


Albums view zoomed out a bit


Clicking on an album brings up the songs list like in iTunes


Album list view


New Dock icon doesn't show play times unfortunately


Playlist/current queue


The only big new thing to the settings are the folder/iTunes sync options





And I guess my request from a while back was pretty much granted. With folder syncing options, you can sync USB devices as well. This will come in handy for local meets if someone just wants to plug in their flash drive and listen to their music on my rig.


----------



## Lorspeaker

oh...was there a mailer to the existing Audirvana users? just stumbled onto this thread..
 i am reasonably happy with the old version..
 cept the on off freezing of my songs as i switch betw them in double quicktime. 
 Maybe the memory of my mcAir is maxxed out.


----------



## Lorspeaker

lohb said:


> ....so new buyers get it at $74 and long-term supporters get it for $113 total basically ?


 
  
 hmmmm.... i am feeling sorry for myself already. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





​


----------



## Currawong

So far so good. Glad that it can load iTunes playlists as that makes management a heck of a lot easier.


----------



## Lohb

Can A+ 2.0 stream to bluetooth speakers ?  I know it degrades the sound, but so far I have only streamed via system audio to my travel BT speaker.


----------



## miceblue

Hm...Audirvana Plus 2.0 doesn't seem to open files directly from Finder. That is not good news....

If you view your library in list view, scrolling in a long list can lag. If you scroll like you would with inertia scrolling (just let the scroll wheel roll on for a while), the scrolling stops after a certain point, instead of continuing. 



lorspeaker said:


> cept the on off freezing of my songs as i switch betw them in double quicktime.



That happens to me with A+ 2.0.




Off-topic, the sync progress is in the top-right corner of the app.


----------



## Lohb

Does it have a mini-player like iTunes ?


----------



## Lorspeaker

most important, is there a marked sound improvement on the new 2.0?


----------



## miceblue

lohb said:


> Does it have a mini-player like iTunes ?



Not that I can see from the options.





lorspeaker said:


> most important, is there a marked sound improvement on the new 2.0?



To my ears, I'd say yes. Instrument separation seems slightly better with a blacker background and the soundstage seems deeper to me (being more three-dimensional than two-dimensional compared to the Audirvana Plus 1.5.12). To me the bass also seems to hit a little deeper and a somewhat harsh sound isn't heard with 2.0 (upper-guitar notes and female voices).




Test song of choice:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umohQECJ_rc[/video]


Again these are just my impressions. All of the audio settings are the same between the two versions, so I don't know if what I'm hearing is placebo, or if the difference is really there. XD


----------



## Lorspeaker

ok...3D.....sold for 40bucks !


----------



## Lohb

LOL, now the 80's clunky receiver type thing GUI is gone, I want to keep 1.5.x !!!
 It's grown on me, what can I say


----------



## miceblue

lorspeaker said:


> ok...3D.....sold for 40bucks !



You could have tried the trial version before you bought it ya know. >.>


----------



## Kiats

Hmmm... now that A+ 2.0 has its own library interface, are there plans for a separate remote control module?


----------



## Lorspeaker

lohb said:


> I'll hold off, there were a few 1.5.x revisions that were a bit wonky if I remember. $39 a bit steep for the upgrade....so new buyers get it at $74 and long-term supporters get it for $113 total basically ?


 
  
 checkg my records...i paid 49bucks  a year(jan2013) back. so my damage will be $88


----------



## Krutsch

kiats said:


> Hmmm... now that A+ 2.0 has its own library interface, are there plans for a separate remote control module?


 
  
 That was my next question: how do I run this on a headless Mac Mini?


----------



## Zoom25

I just want to be able to drop files from folders (CD albums) in Audirvana 2.0 to add to the library like I've been doing so far with every library and/or player. As far as sound is concerned, Amarra 3.0 still in the lead IMO. With my focus shifting to streaming, the library aspect of 2.0 isn't worth much. So when I do need to occasionally play local files, I'd rather use Amarra 3.0 natively and get better sound.


----------



## miceblue

zoom25 said:


> I just want to be able to drop files from folders (CD albums) in Audirvana 2.0 to add to the library like I've been doing so far with every library and/or player. As far as sound is concerned, Amarra 3.0 still in the lead IMO. With my focus shifting to streaming, the library aspect of 2.0 isn't worth much. So when I do need to occasionally play local files, I'd rather use Amarra 3.0 natively and get better sound.



I'd like that feature too.

Unfortunately my library isn't with iTunes since I listen to albums in DXD, FLAC, and DSD formats and I don't think dropping $190 for those playback options in Amarra is really worth the price. I'm sure the sound quality differences aren't that big either and I think it would be a better choice for me to just save the difference in money for something else that would make a larger difference in sound quality (e.g. headphones or more music).


----------



## Lorspeaker

just curious..how much better in sound is the amarra over the audirvana..
 welcome any personal views. Just throw it out.


----------



## bpcans

lorspeaker said:


> just curious..how much better in sound is the amarra over the audirvana..
> welcome any personal views. Just throw it out.


I've been auditioning music players for the last couple months, Audirvana, Amarra, and JRiver. I've also got Bitperfect, VOX, and the FLAC plus music player on my iPhone. IMO Amarra 3.0 wins in the best sound category. It's fuller, warmer, and has a more natural/analog type sound. Audirvana+ sounded more clinical and less engaging than Amarra, but still very nice. JRiver's music organiser is first rate and it plays FLAC and DSD without a hitch. JRivers sound is pretty good but not on pair with Amarra and Audirvana+. Bitperfect is better than nothing if your using iTunes. For a super simple music player, and free, VOX isn't half bad at all.


----------



## Zoom25

lorspeaker said:


> just curious..how much better in sound is the amarra over the audirvana..
> welcome any personal views. Just throw it out.


 
  
 For me Amarra has better resolution throughout the FR. Better bass kicks and much better tracking. Mids are more neutral and so you can really get a sense of what's going on. Audirvana in comparison in intimate and a bit too smoothed over. You probably wouldn't realize this if you have been using Audirvana for a while like I had since 2010. Although after a month of using Amarra, Audirvana doesn't really compare for me. It's a bit bland and lacks the ability to grab the music by it's balls. For me I noticed the difference in sound reproduction within minutes. 
  
 A lot of people here equate the pricing, performance, U.I., library and technicalities, which is fine and justified of course. However, to me there are two reasons why I absolutely cannot go back to Audirvana (at it's current sound).
  
 1) Sound merit - More resolution, transparency, neutral presentation etc. I find Amarra the more technical player but that isn't the reason why I can't go back to Audirvana
  
 2) Fun & Engaging - This is THE reason why Amarra has gotten me. I sincerely tried to go back to Audirvana to see if I could get used back to it, but couldn't do it. The main reason I listen to music or get different players isn't to see which one is the most technically advanced in it's programming or features. It's for how much fun I can get out each time I hit play. It didn't make sense for me to go back to something that wasn't as fun in comparison. Also, by fun I don't mean to insinuate coloured FR. I find it rather neutral in FR and presentation of elements (vocals, instruments, soundstage). It just happens to be that I have a lot of fun every time I listen.
  
 Amarra comes with a 15 day demo period, so I definitely suggest you try it out. It's free and effortless to download.
  
 Also, the Amarra SQ app for streaming is really good as well and shares the same sound as Amarra 3.0. In a way, the Amarra SQ at $29 is more important to me with all the videos and audio streaming I do.


----------



## Lorspeaker

u guys are seeeeriousss...my pocket just knelt down to beggg me.


----------



## miceblue

Oh another thing I don't like about A+ 2.0 is that if you view your library in list view and you double-click a song to play, the entire list gets added to the playing cue instead of just the 1 song.

I'll probably hold off on buying the upgrade from A+ 1.5 until the UI gets patched up since I find it hard to use for what I do with my music playback flow.


----------



## Lorspeaker

currawong said:


> So far so good. Glad that it can load iTunes playlists as that makes management a heck of a lot easier.


 
  
 whew..my playlists on Itune will be ported over ...comforting.  
 ok i will wait a month for bugs to be fixed..n hopefully the price to come down. 
 Dun see y i should be paying MORE than current signons 
  
 Will check out the AMARRA too.. ouch$$$
 (will AMARRA grab over my ITUNE playlists too??)


----------



## elnero

When I switched to a Mac last year I tried various music players. I don't remember the specifics in sound quality but I remember I felt I like Amarra and Audirvana + were pretty much on par just differently flavored. My preference was for Amarra but and despite the clunky and glitchy UI I was almost bought it until I found out it didn't do gapless with FLAC. I'd be curious to try it again if this has since been rectified in the latest version?


----------



## Lohb

Anyone using A+ know how the settings below would affect the sound in the iZotope advanced parameters (ignoring the upsampling which would be set to none in both configs)....
 2nd screen shot is standard fresh install config.
  
 I could not find much in the manual about these 5 slider settings....


----------



## RUMAY408

lorspeaker said:


> whew..my playlists on Itune will be ported over ...comforting.
> ok i will wait a month for bugs to be fixed..n hopefully the price to come down.
> Dun see y i should be paying MORE than current signons
> 
> ...


 
 Amarra plays iTunes in hi res but I prefer turning off iTunes and porting AIFF hi res directly onto the playlist.  My only experience is with Pure, Bitperfect and FLAC.  Amarra can be bought at a discount, seek and you will find


----------



## Kiats

For folks on JRiver, JRiver 20 for both Mac and windows is live!


----------



## bpcans

kiats said:


> For folks on JRiver, JRiver 20 for both Mac and windows is live!


I must say the sound of the JRiver 20 upgrade on my MBP is growing on me.


----------



## bixby

does it actually sound any different than JR 19?  or are the changes more functional?
  
 If it does sound different, how would you describe the change?
  
 thanks


----------



## Zoom25

elnero said:


> When I switched to a Mac last year I tried various music players. I don't remember the specifics in sound quality but I remember I felt I like Amarra and Audirvana + were pretty much on par just differently flavored. My preference was for Amarra but and despite the clunky and glitchy UI I was almost bought it until I found out it didn't do gapless with FLAC. I'd be curious to try it again if this has since been rectified in the latest version?


 
 I don't think I have problems with gapless playback on Amarra. I run it natively only nowadays. All flac files. I have multiple continuous/mixed albums so gapless playback is a must for me. I am sure I would have noticed that by now. I'll confirm for you later when I get home.


----------



## Kiats

bixby said:


> does it actually sound any different than JR 19?  or are the changes more functional?
> 
> If it does sound different, how would you describe the change?
> 
> thanks




For myself. I find that it's more transparent and detailed. Slightly more musical too. But I think it best you DL it for the 15 day free trial and have a listen for yourself. That way you can decide if it's worth your while to update to version 20.


----------



## bpcans

kiats said:


> For myself. I find that it's more transparent and detailed. Slightly more musical too. But I think it best you DL it for the 15 day free trial and have a listen for yourself. That way you can decide if it's worth your while to update to version 20.


I want to thank Kiats for his accurate description of the differences between JRiver 19 and 20. I couldn't agree with him more.


----------



## Kiats

bpcans said:


> I want to thank Kiats for his accurate description of the differences between JRiver 19 and 20. I couldn't agree with him more.




No worries, bpcans! I'm just glad I'm not the only one who heard that difference.


----------



## Lorspeaker

just loaded the trial version of Audirvana 2.0....
  
  
 my DT150  transformed into a T1 ??!!!......
  
  
 LIFELIKE ....
  
  
 VERY CLEAR...
  
  
 old CDs like Flashdance, Lawrence of Arabia remastered..
  
  
 39bucks...
  
  
 BIG QUESTION is do i upgrade NOW or wait for 15days ?!!


----------



## Lohb

lorspeaker said:


> just loaded the trial version of Audirvana 2.0....
> 
> 
> my DT150  transformed into a T1 ??!!!......
> ...


 

 Were you using 1.5.12 before and you notice a big difference between the two ?


----------



## Lorspeaker

ya...i was using the previous version, 
 ALOT of diff, now i am trepidating,
 wondering what i am gonna hear when i actually put on a T1.
  
 maybe i should just sell off the T1? LOL


----------



## Lorspeaker

Downloaded the AmarraHifi, basic software for demo..
 initial impression..
 sound is more bodacious, fuller, less bright/clarion.
 Enjoyed the session running thru my 20testsongs..


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Detected a low ssshhhhh kind of envelope wrapping around the vocals especially..
 following all the words..
 maybe it is my setup..dun shoot me u AmarraFans. 


  
  
 Switched back to Audirvana2.0...
 and the spatial cues improved immediately..better extention..
 sense of realism is a notch better.
 Leona Lewis n Laura Fygi sounded v clean..
 brass band pieces has good sense of depth n placement..left to right.
 (for those with setups that are bright ...the improved CLARITY might not work to your advantage )
  
 so the verdict is...


----------



## Zoom25

lorspeaker said:


> Downloaded the AmarraHifi, basic software for demo..


 
 Why Hifi and not 3.0?
  
 3.0 definitely competes with A+, and beats it IMO. I'm not sure if Hifi is the appropriate choice for comparison.


----------



## Lorspeaker

zoom25 said:


> Why Hifi and not 3.0?
> 
> 3.0 definitely competes with A+, and beats it IMO. I'm not sure if Hifi is the appropriate choice for comparison.


 
 http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra_trial_landing
  
 u mean the one 2nd from the left...$189?


----------



## Zoom25

lorspeaker said:


> http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra_trial_landing
> 
> u mean the one 2nd from the left...$189?


 
 Yes. That's 3.0 and so is the Symphony beside it on the right.


----------



## Lorspeaker

Ok fair enuf...downloaded Amarra 3.0
 toggled around Audirvana1.5
 and Audirvana2.0
  
 One key piece i played... March of Florence, by the Longdon Festival Orchestra:
  
 On the Amarra3.0...the band sounded like it is in a field..u hear the whole band on parade..nice but distant..
  
 On the AUdirvana1.5...the band came closer...more punch..crispier ...tighter.
  
 On the Audirvana2.0...u are inside a concert hall with the band, very clear instrument placements...
 all the way to the back...realism is v high.
  
 I think Audirvana thrives on complex music...if that is your main genre/addiction.
  
  
 The verdict is....
  
 =======================
  
 Listened to this piece twice over again...on both softwares...
 Amarra, is like one big band marching by..rousing music. 
 on Audirvana...u are in a concert setting, the trombone here, picolo there , trumpets clear n attacking with their tongues.


----------



## Zoom25

lorspeaker said:


> Ok fair enuf...downloaded Amarra 3.0
> toggled around Audirvana1.5
> and Audirvana2.0
> 
> ...


 
 Run both on full System Optimizations. It takes a bit of time to get used to 3.0 completely.
  
 Also, for complex music, most would agree that Amarra will be the better choice with it's separation and resolution. A+ actually smears some stuff. All you need is time


----------



## Lorspeaker

Played thru the various EQsettings on Amarra3.0...KEF PS1000 LCD3 Classicals, Acoustics..etc
 the sound presentation is just further away, but with diff degrees of edginess/attack/body etc..
 and the March of Florence just got bunched up on the last 30secs of the climax.
  
 Switched over to Audirvana2.0...and the clarity, realism n control over the last 30sec is telling.
  
 I think it is still v personal...your taste, genre of music..
 one software will tick more boxes than the other,
  
 for me the choice is CLEAR..CLARION.


----------



## RUMAY408

I'm running Amarra 3.02 on MacBook Air, this works best for me > plug into DAC  
  
 Turn on Amarra >turn off iTunes (don't synch) >hit the i and make sure the output is to the DAC, hit rescan if needed, punch up the playlist and fold in AIFF/Flac albums directly into the playlist and go
  
 Trial and error with iTunes and my audio taste. This is what I find works for me.
  
 Amarra instructions are complicated and wordy, but the sound is excellent and full textured


----------



## Lohb

lohb said:


> Anyone using A+ know how the settings below would affect the sound in the iZotope advanced parameters (ignoring the upsampling which would be set to none in both configs)....
> 2nd screen shot is standard fresh install config.
> 
> I could not find much in the manual about these 5 slider settings....


 

 Really curious BUMP !


----------



## bixby

These threads should help:
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/optimal-audio-filter-settings-audirvana-plus-9704/
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/izotope-sample-rate-convertor-15352/
  
 and of course the manual:
  
 http://audirvana.com/delivery/Audirvana%20Plus%20User%20Manual.pdf


----------



## Lohb

bixby said:


> These threads should help:
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/optimal-audio-filter-settings-audirvana-plus-9704/
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks. I never knew the 2.0 manual was released the last manual was a really old version of 1.x.x if I remember.


----------



## miceblue

lohb said:


> bixby said:
> 
> 
> > These threads should help:
> ...



Indeed, I didn't know about the 2.0 manual as well. Thanks for posting that *bixby*! Maybe I can squeeze a few things out of the 2.0 demo since I don't completely like the way it handles the library and playback.

As for the iZotope settings, they mainly adjust digital filtering properties I believe.
http://resonessencelabs.com/digital-filters/
http://www.manualslib.com/manual/23947/Cambridge-Audio-Upsampling-Digital-To-Analog-Converter-Azur-Dacmagic.html?page=18#manual
http://src.infinitewave.ca/ and explanations are found here http://src.infinitewave.ca/help.html


----------



## Lohb

Is A+ 2.0 purely a GUI update.... ?


----------



## bixby

Quite a few people on Computer Audiophile are reporting a sound change as well with most liking and some not so much.  Some also have reported that Damien (developer) did not have SQ improvements specifically on the list of to dos for 2.0.  I guess you could DL the trial and give it a listen.
  
 I have moved on to a more natural player for my system, Decibel.


----------



## Lorspeaker

It is weekend..did some switching back n forth the Audi2.0 n Amarra..
 throughout the CrouchingTigerHiddenLizard album;
  
 sense of *realism* still belongs to Audi2.0..." on my setup "....
 the chinese drums..gu chen..er hu....have this LIFE sound to them 
  
 inspite of me switching the EQ on Amarra thru a few variations...classicals..jazz etc...
 i cant "get it"..hmmm.
 I believe the Amarra sounded slightly WIDER though than Audi2.0.
  
 pick your poison..
  
 -----
 switched over the Michael Buble..."Feeling Good"...
 all the brass instruments on Audi2.0 are all cleaned up, polished..
 sounding clarion..ready for some important competition.


----------



## Lohb

lorspeaker said:


> It is weekend..did some switching back n forth the Audi2.0 n Amarra..
> throughout the CrouchingTigerHiddenLizard album;
> 
> sense of *realism* still belongs to Audi2.0..." on my setup "....
> ...


 

 Integer modes give a different signature on A+. Just dug the developer's description out the new manual.
 <<

 There are two different streaming modes in Integer Mode:
 Mode 1 that brings the highest transparency, and soundstage depth
 Mode 2 that is more on the warm side>>>
  
 


 Almost like a Sabre and Wolfson type thing/process. I always kept mine on mode 1. The old manual was awful, as it never updated with the new versions and his forum was kind of patchy for info on some back-end settings.


----------



## Lorspeaker

Will there..or is there a full fledge EQ feature like that of Amarra in Audi2.0....apart from integer mode u mentioned?
I haven't touch any of the old settings b4....


----------



## elnero

I downloaded both the Amarra 3 and A+ 2.0 trials to do a bit of comparing. To me Amarra has very nice separation, the imaging is set out front more so there's more of a sense of the music being in front of you than in your head. By contrast A+ 2.0 is more forward, vocalists are closer and bigger. Going between the two A+ 2.0 felt more in your head and more confined, Amarra seemed to place instruments in a nicer, more coherent fashion. On the flip side, with Amarra the leading edge of notes felt a bit soft while A+ 2.0 sounded snappier, more dynamic. Honestly, it's a toss up, Amarra seems more relaxed and organic, it's more like being at a concert, whereas A+ 2.0 is more vivid with instruments sounding more realistic, like you're right there on stage or in the studio.
  
 I briefly tried A+ 1.5.12 at the end of the comparison, I didn't go back and forth between them all but my sense was that 1.5.12 was somewhere in between the two, a little less forward and more relaxed than 2.0 but not as organic as Amarra 3.0.
  
 I like what A+ is doing with the library but it seems like it needs some work to give the user more options. The UI also leaves a lot to be desired (I wonder if he's goign to allow for custom skins, I could just make my own). Amarra 3.0 by contrast doesn't seem to have done much in regards to refinement of the UI since the last trial I tried and it's still fairly slow and glitchy. I'd be willing to forgive that but it still lacks gapless support for FLAC files which I find absolutely ridiculous. So at the end of the day I'm feeling like I'll probably just stick with A+ 1.5.12 for the moment, if I spend money on something else I might be tempted to buy Amarra when they have one of their specials running, but honestly I have a hard time reconciling even the sale prices on it's sound alone when the rest of it's features leave much to be desired.


----------



## Zoom25

I have been playing around with Amarra and Audirvana 1.15.10 and I like Amarra more on all my headphones so far. On one of my speakers, I like Amarra more and on the other speaker, Audirvana is a better match. Good to have them both in your arsenal


----------



## miceblue

Yeah I think I'm going to pass on upgrading to A+ 2.0 for now. It's really, really, really annoying that I can't just open music files from Finder outside of the synched folders.


----------



## Preacherdaniel

Hey people getting a Mac Mini in a couple of weeks. What software can catalog a specific folder i set to it and integrates with the play/pause of the Mac keyboard?
 Thanks a lot this thread is magic.


----------



## Preacherdaniel

Clementine does the trick just fine. Finally my MacBook and Mac Mini will have synced music libraries using Dropbox.


----------



## Lohb

Straight from the designer..... no sonic alteration whatsoever, if using the player with no iTunes integration from 1.5.12 to the newest 2.0.1. A+
 Good to know vs my imagination getting the better of me.
 QUOTE
  
 Hello,
 Thank you for your interest in Audirvana Plus.
 Audirvana Plus 2.0 brings the full featured library manager.
 Though there are no specific updates to the audio engine for now, the library manager gives the ability to get the convenience to find your music without the interferences of iTunes that were degrading the sound quality.
 You can give it a try with the 15 days trial version.
 Best regards,
 Damien Plisson


----------



## Lorspeaker

so it is ITUNE that is holding back the music quality somehow....interesting.
 And i tot the older version would have gone down to the "core" or something..shrugggzz
 Maybe it is really time to totally wean off ITUNE


----------



## Lohb

lorspeaker said:


> so it is ITUNE that is holding back the music quality somehow....interesting.
> And i tot the older version would have gone down to the "core" or something..shrugggzz
> Maybe it is really time to totally wean off ITUNE


 

 "It duz bypass osx audio codecs if yoo chooze it in du settings"
  
 The issue with itunes has been integration of the library with A+ before 2.0 causing some kind of strain on the A+ system from what I can understand from the designer's email. Anyway, I never use A+ and itunes so no upgrade just now till some better audio engine signature filters out.
 I tried Amarra just didn't like the GUI or signature, seemed less detailed.


----------



## Lorspeaker

i reloaded the old Audi1.5 version + itune...gave it a listen over 3 test songs..
 and again uploaded the audi2.0 + Itune and did the same.. 
  
 my ear still telling me the newer version is CLEARER even with ITUNEs...
 it was almost immediately CLEARER...by a good margin.
 ( i dunno whats going on technically inside my laptop...some kind of synergy with the 2.0..???  but i am NOT complaining  )
  
 On one track...the DT770drivers literally reverberated more actively ..catching my attention. Nice.


----------



## JHern

I'm going to upgrade, if only to support these guys, but I should also drop a few requests since they seem to follow this thread...
  
*Requests for Audirvana*:
  
 1) New Audio Features: It would be nice to see Audirvana add some new sound processing and mixing features, such as adding crossfade (this is great for some kinds of recordings), ability to tweak *phase* lag _and_ amplitude in the EQ settings (i.e., the full transfer function), etc..
  
 2) Remote App: Controlling one's home iTunes system with the Remote app via iPhone or iPad is a true delight, would love to see an Audirvana Remote app. Until this happens, many of us are chained by convenience to the iTunes interface.
  
 3) iDevice Player: Any chance we could see an izotope-based player implemented in iOS, or is the softward/hardware overhead/limitations simply too much to make it worthwhile? I know people would pay a lot for this, it could become Audirvana's biggest money maker.


----------



## Krutsch

preacherdaniel said:


> Clementine does the trick just fine. Finally my MacBook and Mac Mini will have synced music libraries using Dropbox.




How are you doing that without a lot of sync conflicts? Or, are you sure only one instance of iTunes is running at a time?

Just curious...


----------



## Preacherdaniel

Clementine doesn't TOUCH your music library. I am not using iTunes since it changes folder structure and my collection is hard work of organizing since 99.


----------



## Zoom25

Regarding Amarra 3.0 and gapless playback in direct mode. I think there is a very, very little break between the songs. I checked the pre-load button as well. Honestly, it's a non factor for the first time.

Also, when you "disable all" under Amarra's System Optimizer, make sure you run the script and then restart your computer and open Amarra and run it normally. I think the restart makes an important difference in SQ. I would love to hear someone else try this and see if it makes any difference on their system.

Amarra (Symphony) 3.0 -> Preferences -> Optimize -> Disable All -> Restart computer -> Resume as normal -> Success.


----------



## RUMAY408

I was at a meet recently, players that I've tried were Foobar and JRiver, so adding that to my previous experience of Bitrate and Puremusic, out of those Amarra 3.02 is still the best, but a discounted price is the only way I would do it.


----------



## crazychile

I've used Fidelia basic for about 3 months now and can definitely hear an improvement over iTunes. I was thinking of spending the extra $50 for the plug in that lets you adjust speaker angle, etc, which I'm guessing is to try and simulate a binaural recording. But you guys have me curious about Audirvana. For those that have tried both, should I get the Fidelia plug in or jump to Audirvana? Which will give me the most improvement for the $$ ?
  
 Thanks,


----------



## isquirrel

crazychile said:


> I've used Fidelia basic for about 3 months now and can definitely hear an improvement over iTunes. I was thinking of spending the extra $50 for the plug in that lets you adjust speaker angle, etc, which I'm guessing is to try and simulate a binaural recording. But you guys have me curious about Audirvana. For those that have tried both, should I get the Fidelia plug in or jump to Audirvana? Which will give me the most improvement for the $$ ?
> 
> Thanks,


 

 You can try Audirvana for free, download a trial copy


----------



## Jmstrmbn

crazychile said:


> I've used Fidelia basic for about 3 months now and can definitely hear an improvement over iTunes. I was thinking of spending the extra $50 for the plug in that lets you adjust speaker angle, etc, which I'm guessing is to try and simulate a binaural recording. But you guys have me curious about Audirvana. For those that have tried both, should I get the Fidelia plug in or jump to Audirvana? Which will give me the most improvement for the $$ ?
> 
> Thanks,


 
 I have Fidelia and Audirvana.  IMHO Audirvana is the better player.  I have far fewer issues with Audirvana and the sound is better too, I believe due to Integer/Direct Mode.  I don't have the headphone effect for Fidelia so that may be a selling point for you.  I would definitely recommend downloading the trial and comparing the two.


----------



## RUMAY408

For anyone on this thread try out all the players for free Amarra, Puremusic, Fidelia, and Audirvana.  
  
 That could work out to at least two months of audio players for free, why not?


----------



## bpcans

rumay408 said:


> For anyone on this thread try out all the players for free Amarra, Puremusic, Fidelia, and Audirvana.
> 
> That could work out to at least two months of audio players for free, why not?


And don't forget to try JRiver 20 Media Center. The sound I believe is improved from their version 19 and the user interface is the best of the rest.


----------



## RUMAY408

bpcans said:


> And don't forget to try JRiver 20 Media Center. The sound I believe is improved from their version 19 and the user interface is the best of the rest.


 
 I was at a meet recently and was impressed by the JRiver player, so my bad.


----------



## Lorspeaker

can Jriver be used on Mac?


----------



## bpcans

rumay408 said:


> I was at a meet recently and was impressed by the JRiver player, so my bad.


No bad on your part RUMAY. JRiver MC is a good iTunes alternative. *


lorspeaker said:



			can Jriver be used on Mac?
		
Click to expand...

*It works really well with my 2014 MacBook Pro.


----------



## gevorg

Any OS X audio players have waveform seekbar like Foobar?


----------



## miceblue

gevorg said:


> Any OS X audio players have waveform seekbar like Foobar?



Fidelia does. 

You can run Foobar via Wine on OS X too you know? : p

That's how I do ABX tests on Mac with proper sampling rates supported since the ABX apps for Mac often don't support sampling rates higher than 48 kHz.


----------



## gevorg

^^ Cool, thanks!


----------



## Lorspeaker

demo-ed JRIVER for two hours...standard, crossfed..integer mode..
 it was okk..errr...but nothing hits my music emo-vein, 
 music pans wide to the left right n center.. i was looking for good coherence.
  
 switched back to Audi2.0...
 the first violin piece that came on was simply ALIVE.
 Josh Groban has a sparkle in his voice,
 without all the many EQfeatures..
 Audi2.0 seems to be able to emote the music to my soul...SIMPLE-y !!
  
 The DEAL is gonna be DONE..in two days.


----------



## Zoom25

I tried to get HQplayer running on my player but it keeps crashing. Also, I don't think my DAC works with the network audio adapter idea in mind. Shame, I heard great things about it.


----------



## crazychile

I got frustrated with Fidelia today when it couldn't recognize my latest batch of CD rips to my iTunes Library. Even after restarting it, rescanning, they just weren't there. So I went for the Audirvana free trial. Holy crap! There was no comparison in sound quality between the two. I listened all the way through an old Love and Rockets recording I hadn't listened to in a few years, and I don't remember it ever sounding this good. Looks like I'll be buying a license for Audirvana when the trial runs out.


----------



## Silent One

lorspeaker said:


> demo-ed JRIVER for two hours...standard, crossfed..integer mode..
> it was okk..errr...but nothing hits my music emo-vein,
> music pans wide to the left right n center.. i was looking for good coherence.
> 
> ...


 





  


zoom25 said:


> I tried to get HQplayer running on my player but it keeps crashing. Also, I don't think my DAC works with the network audio adapter idea in mind. Shame, I heard great things about it.


 





 Sorry to hear. Miska seems to be up to some good stuff with the player. I'm still waiting to trial it myself.
  
  


crazychile said:


> I got frustrated with Fidelia today when it couldn't recognize my latest batch of CD rips to my iTunes Library. Even after restarting it, rescanning, they just weren't there. So I went for the Audirvana free trial. Holy crap! There was no comparison in sound quality between the two. I listened all the way through an old Love and Rockets recording I hadn't listened to in a few years, and I don't remember it ever sounding this good. *Looks like I'll be buying a license for Audirvana when the trial runs out.*


----------



## Zoom25

Picked up Audirvana 2.0.1 as well. The library aspect and the laid back sound for studying that I was used to for years was too good to pass up. Amarra for partying and Audirvana for bedtime.


----------



## bpcans

All my music player trials have run out. It's time to purchase one. Amarra, Audirvana, or JRiver, which way do I go?


----------



## Lohb

bpcans said:


> All my music player trials have run out. It's time to purchase one. Amarra, Audirvana, or JRiver, which way do I go?


 

 The one that gave you the most enjoyment/SQ !


----------



## Zoom25

bpcans said:


> All my music player trials have run out. It's time to purchase one. Amarra, Audirvana, or JRiver, which way do I go?


 
  
 Audirvana 2.0 if you want the utmost convenience. Hassle free library. Great sound. Great UI via album view.
  
 Amarra 3.0 if you want the best SQ with some balls. The downside is crappy UI (although very, very stable), no native library support. Is that hassle of loading file folders worth the SQ, IMO YES!
  
 Luckily I have both so I don't have to compromise. If I had to pick one only, I'd have to choose based on how I tend to listen to music most typically. If you listen for long periods of time and want the ability to choose new albums on the fly and still have a remarkable, intimate sound, then A+ 2.0 by a mile. I'm treating Audirvana Plus 2.0 as the Netflix of native audio players.
  
 If you listen to music only for a limited time or a few hours/few albums and want to enjoy that specific album that day to the fullest, then open up Amarra for the best experience.
  
 I find the whole process of Audirvana Plus 2.0 much more passive and little thinking. With the more active and conscious drag and drop method, it makes me more picky in what I want to listen. Maybe it's just me.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Of course, there is iTunes integration method for both Amarra and Audirvana Plus, so there's that. Also, as far as sound goes, if you listen to one player exclusively for a week you'll easily get used to it and won't miss the other. It's only when you listen to both players side by side in quick successions that really brings out the differences.


----------



## bpcans

lohb said:


> The one that gave you the most enjoyment/SQ !


*


zoom25 said:



			Audirvana 2.0 if you want the utmost convenience. Hassle free library. Great sound. Great UI via album view.



Spoiler



Amarra 3.0 if you want the best SQ with some balls. The downside is crappy UI (although very, very stable), no native library support. Is that hassle of loading file folders worth the SQ, IMO YES!

Luckily I have both so I don't have to compromise. If I had to pick one only, I'd have to choose based on how I tend to listen to music most typically. If you listen for long periods of time and want the ability to choose new albums on the fly and still have a remarkable, intimate sound, then A+ 2.0 by a mile. I'm treating Audirvana Plus 2.0 as the Netflix of native audio players.

If you listen to music only for a limited time or a few hours/few albums and want to enjoy that specific album that day to the fullest, then open up Amarra for the best experience.

I find the whole process of Audirvana Plus 2.0 much more passive and little thinking. With the more active and conscious drag and drop method, it makes me more picky in what I want to listen. Maybe it's just me.:confused_face: 

Of course, there is iTunes integration method for both Amarra and Audirvana Plus, so there's that. Also, as far as sound goes, if you listen to one player exclusively for a week you'll easily get used to it and won't miss the other. It's only when you listen to both players side by side in quick successions that really brings out the differences.




Click to expand...

*Thanks guys, I really appreciate the input. Maybe the key is to have a couple of software choices for different uses and for times when I want convenience and ease of operation.


----------



## isquirrel

bpcans said:


> Thanks guys, I really appreciate the input. Maybe the key is to have a couple of software choices for different uses and for times when I want convenience and ease of operation.


 
  I think this is really down to your preferences, for me its Audirvana - its not perfect, but them none of them are


----------



## bpcans

isquirrel said:


> I think this is really down to your preferences, for me its Audirvana - its not perfect, but them none of them are


Thanks isquirrel. I'm leaning toward Audirvana right now. I appreciate a flat analytical sound, just the music as recorded you know. I've been reading good reviews about audirvanas sound, and the price seems reasonable.


----------



## Zoom25

bpcans said:


> Thanks isquirrel. I'm leaning toward Audirvana right now. I appreciate a *flat analytical sound*, just the music as recorded you know. I've been reading good reviews about audirvanas sound, and the price seems reasonable.


 

 Go for Audirvana, I think it's the better value and the better in looks and convenience. However, that neutral sound I'd give to the Amarra 3.0. Audirvana is smoother and laid back than any player I have ever tried. Anything from iTunes to VLC to Bitperfect to Amarra.


----------



## Lorspeaker

my trial period ended todayyy....
  
 reloaded the old audi, lets see how long i last on this. 
  
 =============================
  
 if  i must pick one betw audi2.0...amarra 3...jriver....it will be the audi for pure sonic superiority. ( to my ears on my setup)


----------



## miceblue

So I'm going to try out Amarra 3 and when I'm installing it, I chose to optimise OS X for music playback. I thought it would have similar options to Audirvana Plus but a whole lot more popped up.


Remove Finder quit command? lolwut?
Well anyway, I did that and the AppleScript gave me a time out error, so I don't think those options even mattered. So far so good Amarra!

The animations and windows look like they're from Mac OS Jaguar era. :/


----------



## Zoom25

Running Anjunadeep 06 with Audirvana Plus 2.0 and it's the perfect studying partner. Non intrusive sound signature and software. My conclusive thought on both Audirvana 2.0 and Amarra 3.0 is...get them both! Between these two players, all aspects of comfort and sound are covered.
  
 To beat these two players in sound AND convenience, I'll definitely have to step away from computer systems and switch over to dedicated hardware music player/servers like Naim NDX, Auralic Aries, and NAD M50.


----------



## Lorspeaker

i own the new Audi2,0 now...pat pat my own back.  
  
 Even the LCD2 takes on renewed clarity...nice !!


----------



## isquirrel

lorspeaker said:


> i own the new Audi2,0 now...pat pat my own back.
> 
> Even the LCD2 takes on renewed clarity...nice !!


 

 Congratulations! A+ is good with Audeze cans, I actually slightly prefer A+ 1.5.12 (an earlier version) but they are very close in SQ. Apparently the developer is working on improving the SQ in the next update which should be coming soon.


----------



## Lorspeaker

i spent the last 3 hours trying out the old Audi1.5 version with the LCD2, 
 and it was quite " lack lustre" ... till i wasnt listening to the music...
 just hanging the can on my head, music rumbling thru.zz
  
 then decided to bite the bullet n uploaded the licenced 2.0,
 and the LCD2 immediately had a shine to it..the music, till now is superb.
 right this moment, even ambient music is a treat..v ALIVE 
  
 i dunno whats this new version is doing on my setup...
 ( someone wrote Audirvana said there isnt sonic upgrade in the 2.0?? )
 BUT i am hearing very very distinct sonic improvement on my setup..


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



 
 The Amarra n Jriver didnt score well with my ears too..on the DT150...
 the sound reminded me of the old Audi.. shhhhhh, my honest view..dun shoot me


  
 So all i can conclude is that somehow ON MY SETUP, the AUDI 2.0 worked wondrously.


----------



## isquirrel

You could be right, I think tonight I have audio burn out..... sometimes i prefer the old 1.5 and sometimes the V2, I really miss being able to drag and drop in V2 as I can in the earlier versions, hoping the developer brings that functionality back.


----------



## Krutsch

isquirrel said:


> Congratulations! A+ is good with Audeze cans, I actually slightly prefer A+ 1.5.12 (an earlier version) but they are very close in SQ. *Apparently the developer is working on improving the SQ in the next update which should be coming soon*.


 
  
 I hope Damien is also working on a remote app for the scores of us that run A+ on a headless Mac Mini as our main digital source component


----------



## Zoom25

I was thinking of getting an iPhone and using the standard remote app to control the playback, but with the poor battery life I think I might just opt for a HTC One M8. Anyone have that phone or something similar on Android that can control Audirvana or Amarra, or is it exclusive to Apple products only. I'm not familiar with Android products as I haven't owned one in the past and would like to know if there is going to be a problem controlling my iMac/Macbook pro with HTC One.
  
 I would also love a dedicated Audirvana remote app. It would be the icing on the cake.


----------



## georgelai57

I just use an Apple TV remote. In fact the one that came with my previous iMac also works with A+


----------



## Zoom25

georgelai57 said:


> I just use an Apple TV remote. In fact the one that came with my previous iMac also works with A+


 

 Are you referring to this? http://techgage.com/reviews/apple/apple_tv_05_thumb.jpg
  
 This works with the older iMac and Macbook pro models. My 2012 Retina Macbook pro doesn't have an IR port so the remote is useless now. I used to use the remote as well on my older Macbook pro and it worked flawlessly.


----------



## georgelai57

zoom25 said:


> Are you referring to this? http://techgage.com/reviews/apple/apple_tv_05_thumb.jpg
> 
> This works with the older iMac and Macbook pro models. My 2012 Retina Macbook pro doesn't have an IR port so the remote is useless now. I used to use the remote as well on my older Macbook pro and it worked flawlessly.



No, I'm referring to the earlier white plastic version. If I recall it sticks to the side of my previous imac using magnets or something.


----------



## Lohb

zoom25 said:


> Are you referring to this? http://techgage.com/reviews/apple/apple_tv_05_thumb.jpg
> 
> This works with the older iMac and Macbook pro models. My 2012 Retina Macbook pro doesn't have an IR port so the remote is useless now. I used to use the remote as well on my older Macbook pro and it worked flawlessly.


 

 There is a 3rd part USB IR receiver that works. I'll need to dig for it.


----------



## Krutsch

zoom25 said:


> I was thinking of getting an iPhone and using the standard remote app to control the playback, but with the poor battery life I think I might just opt for a HTC One M8. *Anyone have that phone or something similar on Android that can control Audirvana or Amarra, or is it exclusive to Apple products only.* I'm not familiar with Android products as I haven't owned one in the past and would like to know if there is going to be a problem controlling my iMac/Macbook pro with HTC One.
> 
> I would also love a dedicated Audirvana remote app. It would be the icing on the cake.


 
  
 I have an HTC One (M7) and use Remote for iTunes (Google Play Store).  Works WAAAYYY better than the Apple remote app on iOS - no kidding, it's more responsive and doesn't disconnect you from the remote iTunes when the screen goes to sleep, which is really annoying with the Apple version.
  
 Just be aware that this only works for Audirvana in iTunes integration mode, but this combination is my most used digital source and it's very robust with my headless Mac Mini.


----------



## miceblue

So saving a playlist in Amarra makes a file of its own proprietary format? That's incredibly lame.
At least Audirvana Plus makes m3u files, which is the standard extension that basically all other media players can recognise. -_-

Sound-wise, Amarra sounds the most natural to me, similar to JPLAY vs Foobar in Windows. The bass is deeper and more defined, sounds are more dynamic, and the soundstage is more rounded and makes Audirvana Plus sound rather flat in comparison. Audirvana Plus's soundstage is more spacious to me on the other hand, so pick your poison.

On the other hand, if you use the "disable all" option in Amarra, it destroys all of your Notification Center and Energy Saver settings in the System Preferences, which is a huge pain in the butt to adjust every time.
Looking into the AppleScript file that does this, it looks like they change a whole bunch of system preferences.


I'm trying to make the comparisons between media players controlled, but I don't know if what I'm hearing is a brain bias, or if the differences are legitimate. I recorded the audio straight out of my Geek Out from the bit-perfect line-out connection while playing audio samples in Audirvana Plus or Amarra. I used Audacity 2.0.6 on another computer as the recorder and I recorded at 24/88.2 format. With the following recordings, I can't detect any differences in sound, so I'm not sure why I think I'm hearing differences between media players.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2816447/AudirvanaPlus_vs_Amarra_1.zip
^ 34 MB: 2 24/88.2 recorded FLAC files [one recorded from Audirvana Plus, one from Amarra], 2 spectrogram PNG files for the recorded files to compare, 1 original 16/44.1 WAV file

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2816447/AudirvanaPlus_vs_Amarra_2.zip
^ 28 MB: 2 24/88.2 recorded FLAC files [one recorded from Audirvana Plus, one from Amarra], 2 spectrogram PNG files for the recorded files to compare, 1 original 16/44.1 WAV file


----------



## reiserFS

Not being able to drag 'n drop your files into the library totally kills A+ 2.0 for me.


----------



## Zoom25

krutsch said:


> I have an HTC One (M7) and use Remote for iTunes (Google Play Store).  Works WAAAYYY better than the Apple remote app on iOS - no kidding, it's more responsive and doesn't disconnect you from the remote iTunes when the screen goes to sleep, which is really annoying with the Apple version.
> 
> Just be aware that this only works for Audirvana in iTunes integration mode, but this combination is my most used digital source and it's very robust with my headless Mac Mini.


 

 Thanks. I'll be sure to get that app.


----------



## miceblue

reiserfs said:


> Not being able to drag 'n drop your files into the library totally kills A+ 2.0 for me.



That's exactly why I haven't upgraded to A+ 2.0 yet. I drag-n-drop stuff on A+ 1.5 all the time since it makes it easy to create on-the-fly playlists.


----------



## Silent One

No drag-n-drop...in 2015 2014? I was just fixin' to upgrade to v2.0
  
 Been satisfied with the current version but would love the new library management and interface.


----------



## bpcans

miceblue said:


> That's exactly why I haven't upgraded to A+ 2.0 yet. I drag-n-drop stuff on A+ 1.5 all the time since it makes it easy to create on-the-fly playlists.


*


silent one said:



			:blink:  No drag-n-drop...in 2015 2014? I was just fixin' to upgrade to v2.0

Been satisfied with the current version but would love the new library management and interface.
		
Click to expand...

* I here you guys. I purchased Audirvana 2.0 today and I can't get it to add my license file for the full version. But when I heard my FLAC recordings of Diane Krall I had to sit back and remember that I'm getting it for the sound of the music and not for the ease of operation.


----------



## Silent One

@bpcans


----------



## bpcans

silent one said:


> @bpcans


Thanks Silent One. Like my girlfriend I needed some validation. $80 for music player software that my MacBook Pro, though obviously not of the same quality, already has would seem really crazy to anybody not into this hobby.


----------



## thecourier

Is anyone using Clementine music player? Been sick of iTunes. Need to try something different


----------



## Kiats

bpcans said:


> *
> * I here you guys. I purchased Audirvana 2.0 today and I can't get it to add my license file for the full version. But when I heard my FLAC recordings of Diane Krall I had to sit back and remember that I'm getting it for the sound of the music and not for the ease of operation.




Good for you! Enjoy the music!


----------



## Currawong

I'm thinking of getting a Mac Mini as a music server. I am using my MacBook Air at the moment (which I then unplug and take to work) but I'm not sure it is ideal. A dedicated machine I could where I can install an SSD and disable absolutely everything unnecessary I'm thinking might be a better option.
  
 Quote:


miceblue said:


> I'm trying to make the comparisons between media players controlled, but I don't know if what I'm hearing is a brain bias, or if the differences are legitimate. I recorded the audio straight out of my Geek Out from the bit-perfect line-out connection while playing audio samples in Audirvana Plus or Amarra. I used Audacity 2.0.6 on another computer as the recorder and I recorded at 24/88.2 format. With the following recordings, I can't detect any differences in sound, so I'm not sure why I think I'm hearing differences between media players.


 
  
 But how are you playing them back? Going through that whole chain you surely are going to lose whatever improvement (if any) you gained aren't you?


----------



## Zoom25

currawong said:


> I'm thinking of getting a Mac Mini as a music server. I am using my MacBook Air at the moment (which I then unplug and take to work) but I'm not sure it is ideal. A dedicated machine I could where I can install an SSD and disable absolutely everything unnecessary I'm thinking might be a better option.


 
  
 I'm similarly using a 2012 macbook pro Retina w/ 500 gb SSD, i7, 2.6 gHz, 8 gb ram. Although whenever I always listen seriously, I'll always have it running with it plugged into the wall. I was also contemplating getting a second computer, most probably a mac mini solely for the purpose of music, so that way I could always have everything disabled and then some on top of it. Although here's the thing, you'll need to upgrade your hard drive SSD and maybe the power supply for it to really get sounding decent. At that point, you'll easily be at the $1k-1.5k mark.
  
 If you take the lower interval of $1000 as the cost, why not consider something like Auralic Aries LE ($999) or the full Auralic Aries with upgraded power supply and femto clocks) at $1599. So far everyone on the other computer forum coming off of stock mac minis to full on C.A.P.S version are preferring their Auralic Aries. Something like the Aries would sound better, look better in the room, will free you up from worrying about "Am I getting the best sound possible from this mac mini?" There's literally so many upgrades that can be made on a computer that once you get started, it will drive you crazy. If video and other features are required, then mac mini wins by default, but for music alone, I think a product like Aries is the better solution. Simple, elegant, no need to worry about upgrades and really good sound. There's even Olive ONE at $499 that can be fitted with SSD. Although don't know where the sound ranks.
  
 Thought I'd share my ideas here to see how people respond to this thinking and reasoning and bounce ideas in general.


----------



## isquirrel

I am still confused with all this. If the files are on a MacBook or Mac Mini with an internal SSD and using an external DAC/AMP isn't the signal path shorter than using something like the Aurelic Aries as a streamer from the Mac Mini (source) to the DAC/AMP? As the source is the same but a streamer has been added which I am thinking must introduce more links into the playback chain?


----------



## miceblue

currawong said:


> But how are you playing them back? Going through that whole chain you surely are going to lose whatever improvement (if any) you gained aren't you?



I was playing back the audio through Audirvana Plus (1.5). I'm not sure if any gains would be lost to be honest. I was just trying to see if there are measurable differences between the two media players since people say there are differences, including myself upon subjective listening. I don't know of a better way to attempt to capture these differences on the other hand.


----------



## Krutsch

> Originally Posted by *Zoom25* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> <snip, snip>
> 
> Something like the Aries would sound better, look better in the room, will free you up from worrying about "Am I getting the best sound possible from this mac mini?" There's literally so many upgrades that can be made on a computer that once you get started, it will drive you crazy.


 
  
 Well, if you spend too much time on that other computer forum, you can read about how changing from an SSD to an SDXC card for hosting your library will yield H-U-G-E audio improvements.  If a person is in that camp, there are endless options and, yes, it will drive you crazy.
  
 For me, after a lifetime of working as a software engineer for hardware focused companies, I just couldn't take those discussions seriously.
  
 FWIW, I use a 2009 Mac Mini, which shipped with an outboard switching power supply, but at least it isn't in the case and can be placed far away from the Mac Mini.
  
 I added RAM (to 8GB) but kept the original HDD, using an external, portable Firewire 800 drive to host media.  The 2009 Mini came with 2 GB of RAM, so I had to add RAM to run Audirvana+ 1.5.12 w/ iTunes integration (which is the most reliable headless solution for a Mac Mini, in my experience).  Using Firewire keeps drive access off the USB bus for audio, but the Mac Mini has separate USB controllers for groups of ports, so you can still use a USB DAC and a USB drive if you choose your ports carefully.
  
 I added a Schiit Wyrd to deal with the occasional popping sounds (they were pretty rare, but now they are completely absent).  And, the best upgrade was to add a Bel Canto mLink USB-to-SPDIF converter, which provides complete isolation from electrical noise issues from the Mac Mini (and is just silky smooth sounding).
  
 Finally, I went through the trouble to disable unneeded services/apps on the Mac Mini, but I'm not sure I really needed to do that (I just like to tinker and it was free).
  
 Done and pretty inexpensive, for me, since I had the old Mac Mini lying around.  The Mac Mini is very attractive in any room, but that's a personal preference.


----------



## Lohb

Anyone using Audirvana+ on Macbook Air and also have a DX90 ?
 Long-shot I know for comparison, but I wonder how the sound quality would compare with A+ on interger mode 1 and direct mode :
  
 MBA internal DAC and A+ vs DX90
 or
 MBA with Sabre U2 ES9023 DAC and A+ vs DX90
 or
 MBA with Sabre U2 ES9023 DAC ,A+ and some small portable amp vs DX90
  
 I'm just looking at a transportable solution vs portable DAP so I could use my MBA and A+ in a notebook sling with playlist loaded up for short trips  if the SQ jump is not that big.
 Headphones were modded T50RP.


----------



## JHern

I've recently been exploring the ability of Audirvana (still using 1.5.12) to make great music from less-than-CD quality tracks. I'm using Audio-Technica ATH-ES10 headphones, which tend to emphasize the bass guitar dimension of rock music, and are high quality dynamic full-sounding HPs able to pick out many details in the sound track. Normally, I use the Fostex HP-A3 DAC coupled from Audirvana Plus to listen to tracks, but the external DAC.amp has become integrated into my home system paired with a PC and working wonderfully well with RCA-out to a Marantz amp powering Dali speakers. At work I just plug my ATH-ES10 into my MacBook Pro, and I run Audirvana Plus via iTunes.
  
 I was really wondering how well Audirvana could improve files downgraded relative to CD quality, after converting to AAC via iTunes, and I now have the answer. I converted from AIFF CD quality to 256k+ AAC files. I should say that I really wish that I couldn't hear a difference between these file types, there is an enormous file size difference (~10X), but holy crap, there is a huge difference...it is not the answer I wanted. I chose what I consider to be a very sonically challenging album: Red Hot Chili Peppers, By the Way. In this album, the RHCP weren't content to simply jam with 4 tracks, they filled out the entire sound stage with all kinds of extra tracks, backup vocals, instrumental tweaks, etc., and all very delicate and sensitive, but combining via syngergy to produce a full sound that is destined to bowl over audiophiles with the proper system. When I downloaded the AAC file to my iPhone, the rich and smooth treble and musicality disappeared, and it sometime sounds more like a cacophany in songs with many vocals and instrumentals over-lapping, lots of distortion in the highs. On the other end of the quality spectrum, the AIFF via Audirvana sounds incredibly detailed, organic, and just...juicy! I find myself bouncing in my chair to the music, all is revealed and clear to my ear, it is a pure and joyous experience.
  
 So...what about the 256k+ version AAC delivered to Audirvana? It is a much much better soundstage that the iPhone can manage, and punchier low end as expected from the power differences between the MBP and iPhone. But the treble growl from the bass guitar and blended vocals is distorted, rather than silky chrome shiny yumminess I hear from the AIFF file. Intentionally distorted tracks sound messy, rather than crisply manicured and detailed. Conclusion...Audirvana does a wonderful job manicuring the sound, but at least to my ears it cannot overcome the downgrade from CD to AAC.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

Nice thread. Subscribed.


----------



## b0bb

currawong said:


> I'm thinking of getting a Mac Mini as a music server. I am using my MacBook Air at the moment (which I then unplug and take to work) but I'm not sure it is ideal. A dedicated machine I could where I can install an SSD and disable absolutely everything unnecessary I'm thinking might be a better option.


 
 That would work well.
  
 Audirvana can load the entire track into memory if you have enough RAM, the effectively isolates the latency on the network. 
  
 I use a 2011 MacMini with 16GB ram, the box connects to a NAS running AFP, the volumes show up as a regular Mac disk.
 I use iTunes as front end for Audirvana and the volume is auto mounted when required.
  
 If you have a UNIX box (Linux, Solaris,BSD) checkout Netatalk http://netatalk.sourceforge.net/ , that is what I use and the actual tracks reside on a SSD volume on my server.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

With the same file (say 192/24) into a 192/24 DAC, is Audirvana different from iTunes?
  
 I just want flat, unequalized sound into DAC, not sure can get from Audirvana, iTunes, or others, and still be easy to use.


----------



## b0bb

birdmanofct said:


> With the same file (say 192/24) into a 192/24 DAC, is Audirvana different from iTunes?
> 
> I just want flat, unequalized sound into DAC, not sure can get from Audirvana, iTunes, or others, and still be easy to use.




Audirvana will send the unaltered data straight to the DAC if you use integer and/or direct mode. Direct mode not required for 10.6 and 10.9 and up. Integer mode may not be available if you use the Mac's built in SPDiF.


----------



## georgelai57

I'm always confused how much memory to use for A+.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

georgelai57 said:


> I'm always confused how much memory to use for A+.


 

 I was too until i realized the numbers under the memory allocation bar indicate the length of content that can be loaded in either 16/44.1 or 24/192.  For example, I have mine set to 2Gb and it will load 50min of 16/44 and 11min of 24/192


----------



## miceblue

jmstrmbn said:


> I was too until i realized the numbers under the memory allocation bar indicate the length of content that can be loaded in either 16/44.1 or 24/192.  For example, I have mine set to 2Gb and it will load 50min of 16/44 and 11min of 24/192



Actually I'm confused by the memory allocation too.
http://audirvana.com/delivery/Audirvana%20Plus%20User%20Manual.pdf


> Currently playing track in red
> Next track to play, loaded in memory, in green
> ...
> Audio buffers memory allocation
> ...




But even if you set the memory allocation to 3.0 GB, only one track is green in the playlist, so the whole memory allocation thing makes zero sense to me. Why allocate 3.0 GB of memory when A+ only loads the next track into memory?

Here I allocated 5 GB for the memory buffer, which A+ claims to be 126 minutes of playback. Clearly only 6:16 minutes of audio are loaded in the buffer for playback as indicated by the one red track and the one green track.


----------



## georgelai57

Thanks for chipping in guys. Too little and it's not good. Too much also no good. It's damned if you do damned if you don't. That's why I love my iTunes. Unfortunately I can't play DSD on it hence my A+ purchase.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Miceblue
  
 Audirvana loads the current and next track yes but it also keeps previous tracks in memory (I think the last two) you can verify this by loading a track up ( you can see it load in the song progress bar) then skip ahead a few and then go back past the original.  You should notice that the progress bar is not there when you go to previous tracks but will load for the tracks previous to the original.
  
 Also for some classical hi res files 3gb could be filled.  I have a 24/192 copy of Mahler's 5th Symphony, its about 1.5 hours long and entire movements are almost 1Gb.  I realize this is an extreme case but if you have a lamborghini why limit it with cheap gas.


----------



## miceblue

jmstrmbn said:


> Miceblue
> 
> Audirvana loads the current and next track yes but it also keeps previous tracks in memory (I think the last two) you can verify this by loading a track up ( you can see it load in the song progress bar) then skip ahead a few and then go back past the original.  You should notice that the progress bar is not there when you go to previous tracks but will load for the tracks previous to the original.
> 
> Also for some classical hi res files 3gb could be filled.  I have a 24/192 copy of Mahler's 5th Symphony, its about 1.5 hours long and entire movements are almost 1Gb.  I realize this is an extreme case but if you have a lamborghini why limit it with cheap gas.



Interesting. Maybe it doesn't work for me?
*video doesn't have audio*

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW6K0KH7fjw[/video]


----------



## Jmstrmbn

huh mine definitely keeps the previous tracks loaded.  On a separate note my computer was really showing its age.  I have that album too and it takes it much longer to load into the ram.


----------



## Jmstrmbn

Latest Audirvana + update (2.0.4) contains enhancements to the "Audio Engine".  Anyone hear any difference?  I haven't had time to listen as often as I usually do and I'm not sure I hear a difference.


----------



## miceblue

I wish Audirvana Plus's website had a list of changes between the different versions...
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/audirvana-2-0-a-21673/index38.html#post359446


> Just released 2.0.3 that includes the Yosemite startup crash fix and:
> 
> Add file location (relative to volume root path: e.g. /Users/damien/Downloads in volume / is handled as Users/damien/Downloads) in smart playlist citeria => this is also meant to ease transition to library based music management for those used to command line (or Finder only)
> Play queue: set text color to selectedTextColor for selected row, for better visibility
> ...




Regarding 2.0.4:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/audirvana-2-0-a-21673/index38.html#post359446


> Here is the change log:
> 
> Audio Engine optimizations
> Change title of library change in preferences to state clearly it is only the database file that is to be moved
> ...




This is the library database file:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/audirvana-2-0-a-21673/index42.html#post360764


> AudirvanaPlusLibrary.sqlite






Since it looks like you've upgraded to 2.0.4 already, here's the file for 2.0.3 and you can update your library, backup the database file, and upgrade back to 2.0.4:
http://audirvana.com/delivery/AudirvanaPlus_2.0.3.dmg



Can you drag-n-drop files from Finder into A+ 2 yet? That's the biggest reason why I haven't upgraded.


----------



## Lohb

Great, a reason to upgrade now to 2.0.x A+


----------



## reiserFS

miceblue said:


> Can you drag-n-drop files from Finder into A+ 2 yet? That's the biggest reason why I haven't upgraded.


 
 Sort of want to know that as well. Still on 1.5 because of this.


----------



## bpcans

Is it just me or does Audirvana 2.0.4 sound better on its own than when it's in iTunes intergrated mode?


----------



## isquirrel

No surprise A+ has always sounded better in standalone mode


----------



## Krutsch

Great thread.  (comment) I will likely continue using A+ 1.5.12 for my headless Mac Mini in my 2-channel setup, pending the introduction of a remote app capability (which I have to believe is on the roadmap).
  
 I am wondering if anyone out there is using VST/AU plug-ins with 2.0. I have a number of them from Voxengo, and mostly use their EQ (HarmoniEQ); but to be frank, it causes frequent crashes when manually changing tracks in A+.
  
 Anyone using VST/US plug-ins with A+ 2.0 and having a good experience?  Thanks, in advance.
  
 EDIT: sorry, to clarify: I am having issues to VST/AU plug-ins with 1.5.12; haven't tried 2.0, as of yet.


----------



## bpcans

krutsch said:


> Great thread, haven't tried 2.0, as of yet.


I'm using Audirvana+ 2.0.4 and in non-integrated mode and it sounds much better than iTunes for sure. I'm going to do an SQ comparison with JRiver, which has a better user interface IMO, just to see if I can discern an audible difference. How can I get the album cover thumbnails to show on Audirvana?


----------



## georgelai57

I just wish that when using album view the details in the bottom half view could show a few more columns of info like year, bit rate, etc and that we can then sort that album the way we want. Sometimes I've got albums that are slightly different, perhaps bit rate, and it's annoying when they're shown as one album. So I get two track 1s, two teack 2s, etc. And without more info and sorting ability I can't distinguish between them. 
In fact that is what forced me to also buy JRiver much as I hate its complexity.


----------



## bpcans

georgelai57 said:


> I just wish that when using album view the details in the bottom half view could show a few more columns of info like year, bit rate, etc and that we can then sort that album the way we want. Sometimes I've got albums that are slightly different, perhaps bit rate, and it's annoying when they're shown as one album. So I get two track 1s, two teack 2s, etc. And without more info and sorting ability I can't distinguish between them.
> In fact that is what forced me to also buy JRiver much as I hate its complexity.


You and I are on the same hijacked plane plane my friend. I like Audirvana's sound but I appreciate JRiver's Media Center.


----------



## Lohb

georgelai57 said:


> I just wish that when using album view the details in the bottom half view could show a few more columns of info like year, bit rate, etc and that we can then sort that album the way we want. Sometimes I've got albums that are slightly different, perhaps bit rate, and it's annoying when they're shown as one album. So I get two track 1s, two teack 2s, etc. And without more info and sorting ability I can't distinguish between them.
> In fact that is what forced me to also buy JRiver much as I hate its complexity.


 

 Send the A+ designer the GUI info request. He may just incorporate it


----------



## AnakChan

bpcans said:


> I'm using Audirvana+ 2.0.4 and in non-integrated mode and it sounds much better than iTunes for sure. I'm going to do an SQ comparison with JRiver, which has a better user interface IMO, just to see if I can discern an audible difference. How can I get the album cover thumbnails to show on Audirvana?


 
  
 I apologise if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that A+ v2.0.4 standalone sounds better than A+ v2.0.4 in iTunes integrated mode? Are they not playing the same actual FLAC/WAV/DSF/DFF/whatever (except with iTunes through some passive linker/proxy)? Or were you just comparing A+ as a player vs iTunes as a player?


----------



## georgelai57

lohb said:


> Send the A+ designer the GUI info request. He may just incorporate it


 
 I've mentioned to the developer via his FB page, via emails, etc and his suggestions is to use list view or smart playlists.It's like you complain to a mechanic about your car and he suggests a bus or taxi instead.


----------



## bpcans

anakchan said:


> I apologise if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that A+ v2.0.4 standalone sounds better than A+ v2.0.4 in iTunes integrated mode? Are they not playing the same actual FLAC/WAV/DSF/DFF/whatever (except with iTunes through some passive linker/proxy)? Or were you just comparing A+ as a player vs iTunes as a player?


The latter comparison sir. I'm sorry if my adding that I'm listening in non-integrated mode was superfluous to the discussion.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

After trying, just bought Audirvana Plus (i.e., A+).


----------



## bpcans

birdmanofct said:


> After trying, just bought Audirvana Plus (i.e., A+).


Congrats Birdman. It was hard for me to decide on a music player when doing comparison testing. What made you choose Audirvana?


----------



## miceblue

reiserfs said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > Can you drag-n-drop files from Finder into A+ 2 yet? That's the biggest reason why I haven't upgraded.
> ...



Bump. Anyone?


----------



## joeexp

miceblue said:


> Bump. Anyone?


 

 Why would you want to drag them in, if you can manage them all in one window ...?
 And you could for example add a "drag in" folder in the preferences - it will get synced!


----------



## miceblue

joeexp said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > Bump. Anyone?
> ...



Well if I have songs in my Downloads folder, but I don't want to sync the entire folder, that would be a reason for drag-n-drop, and that happens to me quite often.
Or my Music folder, I have a bunch of albums I don't want synched to the main library, so if I want to play a specific song, I'd just drag that song into the playing cue, which I do in A+ 1.5.


----------



## georgelai57

I'll add to that drag and drop feature I missed in v1.5

I might have an album which appears in my (mac) folder called "1001 albums to hear before you die". It is also in "Rolling Stones Mag's 500 greatest albums" list. In v1.5 I can choose via Mac Finder. In v2.0 it shows it as one album - 2 track 1s followed by 2 track 2s. With Jriver there are sufficient columns of info for me to sort the album out. a+ 2.0 doesn't and that is why after upgrading to 2.0 I was forced to buy Jriver.


----------



## georgelai57

I've emailed Damien and commented on his FB page for a couple of weeks now and his answer is to use playlists or a search function. I'm not doing that for close to 130,000 tracks in my library. I know where my album is and I want to go straight to it and drag, drop, play and listen.


----------



## Krutsch

anakchan said:


> I apologise if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that A+ v2.0.4 standalone sounds better than A+ v2.0.4 in iTunes integrated mode? Are they not playing the same actual FLAC/WAV/DSF/DFF/whatever (except with iTunes through some passive linker/proxy)? Or were you just comparing A+ as a player vs iTunes as a player?


 

 If you Google around, that has been the conventional wisdom on the inner-tubes: that stand-alone playback sounds better than iTunes integrated mode.  The only reason I could see this being the case, on a low-powered machine anyway, might be the reduced CPU and RAM load during playback of both A+'s audio engine and iTunes/Core Audio.
  
 I know that on my 2009 Mac Mini, I had to go through the trouble to disable everything I could, as well as any forced up-sampling: made a big difference, but it wasn't audiophoolery stuff (i.e. tighter bass, wider soundstage and more focused, blah, blah, blah...), I was actually experiencing USB drop-outs from lack of CPU and/or RAM head room.  When I upgraded the RAM to 8GB and replaced the external media drive with a fast Seagate SSHD, all of that went away.
  
 My RMBP has a quad-core i7 and 16GB of RAM, so I haven't experienced any negative effects and really can't hear the difference between iTunes Integration or stand-alone modes.
  
 As always, YMMV.


----------



## Krutsch

lohb said:


> Send the A+ designer the GUI info request. He may just incorporate it


 

 Yeah.. or maybe hire a graphic designer to help with the UI, so it can look like it was designed in this millennium.
  
 Sorry to be negative, but I'm finding the A+ 2.0 user experience to be seriously lacking; especially after getting acclimated to iTunes 12.


----------



## isquirrel

While were on about A+ defects, whats with the deletion of the drag and drop feature that was in 1.5X and has now been removed from A2 ??


----------



## bpcans

krutsch said:


> Yeah.. or maybe hire a graphic designer to help with the UI, so it can look like it was designed in this millennium.
> 
> Sorry to be negative, but I'm finding the A+ 2.0 user experience to be seriously lacking; especially after getting acclimated to iTunes 12.


A serious +1 on your observations about A+ 2.0.4's UI, it really could be a lot better. I've found myself using the JRiver 20 Media Center lately just because it's easier to use.


----------



## Krutsch

isquirrel said:


> *While were on about A+ defects*, whats with the deletion of the drag and drop feature that was in 1.5X and has now been removed from A2 ??


 
  
 For me, the worse problem is the instability of the "folder scan" for adding files to your library.  I have about 13K FLAC, MP3 and AAC audio tracks, grouped into Genre/Artist/Album.  The first time I launched A+ 2.0, I added my music folders and let it scan (the folders I use for uploading to DLNA servers, not me iTunes folder).
  
 The scan appeared to work just fine, until I noticed that about 1/5th of my library was missing from the displayed collection.  So, I went back into the preferences and clicked on the "Scan" buttons to rescan.  That worked and everything showed up; until I added a couple of new albums, which then caused A+ to rescan on startup and miss the same files as before.
  
 I'm sure they will get these issues ironed out and I hope they do; the meta data editing is really quite good and my changes to files were interpreted without errors with Twonky and Minim servers running on other boxes.
  
 For me, the meta data editing alone makes A+ worth the price of admission.


----------



## Kiats

bpcans said:


> A serious +1 on your observations about A+ 2.0.4's UI, it really could be a lot better. I've found myself using the JRiver 20 Media Center lately just because it's easier to use.




+1


----------



## reiserFS

georgelai57 said:


> I've emailed Damien and commented on his FB page for a couple of weeks now and his answer is to use playlists or a search function. I'm not doing that for close to 130,000 tracks in my library. I know where my album is and I want to go straight to it and drag, drop, play and listen.


 
 Seems like Damien isn't really open to feedback. Truly a shame, since I actually enjoyed the sound of 2.0. 1.5 it is for me then.


----------



## bixby

georgelai57 said:


> I've emailed Damien and commented on his FB page for a couple of weeks now and his answer is to use playlists or a search function. I'm not doing that for close to 130,000 tracks in my library. I know where my album is and I want to go straight to it and drag, drop, play and listen.


 
 try decibel, you can easily do drag and drop and it sounds better to my ears than the older version of A+


----------



## isquirrel

I run an IT company and I have to say that removing previous "features" like drag & drop without informing your current customers and charging them for an upgrade is, well, inadvisable at best.


----------



## Krutsch

reiserfs said:


> Seems like Damien isn't really open to feedback. Truly a shame, since I actually enjoyed the sound of 2.0. 1.5 it is for me then.


 

 My experience with Damien has been good; when I've found bugs in the past (1.5.X versions) and posted on the computer audio forum, he responded quickly with a PM and, in some cases, with a test version to try out.
  
 I just think he is likely overwhelmed with higher priority development tasks with his new version; he does listen.
  
 For me, I've gone back to Bitperfect on my headless Mac Mini.  I was having challenges with 1.5.12 with Mavericks (and now Yosemite) where the Finder will crash and restart (causing a restart of A+ and iTunes); a real drag with a headless music server. It does come back, eventually, but isn't fun when you are trying to listen to music.
  
 On my laptop, I have periodic crashes trying to use AU plug-ins; so far, experimenting with A+ 2.0, I've not had these same crashes. When my free trial runs out for A+ 2.0 on my laptop, I will have to decide whether to purchase or not, but there is no going back to 1.5 for me because of defects.


----------



## Lohb

bixby said:


> try decibel, you can easily do drag and drop and it sounds better to my ears than the older version of A+


 

 Do you think A+ is towards the analytic/metallic sounding or..... ? What let's it down in your opinion ?


----------



## bixby

Actually, I think A+ is less analytic or metallic sounding than JRiver and has better depth.  Where I find a difference between it and Decibel is in the space between instruments being more distinct.  Also notes seem to have just a bit more body with Decibel.  Differences are subtle but noticeable when you switch and have a few reference tracks you know really well.  It has been along time since I have heard A+ (older version) and to me it was a bit congested in the upper mids/lower treble as well.  But all this is certainly system dependent, YMMV, etc.


----------



## grokit

After years of using happily using Pure Music on my Mac, they decided that they wanted to charge me $129 to use it with a current operating system (PM V2). So now I am finally a proud owner of Amarra SQ & HiFi, and loving them. These are totally brainless programs that just work in the background for the most part. And with their student discount it was less than $50 for the both of them 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 You guys make great case for A+, but it also seems like the functionality took a step backwards, while the sound took a step forward between v1.5 and v2. I've just downloaded the current demo, never used it. What's the iTunes integration like compared to say, PM (v1), or Amarra SQ? Does it import and rebuild the iTunes music library or share it with its own library file or what?
  
  I can see that the full version of Amarra would provide benefit, but I can live without upsampling and I want to keep using itunes playlists so I'm okay with no crossfading as well. I'm also really enjoying their SQ program when I'm slumming with youtubes, which which I enjoy doing with my lcd-2's in particular. I still have pm running on my old macs, and the amarra programs are on my mac mini which is my main listening/computing station. I'm very pleased with the change I've just made from PM to Amarra on it, and looking forward to trying out A+.


----------



## bpcans

I've been A/B-ing JRiver against Audirvana+ 2.0.4 and there really is no comparison as to how much better A+ sounds. With JRiver I have to constantly try to EQ different tracks to get them to sound right. With A+ I just hit play. My girlfriend says it should've been obvious since A+ costs twice as much. Rational thinking or not?


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> I've been A/B-ing JRiver against Audirvana+ 2.0.4 and there really is no comparison as to how much better A+ sounds. With JRiver I have to constantly try to EQ different tracks to get them to sound right. With A+ I just hit play. My girlfriend says it should've been obvious since A+ costs twice as much. Rational thinking or not?


 

@bpcans  - did you really hear a difference between 1.5.X and 2.0.X?  Just curious...


----------



## isquirrel

I have going to and forth between A+ 1.5x and A+ 2.04, I keep returning to 1.5x as it sounds a little less metallic than 2.04 but thats not definitive. What really bugs me is the lack of drag and drop functionality in 2.04 !


----------



## bpcans

krutsch said:


> @bpcans
> - did you really hear a difference between 1.5.X and 2.0.X?  Just curious...


Krutsch, I'm pretty sure I did sir. I've got a lot of music, but there are certain tracks that I listen to frequently, and A+ 2.0.4 to me sounded better. I attribute it to Audirvana just improving their software. It's not a quantum leap mind you, but more subtle in my opinion. Better detail and more lifelike. My older CD's don't sound as scrappy as they used to. Just my $0.02.


----------



## Lorspeaker

i did hear a diff with the upgrade on A+.... so i paid up.


----------



## Lohb

Going to give Decibel a try vs A+....it does not get a lot of mention on here but Bixby's comment on it sounding more natural got me curious....
  
 They give you 48 hours of play time of the player vs 48 hours whether you use it or not from install date.


----------



## bixby

lohb said:


> Going to give Decibel a try vs A+....it does not get a lot of mention on here but Bixby's comment on it sounding more natural got me curious....
> 
> They give you 48 hours of play time of the player vs 48 hours whether you use it or not from install date.


 
 We would certainly appreciate your impressions .  Always good to have others opinions.


----------



## bpcans

bixby said:


> We would certainly appreciate your impressions .  Always good to have others opinions.


+1


----------



## supermoo

I've been using both Audirvana + 2.0.2 (Integer mode 2) and Decibel 1.3.1 (exclusive access/hog mode) and they both sound equally good to me (read: no difference). I found integer mode 1 on Audirvana to be a bit flat/reference (I would say cold) whereas integer mode 2 has a warmer tone. Decibel only has one exclusive access mode which, when paired with a DAC that supports integer mode, will send integers straight to the DAC. I think you can't go wrong with either player but I personally prefer Decibel for its ability to drag'n'drop songs into a playlist whereas I have to sync all of my music folders with Audirvana to create playlists. Decibel also supports Last.fm scrobbling which is a plus for me.


----------



## joeexp

A+ has improved a lot on SoundQuality with the latest 2.04 update. I would update if I were you!


----------



## Krutsch

joeexp said:


> A+ has improved a lot on SoundQuality with the latest 2.04 update. I would update if I were you!


 

 Really? Improved a lot? I wish someone... anyone could offer a reasonable explanation for hearing significant differences between releases of A+ (this has been going on for a long time, not just with 2.0.X).


----------



## Lorspeaker

best way is to download it onto your own setup n give it a listen...there is a free trial period.


----------



## NinjaHamster

krutsch said:


> Really? Improved a lot? I wish someone... anyone could offer a reasonable explanation for hearing significant differences between releases of A+ (this has been going on for a long time, not just with 2.0.X).




Optimised code, change in sound engine etc. This process is not endemic to Audirvana alone. Every program concentrating on sound quality should have improved sound quality markedly over a long life-time of upgrades.


----------



## Krutsch

ninjahamster said:


> Optimised code, change in sound engine etc. This process is not endemic to Audirvana alone. Every program concentrating on sound quality should have improved sound quality markedly over a long life-time of upgrades.


 

 Thanks, that was helpful.


----------



## isquirrel

Can confirm latest A+ version 2.04 is now sounding better to me than 1.5.12. Sorry to keep on it about it but I really miss the drag and drop. Hope Damien's listening......


----------



## Lohb

isquirrel said:


> Can confirm latest A+ version 2.04 is now sounding better to me than 1.5.12.


 
 In what way ?
  
 Quick test of Decibel last night makes 1.5.12 feel a bit overly-analytical/cold even on integer mode 2.


----------



## NinjaHamster

lohb said:


> In what way ?
> 
> Quick test of Decibel last night makes 1.5.12 feel a bit overly-analytical/cold even on integer mode 2.




I never liked 1.5.12 for that reason - it is like solid-state and not much fun. I feel the same way about 1.5.10 (though it is many people's favourite).

If you prefer Decibel, try Audirvana 1.5.9. It is a lot richer, less analytical and more fun than the later versions to my ears.


----------



## Lohb

ninjahamster said:


> I never liked 1.5.12 for that reason - it is like solid-state and not much fun. I feel the same way about 1.5.10 (though it is many people's favourite).
> 
> If you prefer Decibel, try Audirvana 1.5.9. It is a lot richer, less analytical and more fun than the later versions to my ears.


 

 Yeah ,I guess I could step down to that 1.5.9 one (thanks for the tip) and with Decibel with the brief listen also keep that as it is a very reasonable price.Going to A|B more when I get a chance,but with planars and sabre chips already analytic style adding in a player revision like 1.5.12 that is going too far in that direction...it is all about finding hardware software balance. Wish I never sold my Bushmaster Mk2 DAC it was superb...using an obscure Wolfson chip.
  
 Edit : Anyone got the revisions link for A+ ? I thought I had it bookmarked, but no.


----------



## bjamn

Been using Fidelia for awhile now to listen to my FLAC's. Took the plunge on A+ last night and I'm really liking the sound.
  
 But in my estimation: it's a buggy $74.
  
 *shrugs*


----------



## crazychile

bjamn said:


> Been using Fidelia for awhile now to listen to my FLAC's. Took the plunge on A+ last night and I'm really liking the sound.
> 
> But in my estimation: it's a buggy $74.
> 
> *shrugs*


 

 I used Fidelia for a few months but dumped it after hearing A+ via the trial. Fidelia randomly doesn't recognize about 2% of my iTunes library, and doesn't like to update if I create a new playlist. I think Audirvana sounds quite a bit better also. No bug issues so far.


----------



## freedom01

Is it just me or have anyone encountered buggy A+ song shuffle problem ?
  
 Enable it. But sometimes, it continues to play in ascending/descending order.


----------



## bjamn

freedom01 said:


> Is it just me or have anyone encountered buggy A+ song shuffle problem ?
> 
> Enable it. But sometimes, it continues to play in ascending/descending order.


 
  
 Yeah, I've noticed this too. But I haven't nailed-down exactly when/how it's happening. I think it's something to do with how the "play queue" is being populated.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

bjamn said:


> Been using Fidelia for awhile now to listen to my FLAC's. Took the plunge on A+ last night and I'm really liking the sound.
> 
> But in my estimation: it's a buggy $74.
> 
> *shrugs*


 

 Ditto. And no response on forums, here or there.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

freedom01 said:


> Is it just me or have anyone encountered buggy A+ song shuffle problem ?
> 
> Enable it. But sometimes, it continues to play in ascending/descending order.


 

 Yes, same here. Reported there, but not optimistic.


----------



## bpcans

bjamn said:


> Been using Fidelia for awhile now to listen to my FLAC's. Took the plunge on A+ last night and I'm really liking the sound.
> 
> But in my estimation: it's a buggy $74.
> 
> *shrugs*


*


birdmanofct said:



			Ditto. And no response on forums, here or there. 

Click to expand...

**


birdmanofct said:



			Yes, same here. Reported there, but not optimistic.
		
Click to expand...

*I'm going to make a leap of faith here with Audirvana+ 2.0.4 and hope that they fix the bugs in their software just like Apple does when they release new operating systems.


----------



## b0bb

bpcans said:


> *
> **
> *I'm going to make a leap of faith here with Audirvana+ 2.0.4 and hope that they fix the bugs in their software just like Apple does when they release new operating systems.




Upgraded to 2.0.4 about 2 weeks ago, so far no issues, small improvements in sound quality.

New user interface feels like a work-in-progress.


----------



## freedom01

A+ still cannot drag and drop songs into playlist ?
  
 It feels so ancient.


----------



## bpcans

b0bb said:


> Upgraded to 2.0.4 about 2 weeks ago, so far no issues, small improvements in sound quality.
> 
> New user interface feels like a work-in-progress.


My sentiments exactly sir.


----------



## georgelai57

freedom01 said:


> A+ still cannot drag and drop songs into playlist ?
> 
> It feels so ancient.


As a result I had to buy JRiver too for Mac.


----------



## bpcans

georgelai57 said:


> As a result I had to buy JRiver too for Mac.


Me too. It's nice to have options.


----------



## Currawong

I've been using Vox when I want to drag-and-drop files.


----------



## freedom01

Although A+ sounds good really , but it is a PITA to work with.
  
 Can't do proper sorting in the playlist.
 Can't drag and drop
 The main library is a mess
  
 These two basic functions matter the most to me.
  
 The price of the software isn't that cheap and basic functions like these should be a given.
  
 Wake up your idea, Audirvana.


----------



## reiserFS

freedom01 said:


> Although A+ sounds good really , but it is a PITA to work with.
> 
> Can't do proper sorting in the playlist.
> Can't drag and drop
> ...


 
 Quoted for truth.


----------



## isquirrel

Anyone running A+ - heads up there's a new 2.05 update with Dark mode, same SQ as 2.04


----------



## miceblue

lohb said:


> Yeah ,I guess I could step down to that 1.5.9 one (thanks for the tip) and with Decibel with the brief listen also keep that as it is a very reasonable price.Going to A|B more when I get a chance,but with planars and sabre chips already analytic style adding in a player revision like 1.5.12 that is going too far in that direction...it is all about finding hardware software balance. Wish I never sold my Bushmaster Mk2 DAC it was superb...using an obscure Wolfson chip.
> 
> Edit : Anyone got the revisions link for A+ ? I thought I had it bookmarked, but no.



Looks like only 1.5.11 and 1.5.12 work for the URL format I have (see below).

I'd be more interested in hearing your thoughts on Decibel vs A+ 1.5.12. I'm tempted to try Decibel because it has Mac ASIO support for up to DSD256, which A+ 1.5 doesn't have and I don't like the lack of drag-n-drop in A+ 2.

http://www.exasound.com/Blog/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/155/Decibel-13--The-First-Audiophile-Player-with-Mac-OS-X-ASIO-Support.aspx






isquirrel said:


> Anyone running A+ - heads up there's a new 2.05 update with Dark mode, same SQ as 2.04



http://audirvana.com/delivery/AudirvanaPlus_2.0.5.dmg


----------



## isquirrel

Just downloaded Decibel and tried it against A+ 2.05, its very close. I think A+ is a little more detailed but there's not much in it, Decibel could be a bit richer tonally. 
  
 Need to do more listening, the demo is fully functional for 48 hours play.
  
 http://www.feisty-dog.com/decibel/


----------



## Lohb

isquirrel said:


> Just downloaded Decibel and tried it against A+ 2.05, its very close. I think A+ is a little more detailed but there's not much in it, Decibel could be a bit richer tonally.


 
 Yes, I kind of found that, more so with 1.5.12.


----------



## miceblue

Uhhhhhh, this might be a stupid question, but how do I adjust the volume in Decibel? D:
I'm using the Light Harmonic Geek Out as the DAC and the digital volume control doesn't work. The settings in the Audio MIDI don't work either.

Fortunately my music isn't playing at an ear-blasting volume level...

This is really useful.


Found it.

Wooow, I'm loving the sound from Decibel! I like it a lot more than A+ 1.5.12 even though it's softer on the details and the imaging isn't as precise. It sounds less harsh to my ears.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

v2.0.5 still has shuffle/continuous problems. I put a pink noise into continuous/loop, but it keeps jumping to another track (next or shuffle) when it's done with it. Maybe v2.0.23 will fix it?


----------



## isquirrel

birdmanofct said:


> v2.0.5 still has shuffle/continuous problems. I put a pink noise into continuous/loop, but it keeps jumping to another track (next or shuffle) when it's done with it. Maybe v2.0.23 will fix it?


 

 Hmm I am doing the same with a single aiff file, no issues? What format is the file in?


----------



## BirdManOfCT

isquirrel said:


> Hmm I am doing the same with a single aiff file, no issues? What format is the file in?


 

 Those particular files are MP3. I have a mix of MP3 and AIFF.


----------



## isquirrel

So the aiff files play okay? 

Is it just one particular batch of files or can you replicate the problem with other files?


----------



## Lohb

Any of you hand-on-heart notice a difference with 16/44 to 24/96 up-scaling on A+ ?


----------



## isquirrel

lohb said:


> Any of you hand-on-heart notice a difference with 16/44 to 24/96 up-scaling on A+ ?


 

 Congratulations on your 1,000 post !!
  
 I have tried different ways of up sampling with A+ but have always gone back to NOS. I find its more natural IMHO. I think its probably DAC dependant, on my Hugo which up samples internally there was no benefit, on the LH DaVinci no need to the damn thing sounds so good its ridiculous, haven't even thought of messing with the bits.


----------



## bpcans

Anybody else notice Audirvana+ arbitrarily dropping songs from your library? And sometimes in iTunes intergrated mode it just starts playing random songs from my library. Weird.


----------



## isquirrel

Yep, started with 2.05 update I think, apparently there are code changes in how it syncs, its PITA


----------



## bpcans

isquirrel said:


> Yep, started with 2.05 update I think, apparently there are code changes in how it syncs, its PITA


Good morning isquirrel. When I actually can hear one of the few songs that will successfully transfer to Audirvana+ from my library it sounds really good. The bass is tighter on A+ as opposed to JRiver 20. But I gotta say I'm really enjoying Steely Dan " Two Against Nature" thru JRiver 20 from iTunes AAC files ripped to FLAC while downloading the entire "Der Ring des Nibelungen" by Richard Wagner. You could say I'm good on classical for awhile.


----------



## mikesale

bpcans said:


> Anybody else notice Audirvana+ arbitrarily dropping songs from your library? And sometimes in iTunes intergrated mode it just starts playing random songs from my library. Weird.


 

 I've noticed that it just stops playing once a sync is done sometimes. 
  
 I've also had issues with A+ picking up cue files XLD generates after I alter the metadata on a file. No way to say "don't use the cue file" in A+.


----------



## isquirrel

bpcans said:


> Good morning isquirrel. When I actually can hear one of the few songs that will successfully transfer to Audirvana+ from my library it sounds really good. The bass is tighter on A+ as opposed to JRiver 20. But I gotta say I'm really enjoying Steely Dan " Two Against Nature" thru JRiver 20 from iTunes AAC files ripped to FLAC while downloading the entire "Der Ring des Nibelungen" by Richard Wagner. You could say I'm good on classical for awhile.


 

 Hello my friend, sounds like you are having same issues with library that I had. I love Wagner, good choice. Its worth trying decibel, I found it be to very close to A+ a little richer tonally and a little less resolution perhaps. 
  
 But !! it supports drag and drop so no more library agony.


----------



## bpcans

isquirrel said:


> Hello my friend, sounds like you are having same issues with library that I had. I love Wagner, good choice. Its worth trying decibel, I found it be to very close to A+ a little richer tonally and a little less resolution perhaps.
> 
> But !! it supports drag and drop so no more library agony.


Thanks a lot. I'll give Decibel a try.


----------



## NinjaHamster

"downloading the entire "Der Ring des Nibelungen" by Richard Wagner"


So Audirvana 3.0 should be out before that download completes ...


----------



## Lorspeaker

when i turn on the computer..and open up the audirvana in itunesync mode,
  and leaving it alone for say half an hour whilst reading my emails.,
 and then try to hit the play button, the song will load but it will freeze, and wont start playing.
  
 But if i quite audirvana...reactivate it, and play that song again, it will load n play smoothly...
 weird.


----------



## bpcans

ninjahamster said:


> "downloading the entire "Der Ring des Nibelungen" by Richard Wagner"
> 
> 
> So Audirvana 3.0 should be out before that download completes ...


Haha, good one. Years ago I bought a great box set of the whole "Cycle" with a complete libretto in German, French, and English. I might check out a book of critical analysis on the operas from the library so I can better understand them.


----------



## reiserFS

Anyone wanna take bets on when Damien actually puts "drag 'n drop" back in again? I know that I'm repeating myself, but damn, he's missing out on customers.


----------



## isquirrel

+1 +1 +1 +1 
  
 Its highly annoying especially as the new 2.05 version seems to delete songs in playlists on system restart.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

lorspeaker said:


> when i turn on the computer..and open up the audirvana in itunesync mode,
> and leaving it alone for say half an hour whilst reading my emails.,
> and then try to hit the play button, the song will load but it will freeze, and wont start playing.
> 
> ...


 

 I've had things like that, too. Had to restart A+. What's going on?


----------



## bpcans

birdmanofct said:


> I've had things like that, too. Had to restart A+. What's going on?


Really flukey software for sure. But whataya gonna do?


----------



## bjamn

Flukey, yeah. There are so many quirks, it makes it difficult to enjoy the good sound it really does seem to make. Going back, I wouldn't have purchased this. And only wish I'd used it more exhaustively during the trial period.
  
 This feels like beta software to me.


----------



## bpcans

bjamn said:


> Flukey, yeah. There are so many quirks, it makes it difficult to enjoy the good sound it really does seem to make. Going back, I wouldn't have purchased this. And only wish I'd used it more exhaustively during the trial period.
> 
> This feels like beta software to me.


bjamn, your speaking to the choir brother. $70 some dollars gone.


----------



## Lohb

Just join Damien's forum and list the bugs.
  
 If A+ had a dedicated thread on here maybe he would have some input on Head-fi on it


----------



## bpcans

lohb said:


> Just join Damien's forum and list the bugs.
> 
> If A+ had a dedicated thread on here maybe he would have some input on Head-fi on it


Good idea. Is Damien's forum on Facebook? I've got his email too. Thanks


----------



## isquirrel

Lets start a dedicated thread, no reason not too as there's one over at C-Audiophile, Damien posts regularly over there so why not here as well


----------



## BirdManOfCT

lohb said:


> Just join Damien's forum and list the bugs.
> 
> If A+ had a dedicated thread on here maybe he would have some input on Head-fi on it


 

 Did that -- no response. Surely they have to realize that this bad word of mouth can kill a product.


----------



## johnstac

Hey guys. So many pages. I'm just wondering if perhaps any of you could throw out a few of the most popular players. Is there any one or two that are standouts? Maybe one that can be used it both Mac and Windows? Probably to much to ask. I used MediaMonkey after I was so sick of iTunes that I just had to rebel. I bought a lifetime license but the more I used it, the more I began to not like it. I have since began using my Mac more but I still use both regularly. If I had to pick one though, it would have to be Mac. I use Windows for work and gaming and Mac for everything else. I have been using iTunes though ever since I started with Mac because I wasn't aware of any alternatives. Now I'm starting to get a little bit more serious about my music and looking for a better alternative. Suggestions welcomed.


----------



## johnstac

By the way, where does Spotify fall when it comes to music players. Is it considered one?


----------



## muziq

johnstac said:


> Now I'm starting to get a little bit more serious about my music and looking for a better alternative. Suggestions welcomed.


 
  
 I think many of us started where you are now: sick of typical OTS products and looking for better.  You might want to start with Bitperfect, which is an add-on for iTunes, to see if you notice a difference in sound quality. If you're playing lossless compressed (FLAC, ALAC) or uncompressed files, Bitperfect might be that next step you're looking for.  It's $10, available in the Apple app store, and doesn't have as many buggy issues as A+ and obviously won't make you take out a second mortgage like Amara.  Personally, I started with Bitperfect and still use it at work, but plunked down the extra cash for A+ at home for more serious listening.  A+ is great but it can be buggy, and it also zaps battery power fast on my Macbook Pro.
  
 Spotify--can't really answer, don't use it.  Appears that the Premium version is streaming at 320kbps, which isn't knuckle-dragging bad sound quality, but it isn't nearly what you'd get from a CD ripped into FLAC or ALAC.


----------



## bixby

spotify is not a player it  is a specialty streaming app only and cannot play your files.
  
 as for players that work on both platforms, I do know of some, but they will require licenses for both platforms, so you will pay twice.  Best bet for both platforms is JRiver.
  
 My pick for Mac is Decibel.  My pick for PC is Foobar.
  
 Enjoy!


----------



## joeexp

johnstac said:


> By the way, where does Spotify fall when it comes to music players. Is it considered one?


 

 If you subscribe you get better quality streaming. And if you use something like Sonic Studio Amarra SQ (on OS X)  it actually sounds pretty decent.
 Depending on your DAC obviously.


----------



## Zoom25

joeexp said:


> If you subscribe you get better quality streaming. And if you use something like Sonic Studio Amarra SQ (on OS X)  it actually sounds pretty decent.
> Depending on your DAC obviously.


 

 +1 on Amarra SQ. Helpful with Netflix and Spotify.


----------



## isquirrel

Listening to Tidal this morning, sounds pretty good


----------



## bpcans

isquirrel said:


> Listening to Tidal this morning, sounds pretty good


Are you recommending that I try Tidal this evening?


----------



## isquirrel

bpcans said:


> Are you recommending that I try Tidal this evening?


 

 I think so..
  
 Its certainly worth a trial of it, the SQ is not A+ but its the content that got me hooked


----------



## bixby

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting Tidal will play all my files on my hard drive and sound almost as good as A+?

And would you rec the stand alone Tidal app or using the browser?


----------



## bpcans

Just sat down to listen to some music and was advised that a new version of Audirvana+ 2.0.6 was available.


----------



## desertblues

johnstac said:


> Hey guys. So many pages. I'm just wondering if perhaps any of you could throw out a few of the most popular players. Is there any one or two that are standouts? Maybe one that can be used it both Mac and Windows? Probably to much to ask. I used MediaMonkey after I was so sick of iTunes that I just had to rebel. I bought a lifetime license but the more I used it, the more I began to not like it. I have since began using my Mac more but I still use both regularly. If I had to pick one though, it would have to be Mac. I use Windows for work and gaming and Mac for everything else. I have been using iTunes though ever since I started with Mac because I wasn't aware of any alternatives. Now I'm starting to get a little bit more serious about my music and looking for a better alternative. Suggestions welcomed.




I wonder why there seems to be no love for Pure Music here. I started with Bitperfect and tried the PM free trial about 3 years ago, loved it for it's SQ and ability to download and play flac files on my iMac. It has been trouble free on my Mac and worked just fine with several dacs (currently Woo WA7). It uses itunes library which is another plus for accessing your music. I would recommend it for mac.


----------



## bpcans

desertblues said:


> I wonder why there seems to be no love for Pure Music here. I started with Bitperfect and tried the PM free trial about 3 years ago, loved it for it's SQ and ability to download and play flac files on my iMac. It has been trouble free on my Mac and worked just fine with several dacs (currently Woo WA7). It uses itunes library which is another plus for accessing your music. I would recommend it for mac.


I also started with Bitperfect, it just works without any of the other bells and whistles that the other better reviewed music players have.


----------



## isquirrel

bixby said:


> Wait a minute. Are you suggesting Tidal will play all my files on my hard drive and sound almost as good as A+?
> 
> And would you rec the stand alone Tidal app or using the browser?


 

 No Tidal is only for the Tidal music streaming service, however Tidal streams lossless CD quality files.


----------



## isquirrel

bpcans said:


> Just sat down to listen to some music and was advised that a new version of Audirvana+ 2.0.6 was available.


 

 Seems to have fixed the duplicate files issue and sync issues I was having with 2.05


----------



## AnakChan

Does anyone have A+ 2.0.6 kinda just hang on you? It plays for awhile (admittedly not seen how many minutes or how many tracks) then it stops with an application not responding - i.e. app hung.


----------



## isquirrel

anakchan said:


> Does anyone have A+ 2.0.6 kinda just hang on you? It plays for awhile (admittedly not seen how many minutes or how many tracks) then it stops with an application not responding - i.e. app hung.


 
  
 Using 2.06 don't have the issues you describe, is it trying to sync when it hangs?


----------



## bpcans

isquirrel said:


> Seems to have fixed the duplicate files issue and sync issues I was having with 2.05


PTL!


----------



## elnero

johnstac said:


> Hey guys. So many pages. I'm just wondering if perhaps any of you could throw out a few of the most popular players. Is there any one or two that are standouts? Maybe one that can be used it both Mac and Windows? Probably to much to ask. I used MediaMonkey after I was so sick of iTunes that I just had to rebel. I bought a lifetime license but the more I used it, the more I began to not like it. I have since began using my Mac more but I still use both regularly. If I had to pick one though, it would have to be Mac. I use Windows for work and gaming and Mac for everything else. I have been using iTunes though ever since I started with Mac because I wasn't aware of any alternatives. Now I'm starting to get a little bit more serious about my music and looking for a better alternative. Suggestions welcomed.


 
  
 From my own personal experience, when I switched to a Mac a little over a year ago I tried a good portion of the available music players. The only ones to sound significantly better to me were Audirvana Plus and Amarra. My personal preference for sound went to Amarra but its lack of gapless on FLAC files turned me off and, at the time, it was priced significantly more than A+ so I went with A+.
  
 I used Foobar on PC for years (if I remember correctly, I was the first to talk about Foobar on these forums) but I ended up switching to JRiver because I preferred the interface and in comparisons I wasn't sure I could detect much, if any difference between the two. I had been hopeful that the Mac version would be as good or better than the other Mac based players but both A+ and Amarra offered significant improvements in sound to my ears.
  
 I only use A+ in standalone mode so when I saw the announcement of version 2 with the library integration I was pretty excited because it seemed like it would be closer to working like JRiver. Alas, when I finally tried the trial I wasn't terrible impressed with how it worked, it just felt kludgy and awkward and then there were reports of all kinds of bugs so I decided to stick with version 1.5.12 for the time being.
  
 At the same time as trying A+ 2.0 I decided to try Amarra 3 because the price has come down and I was curious to see if they solved the gapless issues. They haven't but I have to admit the gapless issues with FLAC are better, almost unnoticeable now and I again was reminded that I prefer the sound of Amarra to the version of A+ I've been using. A couple or weeks ago A+ started giving me some grief so on a spur of the moment decision I bought Amarra 3 on one of their deals. I haven't used A+ since other than to briefly compare the sound again and confirm that I prefer the sound of Amarra 3.


----------



## AnakChan

isquirrel said:


> Using 2.06 don't have the issues you describe, is it trying to sync when it hangs?


 
  
 I'll play around with it a little more. See if I can dig into the crash reporter. Cheers.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

elnero said:


> From my own personal experience, when I switched to a Mac a little over a year ago I tried a good portion of the available music players. The only ones to sound significantly better to me were Audirvana Plus and Amarra. My personal preference for sound went to Amarra but its lack of gapless on FLAC files turned me off and, at the time, it was priced significantly more than A+ so I went with A+.
> 
> I used Foobar on PC for years (if I remember correctly, I was the first to talk about Foobar on these forums) but I ended up switching to JRiver because I preferred the interface and in comparisons I wasn't sure I could detect much, if any difference between the two. I had been hopeful that the Mac version would be as good or better than the other Mac based players but both A+ and Amarra offered significant improvements in sound to my ears.
> 
> ...


 

 What did you like/prefer about the sound of Amarra 3?


----------



## BirdManOfCT

anakchan said:


> Does anyone have A+ 2.0.6 kinda just hang on you? It plays for awhile (admittedly not seen how many minutes or how many tracks) then it stops with an application not responding - i.e. app hung.


 

 Funny, when I read your post, maybe an hour ago, I hadn't had that problem. Just did. In my case, I let it "spin" while I searched for your post. During that time, I'd clicked next, but nothing happening. Suddenly, it started playing, some 3 minutes into what I'd guess was the "next" song.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

A couple songs later, "locked up" again. Restarted and it picked up at that song, but then wouldn't go to the next song. Shut down app again and restarted, selected song manually and it played, then shuffle didn't work even though shuffle is selected. Man....


----------



## Lohb

elnero said:


> From my own personal experience, when I switched to a Mac a little over a year ago I tried a good portion of the available music players. The only ones to sound significantly better to me were Audirvana Plus and Amarra. My personal preference for sound went to Amarra but its lack of gapless on FLAC files turned me off and, at the time, it was priced significantly more than A+ so I went with A+.
> 
> I used Foobar on PC for years (if I remember correctly, I was the first to talk about Foobar on these forums) but I ended up switching to JRiver because I preferred the interface and in comparisons I wasn't sure I could detect much, if any difference between the two. I had been hopeful that the Mac version would be as good or better than the other Mac based players but both A+ and Amarra offered significant improvements in sound to my ears.
> 
> ...


 

 Did you ever try the latest version of Decibel ? Is the reason you like Amarra because it sounds more natural to you over A+ ?


----------



## elnero

birdmanofct said:


> What did you like/prefer about the sound of Amarra 3?


 
  


lohb said:


> Did you ever try the latest version of Decibel ? Is the reason you like Amarra because it sounds more natural to you over A+ ?


 
  
 I haven't tried the latest version of Decibel but it was part of the comparisons I made about a year ago. I don't remember the specifics but I do remember that I didn't find it much different in sound quality to Vox. Do you feel it's made significant improvements over the last year?
  
 It's been a year since I did my more in-depth comparison and I haven't had time to do any serious comparisons but yes, Amarra sounding more natural would be the easiest way to put it. In a quick comparison to A+, I thought A+ sounded more forward, thinner and harder. There's was a bit more edge to the music.


----------



## Lohb

elnero said:


> I thought A+ sounded more forward, thinner and harder. There's was a bit more edge to the music.


 
 New to Decibel, so cannot compare old one but I agree on A+ assessment with 1.5.12 anyway. A bit too analytical/cold sounding.


----------



## NinjaHamster

elnero said:


> I haven't tried the latest version of Decibel but it was part of the comparisons I made about a year ago. I don't remember the specifics but I do remember that I didn't find it much different in sound quality to Vox. Do you feel it's made significant improvements over the last year?
> 
> It's been a year since I did my more in-depth comparison and I haven't had time to do any serious comparisons but yes, Amarra sounding more natural would be the easiest way to put it. In a quick comparison to A+, I thought A+ sounded more forward, thinner and harder. There's was a bit more edge to the music.




+1


----------



## AnakChan

birdmanofct said:


> A couple songs later, "locked up" again. Restarted and it picked up at that song, but then wouldn't go to the next song. Shut down app again and restarted, selected song manually and it played, then shuffle didn't work even though shuffle is selected. Man....


Didn't mean to jinx you man .

Actually I think mine is resource related. I did have Macscan running at a few Java apps running at that time.

I killed MacScan, play an album & let it run through over dinner & it actually completed the whole album with no hang ups.

Funny as I have 16GB RAM, 200GB free space, loads of swap, & I'm not running anything intensive at that time - Chrome, some Java stuff, e-mail, MacScan, A+


----------



## reiserFS

Tried 2.0.6 the other day and I gotta say that I like the sound signature of 1.5.12 more than the one of 2.0.6. More intimate I'd say?


----------



## isquirrel

reiserfs said:


> Tried 2.0.6 the other day and I gotta say that I like the sound signature of 1.5.12 more than the one of 2.0.6. More intimate I'd say?


 

 After reading your post I went back to 1.5.12 from 2.06 and I have to say I think its a bit more musical, not much but 2.06 is a bit in your face for me. 
  
 Plus it has drag and drop


----------



## Lohb

isquirrel said:


> After reading your post I went back to 1.5.12 from 2.06 and I have to say I think its a bit more musical, not much but 2.06 is a bit in your face for me.
> 
> Plus it has drag and drop


 

 and 1.5.9 is supposed to be better than those ones... !
 A+ should focus on the drag-drop stuff /crashes and get the engine back on point !
 I think 1.5.9 cannot be downloaded now ;-(


----------



## georgelai57

lohb said:


> and 1.5.9 is supposed to be better than those ones... !
> A+ should focus on the drag-drop stuff /crashes and get the engine back on point !
> I think 1.5.9 cannot be downloaded now ;-(


I wish I could go back to any 1.5


----------



## Lohb

georgelai57 said:


> I wish I could go back to any 1.5


 

 You can install old one side-by-side, no ? Or did your old serial get de-activated...rolled into 2.0 ?


----------



## georgelai57

lohb said:


> You can install old one side-by-side, no ? Or did your old serial get de-activated...rolled into 2.0 ?



I believe the old one gets deactivated.


----------



## elnero

lohb said:


> and 1.5.9 is supposed to be better than those ones... !
> A+ should focus on the drag-drop stuff /crashes and get the engine back on point !
> I think 1.5.9 cannot be downloaded now ;-(


I think you might mean 1.4.9?


----------



## Lohb

elnero said:


> I think you might mean 1.4.9?


 


ninjahamster said:


> If you prefer Decibel, try Audirvana 1.5.9. It is a lot richer, less analytical and more fun than the later versions to my ears.


 
 Yep, that is why 1.5.9 was in my head...this member also recommended it and as it turns out this was the one I bought with my license and still have the DMG on my external.... if anyone wants it I can dropbox it. Of course you will need your valid license to use it after the trial period.


----------



## NinjaHamster

lohb said:


> Yep, that is why 1.5.9 was in my head...this member also recommended it and as it turns out this was the one I bought with my license and still have the DMG on my external.... if anyone wants it I can dropbox it. Of course you will need your valid license to use it after the trial period.




Nope. Definately 1.5.9. NOT 1.4.9 !!


----------



## NinjaHamster

1.5.9 is my favourite Audirvana Plus (still), though I think Amarra is a bit better.

You can also email Damien (Audirvana Plus developer) and request an older version if you'd like ...


----------



## bpcans

ninjahamster said:


> 1.5.9 is my favourite Audirvana Plus (still), though I think Amarra is a bit better.
> 
> You can also email Damien (Audirvana Plus developer) and request an older version if you'd like ...


I didn't know you could request an older software version. Thanks for the info.


----------



## NinjaHamster

No probs - that's how I got 1.5.10 back after I accidentally deleted it.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

I'm getting sick of the problems with A+ v2. One of the reasons I bought it over the others was the reported lack of issues. I'm regretting that, now. Come on, can't sync an album from iTunes and keep the tracks in order? Grr.


----------



## MacedonianHero

birdmanofct said:


> I'm getting sick of the problems with A+ v2. One of the reasons I bought it over the others was the reported lack of issues. I'm regretting that, now. Come on, can't sync an album from iTunes and keep the tracks in order? Grr.


 

 Seriously? Maybe you should re-install it? Mine's been flawless (I got it on the release date) since day 1. Amarra 3.0 is another story though.


----------



## Currawong

Presently, I'm using A+ mainly with my NOS1704, as the up-sampling makes the DAC sound almost as good as the Hugo.
  
 Amarra 3 I use with the Hugo. While A+ is subtly more "clear" souding, Amarra has a subtly wider, more relaxed presentation. It still bugs the crap out of me that if I edit the Amarra playlist in any way the music pauses. It is one of the worst-designed pieces of software I've ever encountered -- it is as if the people who code it don't know what threading is.
  
 Quote:


anakchan said:


> birdmanofct said:
> 
> 
> > A couple songs later, "locked up" again. Restarted and it picked up at that song, but then wouldn't go to the next song. Shut down app again and restarted, selected song manually and it played, then shuffle didn't work even though shuffle is selected. Man....
> ...


 
  
 MacScan is a waste of time.


----------



## bpcans

birdmanofct said:


> I'm getting sick of the problems with A+ v2. One of the reasons I bought it over the others was the reported lack of issues. I'm regretting that, now. Come on, can't sync an album from iTunes and keep the tracks in order? Grr.


*


macedonianhero said:



			Seriously? Maybe you should re-install it? Mine's been flawless (I got it on the release date) since day 1. Amarra 3.0 is another story though. 

Click to expand...

* I've experienced several glitches with A+ V2 point whatever since installing it. To my ears it does sound pretty good. Maybe I'll take MH's suggestion and reinstall it. Not being as computer savvy as some of you here I'll simply ask this question: could the fact that I have several different music players on my MBP, Bitperfect, VOX, JRiver, and at one time Amarra, have anything to do with the glitches?


----------



## AnakChan

birdmanofct said:


> A couple songs later, "locked up" again. Restarted and it picked up at that song, but then wouldn't go to the next song. Shut down app again and restarted, selected song manually and it played, then shuffle didn't work even though shuffle is selected. Man....


I have 1.5.12 & 2.06 (is it 06?) running...mutually exclusive naturally. Never went to 1.59 so I don't know if it disables.


----------



## elnero

ninjahamster said:


> Nope. Definately 1.5.9. NOT 1.4.9 !!


 

 Sorry, I thought I had read somewhere that 1.4.9 was considered one of the better sounding releases. At least I think that was the number, maybe I actually got it mixed up and it's 1.5.9.
  
 On a side note, I'm a little annoyed, I just purchased Amarra 3 with 10% discount code only to find out that they're having a Black Friday sale at 50% off. That means its selling right now for $50 which is good news for anyone looking to purchase Amarra 3 at a cheaper price than A+.


----------



## bpcans

macedonianhero said:


> Seriously? Maybe you should re-install it? Mine's been flawless (I got it on the release date) since day 1. Amarra 3.0 is another story though.


MH, IYO what are the benefits of Amarra 3.0 compared to A+ 2.0.6?


----------



## MacedonianHero

bpcans said:


> MH, IYO what are the benefits of Amarra 3.0 compared to A+ 2.0.6?


 
  
 Both are excellent. Amarra 3.0 is a bit more balanced / neutral, but A+ 2.0 is more dynamic with better "punch".


----------



## bpcans

macedonianhero said:


> Both are excellent. Amarra 3.0 is a bit more balanced / neutral, but A+ 2.0 is more dynamic with better "punch".


Thanks MH. No more music playing software for me right own. I'm on a trying to get remasters of my favourite old rock albums binge right now. LCD-X or Senn HD800, I can't decide.


----------



## MacedonianHero

bpcans said:


> Thanks MH. No more music playing software for me right own. I'm on a trying to get remasters of my favourite old rock albums binge right now. LCD-X or Senn HD800, I can't decide.


 
  
 For rock, I'd go with the LCD-X!


----------



## bpcans

macedonianhero said:


> For rock, I'd go with the LCD-X!


Only problem is that I love opera too. Do you think Sennheiser will release a new flagship hp next year?


----------



## MacedonianHero

bpcans said:


> Only problem is that I love opera too. Do you think Sennheiser will release a new flagship hp next year?


 
  
 The LCD-X are great for opera as well. That's why they're my favourite Audeze headphone...pretty much sound amazing with everything I've thrown at them. With regards to a new flagship for Sennheiser, all I've seen is speculation...and mostly towards an uber pricey Orpheus.


----------



## bpcans

macedonianhero said:


> The LCD-X are great for opera as well. That's why they're my favourite Audeze headphone...pretty much sound amazing with everything I've thrown at them. With regards to a new flagship for Sennheiser, all I've seen is speculation...and mostly towards an uber pricey Orpheus.


Plus the X's are easier to drive than the 800's, which is a consideration because I'm using a Woo WA6 for an amp. I did try the 800's with the gain switched to high and I thought they sounded pretty good. Others will say that the 800's need juice to really bloom though.


----------



## MacedonianHero

bpcans said:


> Plus the X's are easier to drive than the 800's, which is a consideration because I'm using a Woo WA6 for an amp. I did try the 800's with the gain switched to high and I thought they sounded pretty good. Others will say that the 800's need juice to really bloom though.


 
  
 Good point. To get the most out of the HD800s will be a significant journey.


----------



## bpcans

macedonianhero said:


> Good point. To get the most out of the HD800s will be a significant journey.


I think I've got my endgame solution for driving the 800's, if they're what I really want, all mapped out. Both the X's and 800's are great hp's, but the 800's win hands down for comfort. I'm feeling better about Audirvana+ 2.0.6 now after taking some time to familerize myself with how A+ and my MBP actually work. Non-iTunes integrated in interger mode 2 has what others have described as a clinical or analytical sound. I'd call it accurate and detailed.


----------



## Krutsch

anakchan said:


> Does anyone have A+ 2.0.6 kinda just hang on you? It plays for awhile (admittedly not seen how many minutes or how many tracks) then it stops with an application not responding - i.e. app hung.


 

 +1 ... I am having similar issues running A+ 2.0.6. I paid the $79.00 for the A+ 2 upgrade and installed it on my 2-channel system's headless Mac Mini. Runs most of the time, but if I leave it alone for a while, come back and play a track, it will hang after the first track. Not all the time, of course, but often enough that I have (yet again) gone back to BitPerfect for the Mini and headless playback with the Apple Remote app on an iPad.
  
 1.5.12 was crashing the finder in the same setup and I was hoping that V2 would work reliably, but alas... I am still using it on my MBP, but it isn't left running 24/7 in that environment, so I am not seeing the same issue.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

bpcans said:


> Thanks MH. No more music playing software for me right own. I'm on a trying to get remasters of my favourite old rock albums binge right now. LCD-X or Senn HD800, I can't decide.


 

 Same here, regards to music. Spending more than I expected. LOL


----------



## BirdManOfCT

krutsch said:


> +1 ... I am having similar issues running A+ 2.0.6. I paid the $79.00 for the A+ 2 upgrade and installed it on my 2-channel system's headless Mac Mini. Runs most of the time, but if I leave it alone for a while, come back and play a track, it will hang after the first track. Not all the time, of course, but often enough that I have (yet again) gone back to BitPerfect for the Mini and headless playback with the Apple Remote app on an iPad.
> 
> 1.5.12 was crashing the finder in the same setup and I was hoping that V2 would work reliably, but alas... I am still using it on my MBP, but it isn't left running 24/7 in that environment, so I am not seeing the same issue.


 

 I wonder if A+ is having memory-leak issues. My memory use creeps up, more than I've allowed in the buffer selection. I'm considering a memory upgrade, which is just a workaround, but in the meantime I've cut the A+ buffer down.


----------



## Krutsch

birdmanofct said:


> I wonder if A+ is having memory-leak issues. My memory use creeps up, more than I've allowed in the buffer selection. I'm considering a memory upgrade, which is just a workaround, but in the meantime I've cut the A+ buffer down.


 

 That would be my guess, but the buffer space and the RAM used by the app are likely not the same (i.e. changing the buffer size shouldn't change anything).


----------



## bpcans

birdmanofct said:


> Same here, regards to music. Spending more than I expected. LOL


That is so easy to do. If I intentionally go to a music store its gonna be at least $35 bucks, and that's buying mostly used CD's and LP's. I find if I limit myself to just the stuff I run into vicariously, checkout counters at Target, Wal-Mart, Walgreens, etc., I'm more satisfied because it's like I've stumbled over a gold nugget. This could all change when I get a DSD capable DAC and I go crazy downloading from the interweb. I'm lucky living where I do because recorded music is so readily available.


----------



## isquirrel

I am just rockin TIDAL ATM, I am addicted, does;t sound quire as good as A+ but who cares when there's so much music to explore.
  
 Anyone else using it?


----------



## BirdManOfCT

bpcans said:


> That is so easy to do. If I intentionally go to a music store its gonna be at least $35 bucks, and that's buying mostly used CD's and LP's. I find if I limit myself to just the stuff I run into vicariously, checkout counters at Target, Wal-Mart, Walgreens, etc., I'm more satisfied because it's like I've stumbled over a gold nugget. This could all change when I get a DSD capable DAC and I go crazy downloading from the interweb. I'm lucky living where I do because recorded music is so readily available.


 

 Could happen. Just looked at my monthly budget summary and I spent 25 times more than I usually do long-term (2400% increase). That will probably subside. At least until, possibly like you, I get a DSD DAC. LOL


----------



## Lohb

isquirrel said:


> I am just rockin TIDAL ATM, I am addicted, does;t sound quire as good as A+ but who cares when there's so much music to explore.
> 
> Anyone else using it?


 

 Streaming lossless through a free software engine like A+..... Now there's a market disruptor like Light Harmonic !


----------



## bixby

isquirrel said:


> I am just rockin TIDAL ATM, I am addicted, does;t sound quire as good as A+ but who cares when there's so much music to explore.
> 
> Anyone else using it?




are you playing tidal through a browser or the stand alone downloadable app?

a friend has said the difference is staggering!


----------



## isquirrel

bixby said:


> are you playing tidal through a browser or the stand alone downloadable app?
> 
> a friend has said the difference is staggering!


 
  
 Using the stand alone app on a Mac.
  
 Would be great if you could route it through A+'s engine for even better SQ


----------



## bixby

Certainly would be an interesting experiment if you could.


----------



## Lohb

bixby said:


> Certainly would be an interesting experiment if you could.


 

 Good call on Decibel. All-round more natural presentation....A+ jumps around too much on iterations and goes towards analytic/harder presentation.
 But depending on the can I'll use both.


----------



## elnero

lohb said:


> Good call on Decibel. All-round more natural presentation....A+ jumps around too much on iterations and goes towards analytic/harder presentation.
> But depending on the can I'll use both.


Have you tried Amarra 3?


----------



## bpcans

lohb said:


> Good call on Decibel. All-round more natural presentation....A+ jumps around too much on iterations and goes towards analytic/harder presentation.
> But depending on the can I'll use both.


*


elnero said:



			Have you tried Amarra 3?
		
Click to expand...

*I think that JRiver 20 falls somewhere between A+'s crystalline detail and Amarra's soft and lush presentation IMO.


----------



## Krutsch

isquirrel said:


> I am just rockin TIDAL ATM, I am addicted, does;t sound quire as good as A+ but who cares when there's so much music to explore.
> 
> Anyone else using it?


 

 I gave it a month and then cancelled my subscription. It sounds nice, and I liked the app, but I use streaming services to discover new music; if I like something, I order a used (or new) CD from Amazon.
  
 For me, Spotify has W-A-A-Y-Y more curated playlists than Tidal; especially when you browse outside of Pop genres. Spotify is MP3/320 and that's all I need for playlist cruising - sounds just as good, frankly, as Tidal played via Airplay from my iPad to my 2-channel system.
  
 Most importantly, since there is both a free and a premium model for Spotify, Tidal has no chance of keeping up with the growth of users and, subsequently, the number of user curated playlists. And, no, I don't work for Spotify.


----------



## elnero

bpcans said:


> I think that JRiver 20 falls somewhere between A+'s crystalline detail and Amarra's soft and lush presentation IMO.


 

 I wasn't impressed with JRiver on the Mac when I tried it previously. I thought both A+ and Amarra were a good step up.


----------



## NinjaHamster

Doesn't Amarra now come with a sound-streaming solution to use the Amarra engine on streaming sound? Would be interesting to see how that goes with Tidal!


----------



## bpcans

This morning I think it's good to have more than one music playing software on my MBP. VOX for its simplicity. iTunes for easily purchasing music, JRiver for its user interface, and Audirvana+ for its sound quality.


----------



## isquirrel

bpcans said:


> This morning I think it's good to have more than one music playing software on my MBP. VOX for its simplicity. iTunes for easily purchasing music, JRiver for its user interface, and Audirvana+ for its sound quality.


 

 Yep, kind where I am at, I can't leave A+ it sounds too good, exploring music on Tidal & Spotify and iTunes, not forgetting HD Tracks


----------



## bpcans

isquirrel said:


> Yep, kind where I am at, I can't leave A+ it sounds too good, exploring music on Tidal & Spotify and iTunes, not forgetting HD Tracks


There are so many different ways to purchase and listen to music these days that I find it disconcerting sometimes. Yesterday I bought four remastered CD's, Led Zeppilin II and Houses of the Holy, "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" by Elton John, and Michael Jacksons "Thriller". Yeah, I'm that old. I had previously purchased LP's of these recordings, omg, many decades ago. Now I loved and still love LP records, but gee whiz it is the 21st century. My sister says why don't I come into the future and just download hi-rez music off the interweb and burn copies. For some reason I like the artwork and the extensive liner notes that you get on some of your better offerings. What good is listening to the opera "Carmen" without the libretto?


----------



## isquirrel

bpcans said:


> There are so many different ways to purchase and listen to music these days that I find it disconcerting sometimes. Yesterday I bought four remastered CD's, Led Zeppilin II and Houses of the Holy, "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" by Elton John, and Michael Jacksons "Thriller". Yeah, I'm that old. I had previously purchased LP's of these recordings, omg, many decades ago. Now I loved and still love LP records, but gee whiz it is the 21st century. My sister says why don't I come into the future and just download hi-rez music off the interweb and burn copies. For some reason I like the artwork and the extensive liner notes that you get on some of your better offerings. What good is listening to the opera "Carmen" without the libretto?


 

 Mate, give Amarra SQ V2 a go, works well with streaming sources, using it with Tidal.


----------



## joeexp

Confirmed: Amarra SQ 2.0 really works well with Tidal -


----------



## georgelai57

Does anyone know how to reduce the length of a song in JRiver MC20? For some reason I can't find it in their Help pages. Thanks


----------



## Krutsch

Quote: 





georgelai57 said:


> Does anyone know how to reduce the length of a song in JRiver MC20? For some reason I can't find it in their Help pages. Thanks


 

 Press the stop button?


----------



## BirdManOfCT

georgelai57 said:


> Does anyone know how to reduce the length of a song in JRiver MC20? For some reason I can't find it in their Help pages. Thanks


 
  
  


krutsch said:


> Press the stop button?


 

 Delete?


----------



## BirdManOfCT

I'm still having issues with A+ (rather, C-) picking up on 192/24 after restarts. I just unplugged USB 5 times, restarted DAC, restarted A+. Grr.
  
 This is quickly joining the ranks of "top" 10 products with worst support I've seen. If it didn't do an adequate job, I'd toss it. Sounds like room for the competition.


----------



## bpcans

birdmanofct said:


> I'm still having issues with A+ (rather, C-) picking up on 192/24 after restarts. I just unplugged USB 5 times, restarted DAC, restarted A+. Grr.
> 
> This is quickly joining the ranks of "top" 10 products with worst support I've seen. If it didn't do an adequate job, I'd toss it. Sounds like room for the competition.


Audirvana+ is quirky and somewhat buggy despite having pretty good sound. If I can find a stray honeybee lying around I'll be spending it on Amarra 3.0.


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> Audirvana+ is quirky and somewhat buggy despite having pretty good sound. If I can find a stray honeybee lying around I'll be spending it on Amarra 3.0.


 

 +1 ... I had to give up using it with a headless Mac Mini in my 2-channel system (went back to BitPerfect, which has its own issues, but is very robust).


----------



## elvergun

Any opinions on Tomawawk player?
  
  
 http://www.tomahawk-player.org/


----------



## BirdManOfCT

krutsch said:


> +1 ... I had to give up using it with a headless Mac Mini in my 2-channel system (went back to BitPerfect, which has its own issues, but is very robust).


 

 Thanks!


----------



## BirdManOfCT

Just installed A+ v.2.0.7 update. It's good to see progress.


----------



## bpcans

birdmanofct said:


> Just installed A+ v.2.0.7 update. It's good to see progress.


I installed it too this afternoon. Exactly what progress did you notice?


----------



## BirdManOfCT

bpcans said:


> I installed it too this afternoon. Exactly what progress did you notice?


 

 I didn't notice anything, yet. I was looking at the release notes and was just glad that some things were fixed. I'll see if it fixed any of my issues. I'm just thinking that it's "progress" in that if my issues aren't fixed, maybe they will be soon.


----------



## bpcans

^^^ I didn't notice any discernable improvement over the last version either. My relationship with Audirvana has gone from excitement and frustration to wanting this piece of audio software to just kinda work maybe sometimes.


----------



## b0bb

2.0.7 is mainly functional fixes to the library management and the UI
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/audirvana-2-0-a-21673/index64.html#post375573

 Add rating and album rating as criteria for smart playlists
 Read/write InfoTags in WAV files
 Read/write ID3v2 tags in FLAC files when the standard XiphComment tags are not present
 Add album artists in the fields searched when using "All" criteria in the search field in tracks list view
 Add switch to Library mode in scripting interface
 Add title as 3rd sort criteria (after disc and track number) for tracks sorting inside an album (helps with files missing track number metadata)
 Delete key can be used to delete the selected playlist or folder
 Creating a folder or playlist triggers editing its name (no need to explicitly click on rename just after)
 Bug fixes:
 Fix wrong formatting of duration criteria in smart playlist editor on some systems
 Fix 00:00 duration on some tracks with unreadable metadata
 Fix inability to read some DFF files
 Fix duplicate tracks appearing sometimes after having renamed a synched folder


----------



## georgelai57

I'm a Mac user and I love the A+ simplicity but as recent posters have said, v2 is buggy. Just updated this morning and, well, my FLAC songs sounded like it was recorded with a smartphone in a noisy night club. Switched over to my JRiver MC 20 and much as I hate its complexity, it worked fine.
  
 A+ 1.5 was great, I never needed the library function, and I wasted my money upgrading. Improvements (library etc) be damned if it is so buggy.


----------



## Krutsch

krutsch said:


> +1 ... I had to give up using it with a headless Mac Mini in my 2-channel system (went back to BitPerfect, which has its own issues, but is very robust).


 

 Well, I'm eating my words here... I'm back to A+ with the headless Mac Mini. BitPerfect has a problem reconnecting to the DAC if you play iTunes after powering down the DAC (think: power off the DAC without first pausing iTunes and/or un-pausing / playing iTunes before powering-on the DAC). In these cases, you have to remote screen into your Mac and fix things. With A+, it will re-connect to the preferred DAC in the use cases above, without remote screening into the Mac.
  
 There is another cool feature of A+: you can set the delay for switching sample rates. My 2-channel system's DAC (NAD D 1050) takes some time to switch sample rates, which under BitPerfect causes cropping of the beginning of the track. With A+, I can set the delay to 1.5 sec, for example, and it's all good.
  
 Let's hope 2.0.6 "...makes some progress..." on the suspected memory leak issue


----------



## BirdManOfCT

b0bb said:


> 2.0.7 is mainly functional fixes to the library management and the UI
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/audirvana-2-0-a-21673/index64.html#post375573
> 
> Add rating and album rating as criteria for smart playlists
> ...


 

 I wouldn't mind some of the "library" functions working. I just selected "repeat" because I wanted to end the evening on that particular song, again. Nope, it continued to the next song in the library. Grr.


----------



## Mortone

Anyone try Bitperfect, or  the variation GeekPerfect Playback Software?


----------



## joeexp

mortone said:


> Anyone try Bitperfect, or  the variation GeekPerfect Playback Software?


 

 I bought Bitperfect  - it's very convenient if you use iTunes for most of your listening. However I still think that Audirvana and Amarra ar better sounding Players.


----------



## Krutsch

mortone said:


> Anyone try Bitperfect, or  the variation GeekPerfect Playback Software?


 
  
 It's nice and for $10 US (or whatever is it now, an incredible value).
  


joeexp said:


> I bought Bitperfect  - it's very convenient if you use iTunes for most of your listening. However *I still think that Audirvana and Amarra ar better sounding* Players.


 
  
 I really want to believe that is true, as a part-time subjectivist, but as a software engineer I am struggling to understand how that can be. These players all playback from memory, avoiding disc/network processing or delays, and they all feed modern DACs using a direct/integer mode, bypassing the operating system's audio processing layers and with no conversion to floating point math.
  
 Unless DACs have sensitivity to how data is pushed into I/O buffers, I am dying to know these players can sound different from one another (assuming no forced up-sampling).
  
 Not trolling; curious.


----------



## Zoom25

Comparing standard players like VLC, Decibel, Amarra, Audirvana; I found that Audirvana has the most unique sound among them all. It's laid back with an intimate soundstage where you get a 1-on-1 with the singer. Amarra is more like the stock players, such as VLC - closest to neutral. However, Amarra just takes it to a whole another level with it's sound engine. Audirvana works really well for bright systems or if they're lacking in the mids though. Super useful for studying without being disturbing.
  
 Might get a mic and try to get room calibration going to see if I can push Amarra further.


----------



## everybest

Will Audirvana sync playlists with my iPhone? If not, what program would you recommend that could do this?  So far I've only come across J River Media Center and Media Monkey.


----------



## Krutsch

everybest said:


> *Will Audirvana sync playlists with my iPhone? If not, what program would you recommend *that could do this?  So far I've only come across J River Media Center and Media Monkey.


 
  
 How about iTunes? Seriously, you can run A+ in iTunes integration mode and use iTunes itself to sync to your phone.


----------



## Lorspeaker

i just came from listening to an expensive dac amp setup....v impressed;
 came home, unhooked  ITUNEs from Audirvana2....wow that (same?) clarity,
 totally killed the urge to upgrade my dac


----------



## everybest

krutsch said:


> How about iTunes? Seriously, you can run A+ in iTunes integration mode and use iTunes itself to sync to your phone.


 
 Thanks, I'll try that.  A+ = Audirvana Plus?  The integration allows me to import flac into my library? And can I sync them on the fly?  
  
 Sorry about all the questions.  Still new to mac and trying to figure everything out.


----------



## Krutsch

everybest said:


> Thanks, I'll try that.  A+ = Audirvana Plus?  The integration allows me to import flac into my library? And can I sync them on the fly?
> 
> Sorry about all the questions.  Still new to mac and trying to figure everything out.


 

 Sorry... no, I must have missed the FLAC part in an earlier post. If you want to sync FLAC files to your iPhone, I recommend one of two approaches:
  
 1. Install Google Play Music on your iPhone, sign-up for the free Google Play Music account and sync your FLAC tracks to the cloud; then, play them back as high-quality MP3/320 tracks and store your entire library in the cloud (you can "pin" playlists, albums, whatever, so they sync/cache permanently on your phone for off-line use); works and sounds great.
  
 2. Download a program for your Mac called XLD (Google it...) and convert your FLAC files to ALAC, load into iTunes and, again, sync to your iPhone.
  
 FWIW, I have a large collection (well, large for me is 13,000+ tracks) and I use option #1. I personally am finished 'syncing' anything to my devices and prefer to stream on-demand.
  
 I can't recommend syncing / playing FLAC on your iPhone (or any iOS device); not saying it can't be done, but...
  
 If you had an Android I could give you another alternative, that I personally use, but the above are my recommendations for iPhones.


----------



## everybest

krutsch said:


> Sorry... no, I must have missed the FLAC part in an earlier post. If you want to sync FLAC files to your iPhone, I recommend one of two approaches:


 
  
 My bad, I neglected to mention that.  I have over 30k tracks and some music I have FLAC only.  I don't care what format it is on my phone but I would like to be able to sync those tracks as well.
  
 From what I can tell, J River converts the FLAC files to ALAC (or some other format) on the fly during the syncing process, so I'll probably give that a try.
  
 Thanks for the help


----------



## everybest

I'm not sure that I really like J River.  If I go with the conversion route, is there a way to bulk convert all flacs without having to sort through all my folders?


----------



## Krutsch

everybest said:


> I'm not sure that I really like J River.  If I go with the conversion route, is there a way to bulk convert all flacs without having to sort through all my folders?


 

 Yes. If you are comfortable with your Mac, you can use the finder to locate all .flac files under the top-level folder, open in XLD, and convert in place (i.e. replace the originals) to ALAC.
  
 I would make a copy of your library and try it to make sure it works... then, just drag/drop into iTunes and you are all set.


----------



## miceblue

georgelai57 said:


> I'm a Mac user and I love the A+ simplicity but as recent posters have said, v2 is buggy. Just updated this morning and, well, my FLAC songs sounded like it was recorded with a smartphone in a noisy night club. Switched over to my JRiver MC 20 and much as I hate its complexity, it worked fine.
> 
> A+ 1.5 was great, I never needed the library function, and I wasted my money upgrading. Improvements (library etc) be damned if it is so buggy.



That's what I got out of the 2.0 demo: buggy and lacked the ease of use that 1.5 has. I'm still using 1.5 here too. I have no plans to upgrade to 2.0 at this point, and other media players don't look too eye-catching to me either in terms of price/performance/features.


----------



## Currawong

Audirvana doesn't like some USB DACs, that is for sure. I suspect the main problem is USB3 ports.


----------



## miceblue

krutsch said:


> joeexp said:
> 
> 
> > I bought Bitperfect  - it's very convenient if you use iTunes for most of your listening. However *I still think that Audirvana and Amarra ar better sounding* Players.
> ...



I'm curious about this too. It's hard for me to do an accurate A/B test between players because of the relatively long time needed to switch, not to mention any level-matching that would be required.

Generally I've found myself to like Audirvana Plus, but with a MacBook Pro equipped with a solid-state drive, I myself am a bit skeptical of any benefits for A+.


----------



## AnakChan

I've had stuttering issues with A+ & iTunes on Yosemite (no issues on Maverick) esp when I'm web browsing, etc.

So far I've managed to solve the problem by hooking up the DAC directly to the USB ports of my late 2009 iMac instead of using a USB hub. I'm speculating Yosemite treats external hubs somewhat differently in prioritisation to the iMac's onboard hub, compared to Mavericks & older MacOSes.


----------



## Kiats

anakchan said:


> I've had stuttering issues with A+ & iTunes on Yosemite (no issues on Maverick) esp when I'm web browsing, etc.
> 
> So far I've managed to solve the problem by hooking up the DAC directly to the USB ports of my late 2009 iMac instead of using a USB hub. I'm speculating Yosemite treats external hubs somewhat differently in prioritisation to the iMac's onboard hub, compared to Mavericks & older MacOSes.



Thanks for sharing your experience with Yosemite, Anakchan. Thus far, I've resisted upgrading to it from Mavericks on my MacMini. I connect the DAC directly to the MacMini. So, it would appear it should not adversely affect playback to upgrade. Glad to know that.


----------



## Krutsch

anakchan said:


> *I've had stuttering issues with A+ & iTunes on Yosemite* (no issues on Maverick) esp when I'm web browsing, etc.
> 
> So far I've managed to solve the problem by hooking up the DAC directly to the USB ports of my late 2009 iMac instead of using a USB hub. I'm speculating Yosemite treats external hubs somewhat differently in prioritisation to the iMac's onboard hub, compared to Mavericks & older MacOSes.


 
  
 I've had similar issues, but for me I believe it to be an issue of disk I/O. I am still running a 1st-gen Drobo F/W 800 and when the Drobo is busy re-organizing blocks, performance is extremely low (e.g. 15 MB/s, as opposed to my internal SSD at 365 MB/s). I really need to upgrade the Drobo, but it's been reliable and handles disk failures well - I've had 2 - so I archive everything on it. When I run A+ iTunes from a portable external HDD, I never have stuttering issues.


----------



## Krutsch

miceblue said:


> I'm curious about this too. It's hard for me to do an accurate A/B test between players because of the relatively long time needed to switch, not to mention any level-matching that would be required.
> 
> Generally I've found myself to like Audirvana Plus, but with a MacBook Pro equipped with a solid-state drive, *I myself am a bit skeptical of any benefits for A+*.


 
  
 Well, these are a few of the benefits for me (none of which are about SQ, although I think the system sounds great):
  
 1. Does a nice job of switching sample rates with no fuss (others do this too, but A+ works); with my DACs, it's flawless;
  
 2. A+ remembers your preferred DAC and will try to reacquire the preferred DAC if it's powered off and back on; huge benefit for a headless Mac Mini;
  
 3. A+ has a lot of flexibility; for me, I use the Spl rate switching latency to accommodate delays incurred by my DAC (again, on the headless Mac Mini);
  
 4. A+ allows use of Audio Unit plug-ins, like EQ, room correction and surround up-matrixing; I use a third-party EQ and am in the hunt for the other two plug-in categories;
  
 5. Automatic system optimization; yes, you can do this stuff yourself, but it's nice that A+ does this for you (and reverses the effects, when you are finished).
  
 I experimented with the forced up sampling stuff (i.e. iZotope 64 built-in), but no longer bother with my latest DACs on my Laptop and Headless Mac Mini systems; but it's there and works great.


----------



## Lohb

miceblue said:


> That's what I got out of the 2.0 demo: buggy and lacked the ease of use that 1.5 has. I'm still using 1.5 here too. I have no plans to upgrade to 2.0 at this point, and other media players don't look too eye-catching to me either in terms of price/performance/features.


 

 Forgot if you tried Decibel or not before...? Not feature-rich but it is more natural-sounding than A+ to my ears.....


----------



## bixby

Plus 1, but you already know that lohb


----------



## Lohb

bixby said:


> Plus 1, but you already know that lohb


 

 Yes, I should have attributed my Decibel lead...you ! It is the quiet (hype-free) low-priced winner of OSX music players....


----------



## miceblue

lohb said:


> Forgot if you tried Decibel or not before...? Not feature-rich but it is more natural-sounding than A+ to my ears.....



Yup I have the demo version installed at the moment. I haven't had the chance to do critical listening yet, but I like its user interface much more than A+ 2.0 from the demo I tried. It might be worth the money to get that over A+ 2.0 at this point in time for the UI alone. For local Head-Fi meets, the extra information that Decibel provides is much better than A+ 1.5 for sure.

The only thing I don't like about it is that it seems to be finicky when changing DACs.


Speaking of A+ 2.0 though, I found it funny that most of the comments on A+'s Facebook posts are about drag-n-drop. XD


----------



## BirdManOfCT

miceblue said:


> Speaking of A+ 2.0 though, I found it funny that most of the comments on A+'s Facebook posts are about drag-n-drop. XD


 
  
 Same here. I never use drag-n-drop. I mostly use shuffle, which still has issues (sometimes it shuffles, sometimes it plays the next in library, regardless of what the setting is).


----------



## isquirrel

currawong said:


> Audirvana doesn't like some USB DACs, that is for sure. I suspect the main problem is USB3 ports.


 

 Funny you should say that I am having some weird USB (ground loop) issues using MacBook USB 3 ports will have to try out some USB 2 ports.


----------



## Krutsch

isquirrel said:


> Funny you should say that I am having some weird USB (ground loop) issues using MacBook USB 3 ports will have to try out some USB 2 ports.


 

 Do you still have ground loop issues when the MBP is running from its battery? MacBooks are sensitive to power issues; I notice this when I travel overseas (e.g. India) as I can run my hand across the flat surface next to the keyboard and feel a little charge come across. An EE I was traveling with once explained the cause, but I forget the description (I think it has to do with poor grounding within the building's circuit).
  
 For both of my Macs, I use external USB power and I've been lucky since not to experience any ticks/pops/buzzes. For my headless Mac Mini, I use a Schiit Wyrd and for my MBP I use an iFi-Audio iUSBPower.
  
 Another thing to consider: for my headless Mac Mini, I had to look at which ports are connected to which internal controllers and make sure the DAC was connected to a port with nothing else on it (e.g. like the little IR sensor or the bluetooth controller). That made a big difference for the Mini, from a noise perspective.


----------



## isquirrel

krutsch said:


> Do you still have ground loop issues when the MBP is running from its battery? MacBooks are sensitive to power issues; I notice this when I travel overseas (e.g. India) as I can run my hand across the flat surface next to the keyboard and feel a little charge come across. An EE I was traveling with once explained the cause, but I forget the description (I think it has to do with poor grounding within the building's circuit).
> 
> For both of my Macs, I use external USB power and I've been lucky since not to experience any ticks/pops/buzzes. For my headless Mac Mini, I use a Schiit Wyrd and for my MBP I use an iFi-Audio iUSBPower.
> 
> Another thing to consider: for my headless Mac Mini, I had to look at which ports are connected to which internal controllers and make sure the DAC was connected to a port with nothing else on it (e.g. like the little IR sensor or the bluetooth controller). That made a big difference for the Mini, from a noise perspective.


 

 I am using a split LH light speed cable, using my previous amp (single ended) I could unplug the power leg, with the Woo's (which are running in balanced) I get a high pitched noise if I unplug the power leg, have tried 2 cables and swapping the cables around into different ports as you suggest, but the DAC always appears on the same bus.


----------



## Krutsch

isquirrel said:


> I am using a split LH light speed cable, *using my previous amp (single ended) I could unplug the power leg, with the Woo's (which are running in balanced) I get a high pitched noise if I unplug the power leg*, have tried 2 cables and swapping the cables around into different ports as you suggest, but *the DAC always appears on the same bus*.


 

 Hmmm... not sure what else to suggest. Your MBP has only one USB controller which services both ports, as well as some internal devices (sorry if I was misleading with the Mac Mini comment, which actually has three USB controllers and moving ports matters).
  
 If you disconnect the MBP and *then* hear issues, I wonder if there is a ground issue with the Woo or the LH DAC. That is, when you plug in the MBP, you are changing the path to ground (somehow) which changes the noise issue, even though the MBP itself uses an ungrounded/unearthed plug.
  
 I've only experienced current leakage issues using my MBP on 220v mains power (I assume AUS is 220v... never had the pleasure of visiting), when traveling to India.
  
 I found a helpful description:
  


> This is known as "current leakage", and is usually caused by the device being grounded differently than your body is. Or the device being grounded differently than the metal desk, and your hand is the conductor between the device and the desk. See the Wikipedia entry for _ground loop_.
> 
> The voltage differential between the two grounding levels causes a little current to flow from one to the other. It's usually not a safety issue, but it is an annoyance.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I would go right to that last option; you need to properly ground your MBP. If you boot-up your MBP and feel a fuzzy/tingling feeling when you rub your hand across the surface of the laptop (metal portions), what's happening is what's described above.


----------



## Krutsch

^^^ Addendum: I forgot to add: make sure your MBP, Woo and DAC are all plugged into the same electrical circuit. That's always the place to start with ground loop issues, but assuming that's already the case, my money is on my previous posts.


----------



## bpcans

Who has downloaded the new Audirvana+ 2.0.8?


----------



## isquirrel

krutsch said:


> ^^^ Addendum: I forgot to add: make sure your MBP, Woo and DAC are all plugged into the same electrical circuit. That's always the place to start with ground loop issues, but assuming that's already the case, my money is on my previous posts.


 

 Thank you very informative post. I am waiting on a Mac Pro to turn up so will be interesting to see if that suffers from the same issues. There is no electrical static on the MacBook Pro, problem only surfaced when changing amps, I have asked Jack Woo if he has any ideas.
  
 I am also getting a bit of static when I adjust the volume controls - so makes me think its the Woo's that are not grounded correctly.


----------



## isquirrel

bpcans said:


> Who has downloaded the new Audirvana+ 2.0.8?


 

 Yep I have, no difference in SQ, I am really hoping that Damien allows drag and drop at some stage, I still keep 1.5 around just in case.
  
 I prefer the SQ of 2.08 or maybe I have tuned the system around it.


----------



## bpcans

isquirrel said:


> Yep I have, no difference in SQ, I am really hoping that Damien allows drag and drop at some stage, I still keep 1.5 around just in case.
> 
> I prefer the SQ of 2.08 or maybe I have tuned the system around it.


I'm listening to Fourplay "Espirit de Four" on A+ 2.0.8 and I think the SQ is a bit less edgy overall and the bass seems more controlled than version 2.0.7. But maybe I just hope it's sounding better.


----------



## Kiats

bpcans said:


> I'm listening to Fourplay "Espirit de Four" on A+ 2.0.8 and I think the SQ is a bit less edgy overall and the bass seems more controlled than version 2.0.7. But maybe I just hope it's sounding better.




Thanks for your thoughts, bpcans. I'll update my A+ 2. My only bugbear is I want to be able to play DSD natively but currently the only remote option is thru iTunes/Remote which doesn't help with DSD.


----------



## isquirrel

kiats said:


> Thanks for your thoughts, bpcans. I'll update my A+ 2. My only bugbear is I want to be able to play DSD natively but currently the only remote option is thru iTunes/Remote which doesn't help with DSD.


 

 A+ supports native DSD and should do with iTunes integration mode?


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> I'm listening to Fourplay "Espirit de Four" on A+ 2.0.8 and I think the SQ is a bit less edgy overall and the bass seems more controlled than version 2.0.7. But maybe I just hope it's sounding better.


 

@bpcans Are you using iTunes integrated mode or stand-alone mode? Have you heard a sound quality difference between those options? Just curious...


----------



## bpcans

krutsch said:


> @bpcans
> Are you using iTunes integrated mode or stand-alone mode? Have you heard a sound quality difference between those options? Just curious...


Good question K. I tried A+ 2.0.8 in both iTunes intergrated and stand alone mode. Where I found a distinct difference in SQ in earlier A+ versions from 2.0.3 on up between intergrated and stand alone modes, I'm not hearing that difference in SQ with version 2.0.8.


----------



## miceblue

A+ doesn't use native DSD decoding though, it uses DSD over PCM (DoP) since Damien is a supporter of that.


----------



## crazychile

I've been using the free trial for Amarra Sq to use with Spotify premium. It sounds pretty decent considering the still too low bit rate of Spotify, but does Amarra Sq do anything besides offer EQ settings? I don't really use that feature, does anyone who has tried Sq notice an improvement in sound compared to Spotify premium without it?


----------



## Krutsch

crazychile said:


> I've been using the free trial for Amarra Sq to use with Spotify premium. It sounds pretty decent *considering the still too low bit rate of Spotify*, but does Amarra Sq do anything besides offer EQ settings? I don't really use that feature, does anyone who has tried Sq notice an improvement in sound compared to Spotify premium without it?


 
  
 Are you using a pay account? Because the premium version of Spotify is 320 kpbs when quality is set to "Extreme".


----------



## Zoom25

Spotify premium here on 320 settings. Even with eq off, Amarra SQ sounds better then playing it straight to DAC.


----------



## crazychile

krutsch said:


> Are you using a pay account? Because the premium version of Spotify is 320 kpbs when quality is set to "Extreme".


 

 Yes, I should have clarified that a bit. I'm not a huge fan of mp3. I normally use .wav files as a source, so 320kbps is still pretty low to me.


----------



## crazychile

Thanks. That's the info I was looking for. I haven't had the time to do a critical comparison between the two.


----------



## Priidik

currawong said:


> Audirvana doesn't like some USB DACs, that is for sure. I suspect the main problem is USB3 ports.


 
 Maybe this is why i had pitch issues with Audirvana.


----------



## Lohb

Decibel now my main player vs A+ 1.5.12....I'll check in with A+ later on the upgrade once the bugs get ironed out.
 But 1.5.12 sounds more etched than Decibel's organic presentation IMO. Only annoyance with Decibel is the software volume slider is not up-front but tucked away in a small tab lower left on the GUI.


----------



## bixby

priidik said:


> Maybe this is why i had pitch issues with Audirvana.


fyi, my mac mini has usb 3 ports and I have had no issues with any player


----------



## miceblue

I find it hilarious that A+'s Facebook page is filled with a whole bunch of bug fix updates and most of the comments there are asking to bring back drag-n-drop.


----------



## georgelai57

miceblue said:


> I find it hilarious that A+'s Facebook page is filled with a whole bunch of bug fix updates and most of the comments there are asking to bring back drag-n-drop.



Which only goes to show that the developer has no interest in customer comments.


----------



## Krutsch

georgelai57 said:


> Which only goes to show that the developer has no interest in customer comments.


 

 I think that is grossly unfair... as a software developer, myself, I think what Damien has done on his own is truly remarkable. I have personally exchanged e-mails with him, with respect to finding and fixing defects in earlier versions, so he really does care about his customers.


----------



## bpcans

krutsch said:


> I think that is grossly unfair... as a software developer, myself, I think what Damien has done on his own is truly remarkable. I have personally exchanged e-mails with him, with respect to finding and fixing defects in earlier versions, so he really does care about his customers.


I agree with you Krutsch about Damien's responsiveness. He has been more than courteously receptive to my email inquiries.


----------



## mikesale

bpcans said:


> I agree with you Krutsch about Damien's responsiveness. He has been more than courteously receptive to my email inquiries.


 

 He's responded quicker to me then most "big companies" and some of those bug fixes were specific to me as well. Hard working and responsive. Calling him uncaring about customer requests is just silly.


----------



## bpcans

The Audirvana+ Version 2.0.9 update is available.


----------



## crazychile

My apologies if this has been covered before, but is there an improvement in sound quality with Amarra vs. Amarra Hi-Fi? I don't own any DSD material, don't do FLAC (.wav only for now), and playlists arent really a big deal to me. I'm just wondering if there are any sonic benefits otherwise when I spend $99 vs. $29.
  
 Thanks.


----------



## castin

FIDELIA advan or audirava plus 2? any suggestion?


----------



## crazychile

castin said:


> FIDELIA advan or audirava plus 2? any suggestion?


 
  
 I have the basic Fidelia, and while I like how it sounds, I have troubles with it recognizing all the songs in my library. Also when I create/delete playlists in iTunes and rescan, it doesn't like to update. I mentioned it to the guys at Fidelia, and they said there would be a fix in the next release which was supposed to be out last summer.
 My next purchase will be some version of Amarra. I haven't decided which one yet.


----------



## joeexp

crazychile said:


> My apologies if this has been covered before, but is there an improvement in sound quality with Amarra vs. Amarra Hi-Fi? I don't own any DSD material, don't do FLAC (.wav only for now), and playlists arent really a big deal to me. I'm just wondering if there are any sonic benefits otherwise when I spend $99 vs. $29.
> 
> Thanks.


 

 Same engine -


----------



## notsimar

I've been using fidelia and audirvana+ for a little while now.  I can honestly say that the fhx addon to fidelia has been of no use to me with everything I have tried it with.  Anyone else feel the same?  Audirvana+ has crashed a couple of times randomly.  But for the most part I have enjoyed both


----------



## castin

crazychile said:


> I have the basic Fidelia, and while I like how it sounds, I have troubles with it recognizing all the songs in my library. Also when I create/delete playlists in iTunes and rescan, it doesn't like to update. I mentioned it to the guys at Fidelia, and they said there would be a fix in the next release which was supposed to be out last summer.
> My next purchase will be some version of Amarra. I haven't decided which one yet.


 
  
 Hmm, i don't really use iTunes so that won't be a problem at all 
 I did tried the trial ver, like the sound and its straight-forward interface.
 but i kind of think that audirava are more functional.


----------



## joeexp

2) Amarra - best Sound Quality - but slow as hell; It takes about a minute to start up on an iMac.
 3) Audirvana - 2nd in Soundquality IMHO - fast and easy; Can play about anything out there - including ISOs - although a lot of people are complaining about the missing drag and drop feature from the previous version, I use it everyday for tagging and quickly finding things in my library.
 4) Fidelia - SQ slightly below Audirvana - All the extras you have to pay for don't really improve the situation.
 5) BitPerfect - Cool if you use ITunes a lot. SQ similar to Fidelia. Cool thing - it runs in the background and doesn't clutter anything. Just takes over the playback from iTunes.
 6) PureMusic - SQ similar to Amarra  - but oh boy is this GUI ugly. Even the design of the icons sucks.


----------



## castin

joeexp said:


> 2) Amarra - best Sound Quality - but slow as hell; It takes about a minute to start up on an iMac.
> 3) Audirvana - 2nd in Soundquality IMHO - fast and easy; Can play about anything out there - including ISOs - although a lot of people are complaining about the missing drag and drop feature from the previous version, I use it everyday for tagging and quickly finding things in my library.
> 4) Fidelia - SQ slightly below Audirvana - All the extras you have to pay for don't really improve the situation.
> 5) BitPerfect - Cool if you use ITunes a lot. SQ similar to Fidelia. Cool thing - it runs in the background and doesn't clutter anything. Just takes over the playback from iTunes.
> 6) PureMusic - SQ similar to Amarra  - but oh boy is this GUI ugly. Even the design of the icons sucks.


 

 Thanks joeexp


----------



## RUMAY408

joeexp said:


> 2) Amarra - best Sound Quality - but slow as hell; It takes about a minute to start up on an iMac.
> 3) Audirvana - 2nd in Soundquality IMHO - fast and easy; Can play about anything out there - including ISOs - although a lot of people are complaining about the missing drag and drop feature from the previous version, I use it everyday for tagging and quickly finding things in my library.
> 4) Fidelia - SQ slightly below Audirvana - All the extras you have to pay for don't really improve the situation.
> 5) BitPerfect - Cool if you use ITunes a lot. SQ similar to Fidelia. Cool thing - it runs in the background and doesn't clutter anything. Just takes over the playback from iTunes.
> 6) PureMusic - SQ similar to Amarra  - but oh boy is this GUI ugly. Even the design of the icons sucks.


 

 Which version of Amarra are you using?


----------



## joeexp

rumay408 said:


> Which version of Amarra are you using?


 
 the $99 Amarra version - they do have discounts sometimes.


----------



## RUMAY408

joeexp said:


> the $99 Amarra version - they do have discounts sometimes.


 

 I just updated to 3.03 and the speed has improved.


----------



## groovyd

Wondering why no one on here seems to care about jRiver MC20? Sound quality is just as good as any of the others I hear about on here, interface is pretty decent and even includes CD ripping and video support, recently they launched cross-platform license: Windows, Mac, & Linux and the jRemote is a great app for controlling it all from your phone. Has never crashed on me or skipped or stuttered anything.  Includes full DSP processing for crossfeed, eq, resample, etc.


----------



## bixby

groovyd said:


> Wondering why *no one on here seems to care about jRiver MC20?* Sound quality is just as good as any of the others I hear about on here, interface is pretty decent and even includes CD ripping and video support, recently they launched cross-platform license: Windows, Mac, & Linux and the jRemote is a great app for controlling it all from your phone. Has never crashed on me or skipped or stuttered anything.  Includes full DSP processing for crossfeed, eq, resample, etc.


 
 A search of the thread would show a number of posts by folks who have cared enough about Jriver to try it and a number who actually prefer and use it.  Some others who have tried it may not appreciate what the processing engine does to sound quality when perhaps compared to other more minimal and arguably better sounding players. 
  
 Your post looks like a ad


----------



## groovyd

i was actually thinking the same about a number of other posts on this thread... that they look like ads 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 i just re-downloaded the latest Amarra to see if things have changed since my last demo and in fact no they haven't.  same clunky interface as i remember and musically identical to any of the other bit perfect players out there (via A/B testing), MC20 included.  One thing I did notice however is they apply a sly trick to make the user think it is an improvement over iTunes in that it's switch to allow toggling between iTunes and it's own engine actually adulterates the iTunes output as compared to pre-install.  I know this because I just A/B tested it on two separate computers. Thankfully uninstalling it reverts the adulteration


----------



## bpcans

groovyd said:


> Wondering why no one on here seems to care about jRiver MC20? Sound quality is just as good as any of the others I hear about on here, interface is pretty decent and even includes CD ripping and video support, recently they launched cross-platform license: Windows, Mac, & Linux and the jRemote is a great app for controlling it all from your phone. Has never crashed on me or skipped or stuttered anything.  Includes full DSP processing for crossfeed, eq, resample, etc.


I use JRiver 20 not only for playback but to also rip my iTunes files to FLAC. The SQ is pretty good with better UI than Audirvana+ and more options to EQ your music. Plus it doesn't blank out unexpectedly during playback like Amarra sometimes does.


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> I use JRiver 20 not only for playback but to also rip my iTunes files to FLAC. The SQ is pretty good with better UI than Audirvana+ and more options to EQ your music. *Plus it doesn't blank out unexpectedly during playback like Amarra* sometimes does.


 
  
 I'm having that problem with Audirvana+ and Voxengo's EQ plug-in; will crash everything when switching tracks. Seems to work OK when using A+ in native mood, but I really prefer iTunes integrated mode...


----------



## groovyd

yeah i have tried all of the others and they all stink of playback and play/pause/fwd/back glitches plus the interfaces are horrid considering how much they charge.


----------



## shipus90

Great idea for this thread....


----------



## Lohb

MBA or MBP + your OSX Music player +DAC/AMP + NoSleep App = can use your OSX player OTG in a shoulder sling with pre-loaded playlist.
  
 Modular mobile audio in the sense that you can mix up DAC/AMP OSX players.
  
 There is an IR USB add-on solution (MIRA app + Manta TR1 from Twisted Melon) for MBA that works with the Apple Remote.
  

  
  
Free No Sleep app
  

  
 Transportable audio no worse than Shozy Alien with its lack of screen and you have access to your fav. OSX player OTG.


----------



## crazychile

http://www.head-fi.org/t/752708/what-are-the-basics-to-set-up-a-headless-mac-mini

Hey guys,

I started the thread above to get info on how to set up a headless Mac Mini. There has been virtually no response. I believe I've read in this thread somewhere along the way that some of you are using this sort of setup. Could some of you comment in that thread if you have any pointers. I'm trying out VNC now with a MacBook Pro, so I have that part figured out.

Thanks,


----------



## castin

lohb said:


> MBA or MBP + your OSX Music player +DAC/AMP + NoSleep App = can use your OSX player OTG in a shoulder sling with pre-loaded playlist.
> 
> Modular mobile audio in the sense that you can mix up DAC/AMP OSX players.
> 
> ...


 

 so you have to reprogram the ir remote with the mira app?


----------



## Krutsch

crazychile said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/752708/what-are-the-basics-to-set-up-a-headless-mac-mini
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> ...


 

 I've been doing this for years.
  
 I have one Mac Mini as a dedicated music player physically located with my 2-channel system and a second Mac Mini as a DLNA / OpenHome music and video server/streamer.
  
 The advantage to using a Mac Mini as a playback appliance is:
  
 1) it looks nice (IMO);
  
 2) it's dead quiet, when dedicated for music use (I am referring to fan or HDD ambient noise, not audiophoolery stuff 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 );
  
 3) you can use iTunes for management, playlists, et al., and simply sync your laptop copy onto the Mac Mini's internal or external storage, avoiding maintenance of a separate library;
  
 4) iOS devices w/ the Apple Remote app make an elegant and family-friendly control point; I use the Android app "Retune";
  
 5) multi-room playback with Airplay (assuming Airport devices in other rooms).
  
 Your choice of Amarra as your playback engine is not something I have any experience with, so not sure I can help, but I think that excludes 3/4/5 from the above. However, you can, of course, use your MacBook and "Share Screen" access to drive things that way, but I find that awkward for anything but maintenance tasks.
  
 There are practical issues, as well, using a headless Mac Mini with a system that includes an outboard DAC that may be powered-off, from time-to-time. Also, you will want to disable lots of things to ensure that when you want listen to music, you can do that without needing to attend to the Mac Mini itself.
  
 My recommendation: use Audirvana+ in iTunes integration mode, be aware of which ports you are connecting to your DAC and any external storage. Google is your friend, here, and is dependent upon the Mac Mini model.
  
 As always, YMMV, and let us know if you have questions.


----------



## Yoga

Audirvana Plus 2.0.9 is the best I've heard on the Mac.
  
 I use it in standalone mode. It automatically stops/starts specific services when in use, buffers tracks to RAM to play, direct/integer modes.
  
 Best of all, clarity and separation - wow. This latest (I think) version has really improved the sound.
  
 Tried: Fidelia, BitPerfect, J River, Amarra


----------



## bpcans

yoga said:


> Audirvana Plus 2.0.9 is the best I've heard on the Mac.
> 
> I use it in standalone mode. It automatically stops/starts specific services when in use, buffers tracks to RAM to play, direct/integer modes.
> 
> ...


Yoga, I'm going to agree with you about A+ 2.0.9 having the best sound through my MBP. Yes, clarity and seperstion is very good.


----------



## Solrighal

Can anyone explain why so many Mac players don't allow navigation by folder tree? I really liked the demo of Swinsian but I dropped a line to the developer asking if he had any plans to introduce folder navigation and got a rather pompous, curt reply that it wouldn't be happening. I mean, why not? What harm would it do? My music is all organised neatly in a proper folder structure and it's all for nothing. I use JRiver right now but although it sounds great it doesn't half look ugly.

There's surely a market for a Mac Foobar equivalent.


----------



## crazychile

krutsch said:


> I've been doing this for years.
> 
> I have one Mac Mini as a dedicated music player physically located with my 2-channel system and a second Mac Mini as a DLNA / OpenHome music and video server/streamer.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks Krutsch. I was aware of most of the benefits you mention. I already own 2 older Mini's, including one from 2006 when I first decided I wanted a music server. I've been using iTunes since then and have only in the last 3 months, tried other players like Fidelia, Amarra and Audirvana.
  
 My music library (currently using a MacBook Pro with external HD) is on my dedicated headphone rig. With wife and kids I sadly don't have the room for a dedicated 2 channel rig any more. And I don't share my library with  the other TV/Audio systems in the house. So I'm looking for a new Mini to replace my MacBook Pro because the MBP is 5 yrs old and I get tired of disconnecting everything when I need to use the MBP on the go.
  
 I'm not looking to tweak the new system like I've read on other forums, where guys go nuts and start pulling unnecessary parts from their Mini, Use external PS' and fans, shield everything, etc. I just want to configure a good sounding computer based headphone rig without turning modding minis into a second hobby.
  
 I sit about 8 ft from my current rig, and since I have a long headphone cable, I just started using my iPad with VNC as a remote control. I had planned on using this same type of set up when I get a new Mini.
  
 What I don't know is how to configure ports and shut things off in the OS for the best sound quality. I've seen some old posts on the subject but I' not sure about how much of the info still applies with the latest Minis. I did a trial run with Audirvana a couple of months ago and liked the sound. If it gives me advantages sonically over Amarra with additional menu options to disable unneeded things, I'd be up for using it as my main playback SW.
  
 Thanks,


----------



## Krutsch

crazychile said:


> Thanks Krutsch. I was aware of most of the benefits you mention.
> 
> <snip, snip>
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'll try to address your questions w/o turning this into a blog post 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 You don't need to go nuts tweaking a newer Mac Mini (linear PS, shielding, et al., won't be as useful as mitigating USB drop-outs, preventing automated tasks from interrupting playback and ensuring everything happens in RAM).
  
 Also, don't freak out about using an SSD. What many people don't realize is that (a) they can contribute as much, or more, electric noise as spinning rust and (b) with enough RAM in your Mini, for music playback, the improved latency performance is mostly meaningless; and, they are expensive and are statistically no more reliable. If you have one, cool, but spend the extra $$ on RAM.
  
 Here's my short checklist:
  
 1) Add as much RAM as you are comfortable purchasing (at LEAST 8GB, however) - this minimizes internal HDD access, since all that extra RAM becomes a giant disc cache, and this allows your music player (e.g. Audirvana) to buffer ahead the music files;
  
 2) Connect your external USB DAC to a USB port that is isolated - i.e. not sharing a USB bus controller with internal or external devices (see below, but be aware that your bluetooth radios and IR receivers use USB internally for I/O); use Google to pick the correct port for your Mac Mini model (e.g. for my Mac Mini Early 2009, I have an external USB HDD on port #1 and the DAC on port #4, since each of these have dedicated USB controllers, not shared with other internal devices);
  
 *It took a while to understand the value of the above exercise; I experimented with a Schiit Wyrd, but only proper port placement finally removed all of my glitches during playback.
  
 3) Disable Wi-Fi (if you can, use wired Ethernet) - this doesn't actually disable the radio itself, but prevents wireless activity - I personally use the Wi-Fi connection, and it's fine for my system;
  
 4) Disable Bluetooth (once you have setup screen sharing with your MBP);
  
 5) Make sure your Screen Saver is set to 'never' come on;
  
 6) Uncheck 'put hard disk to sleep when possible' - your HDD spinning up again can pause other processes and cause drop-outs;
  
 7) Set your computer and display sleep settings to never - screw the environment, you want glitch-free playback;
  
 8) Disable App Store auto-updates (and do the same thing with Audirvana+ auto-updating) - just just manually, when you get around to updating your library;
  
 Finally, for disabling Mac OS processes, use Audirvana+ - this will auto-disable things like TImeMachine, iOS device detection on the USB ports and jack-up the process priority.
  
 I heartily recommend using A+ in iTunes integration mode and using Apple's Remote App to control music playback, but VNC will work, as well.
  
 If you do all of the above, you will have drop-out / glitch-free playback and it will just work when you want to sit down and listen to music.


----------



## Krutsch

^^^ Something I forgot to mention: the outboard DAC.
  
 One advantage to using Audirvana+ is that it will re-connect to your outboard DAC, if it is powered down and then powered back-up. So, you turn everything off, except the Mac Mini and then turn everything back on.
  
 Other players (e.g. Bitperfect) won't do this and you will find your music suddenly coming out of the Mac Mini's internal speaker 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 A+ seems to correctly recall the preferred DAC and re-connect to it, if it's on when starting / re-starting playback.
  
 Another way to solve the same problem it to use an external USB-to-SPDIF converter. This items is powered by the Mac Mini's USB output and, hence, is always on. This approach is the cleanest and, IMO, also improves the sound of just about any DAC. But, it costs more if you use a a quality component (I personally use a Bel Canto mLink).


----------



## crazychile

krutsch said:


> ^^^ Something I forgot to mention: the outboard DAC.
> 
> One advantage to using Audirvana+ is that it will re-connect to your outboard DAC, if it is powered down and then powered back-up. So, you turn everything off, except the Mac Mini and then turn everything back on.
> 
> ...




Thanks Krutsch for this and the previous post. Very informative! Especially the SSD tip, as I could jump to 16gb RAM for about what I'd spend to upgrade to SSD. I


----------



## bixby

krutsch said:


> I'll try to address your questions w/o turning this into a blog post
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 These are very good tips!  Here are some more:
  
 http://www.co-bw.com/Audio_OSX_Optimal_Audio.htm
  
 And I have adopted some more when you run out of things to do


----------



## crazychile

Thanks Bixby, I knew a lot of those but there was still some stuff in there I didn't know.
  
 Krutsch (or anyone else with a headless Mac,)
  
  
 1. Do you think there might be any advantage between the basic Mini (1.4 GHz) and the 2.6GHz model for my use? The 2.6 has "better" graphics, but I'm not going to use that. -But could one be noisier than the other? I was wondering if the faster processor would have any advantage over the slower, assuming I'll do 16GB of RAM either way. This Mini will only be used as a music server. Nothing else. There's about $100 difference between the two models once I configure my options.
  
 2. On your Mac Mini, did you do the display dongle mod where the resistor is added to trick the Mini into thinking a display is connected? Or was that only necessary on older models?
  
 3. Have you tried a Thunderbolt External HD? This is supposed to help with the speed, but if you have 16GB of RAM, is it really necessary?....But then there's also the advantage of not using another USB port.
  
 My thoughts were to buy a Mini with 16GB of RAM, run the USB or Toslink to my Schiit Bifrost Uber DAC. (I don't have any Hi-rez material - .wav only so Toslink is sufficient). Then shut off Bluetooth and WiFi and run an Airport 10 ft away from the Mini and connect via Ethernet. I will have to use USB for a Superdrive, for loading new CD's, but I could disconnect it when not in use.
  
 Since Apple ditched Firewire, I'd have to connect my existing HD via USB, but my plan was to upgrade to a Thunderbolt drive in the future.
  
 So theoretically, if I go with a Thunderbolt HD, I could avoid USB completely except when loading CD's to iTunes.
  
 What do you think about this plan?


----------



## Krutsch

crazychile said:


> Thanks Bixby, I knew a lot of those but there was still some stuff in there I didn't know.
> 
> Krutsch (or anyone else with a headless Mac,)
> 
> 1. Do you think there might be any advantage between the basic Mini (1.4 GHz) and the 2.6GHz model for my use? The 2.6 has "better" graphics, but I'm not going to use that. -But could one be noisier than the other? I was wondering if the faster processor would have any advantage over the slower, assuming I'll do 16GB of RAM either way. This Mini will only be used as a music server. Nothing else. There's about $100 difference between the two models once I configure my options.


 
  
 Either one will work, just fine. Faster doesn't hurt; I am running a 2009 version with a Core Duo (i.e. s-l-o-w-w-w-) with 8 GB of RAM with the latest version of iTunes and Audirvana, and everything works just fine (assuming my previous instructions above).
  


> 2. On your Mac Mini, did you do the display dongle mod where the resistor is added to trick the Mini into thinking a display is connected? Or was that only necessary on older models?


 
  
 See my answer to #1. You really don't need ultimate/peak performance for your Mac Mini as a music server, so I don't know what the point would be to adding the display dongle mod.
  


> 3. Have you tried a Thunderbolt External HD? This is supposed to help with the speed, but if you have 16GB of RAM, is it really necessary?....But then there's also the advantage of not using another USB port.


 
  
 No, I haven't, because T-bolt drives are stupidly expensive. A USB 3.0 HDD will be bottle-necked by the physical disc (no where near the USB 3.0 interface performance specs; the same is true for thunderbolt). Remember, this is a music server, not a 4K video streamer.
  
 If your Mac Mini only has a single USB controller, one could see a benefit in this case. Make sure your DAC is isolated and place the HDD on the "other" controller, if necessary. I haven't researched the USB controller issue with the newest Mac Mini machines.
  


> My thoughts were to buy a Mini with 16GB of RAM, run the USB or Toslink to my Schiit Bifrost Uber DAC. (I don't have any Hi-rez material - .wav only so Toslink is sufficient). Then shut off Bluetooth and WiFi and run an Airport 10 ft away from the Mini and connect via Ethernet. I will have to use USB for a Superdrive, for loading new CD's, but I could disconnect it when not in use.
> 
> Since Apple ditched Firewire, I'd have to connect my existing HD via USB, but my plan was to upgrade to a Thunderbolt drive in the future.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The TOSLINK connection to the DAC might be a great plan - a lot of folks will poo-poo that, but I've found optical from a Mac to work extremely well; it does a nice job of isolating machine noise (if you are worried about that stuff) and if all you have is Redbook, you are good to go. Try both USB and TOSLINK and see which one you like best; should be easy to A/B.
  
 All sounds like a good starting point. Have fun and don't overthink things.


----------



## Currawong

solrighal said:


> Can anyone explain why so many Mac players don't allow navigation by folder tree? I really liked the demo of Swinsian but I dropped a line to the developer asking if he had any plans to introduce folder navigation and got a rather pompous, curt reply that it wouldn't be happening. I mean, why not? What harm would it do? My music is all organised neatly in a proper folder structure and it's all for nothing. I use JRiver right now but although it sounds great it doesn't half look ugly.
> 
> There's surely a market for a Mac Foobar equivalent.


 
  
 Why not just use the Finder? You can set it so that music files will open with your favourite music player when you double-click on them easily enough.


----------



## Solrighal

I don't want to have to type something every time I select music. I just don't get why it's so damned difficult for Mac developers to provide a function that's kinda there by default anyway. It's just willful ignorance.


----------



## Yoga

solrighal said:


> I don't want to have to type something every time I select music. I just don't get why it's so damned difficult for Mac developers to provide a function that's kinda there by default anyway. It's just willful ignorance.


 

 Is you music organised in Artist - Album format?


----------



## Solrighal

yoga said:


> Is you music organised in Artist - Album format?




Yes it is. I started putting my CD's on hard drives in 2001 and I've always used that format. Back then I was quite naive and so tagging only really started in around 2005. That collection now stands at somewhere around 8000 albums. I'm gradually getting through the tagging but it's annoying when I can find any particular album in 5 seconds if I do it the old-fashioned way.


----------



## Yoga

solrighal said:


> Yes it is. I started putting my CD's on hard drives in 2001 and I've always used that format. Back then I was quite naive and so tagging only really started in around 2005. That collection now stands at somewhere around 8000 albums. I'm gradually getting through the tagging but it's annoying when I can find any particular album in 5 seconds if I do it the old-fashioned way.


 

 In Audirvana 2, there is an Artist - Album filter. You can also choose any other filter type (bit depth etc)...
  


 The browse section can be toggled/hidden with a click of the filter bar...
  


 No different to navigating an Artist/Album directory structure. Easier, in fact (that's how I used to do it also).


----------



## Solrighal

It's not as simple as that because that method pre-supposes accurate tag meta data. It's not using physical location as a criteria so it will not be 100% accurate. 

Here's the thing - I'm not asking the software to do anything it's not already doing in the background already. It *has to* know the physical location in the first place in order to play the file. All I'm asking is that I get to see that view too.


----------



## Yoga

solrighal said:


> It's not as simple as that because that method pre-supposes accurate tag meta data. It's not using physical location as a criteria so it will not be 100% accurate.
> 
> Here's the thing - I'm not asking the software to do anything it's not already doing in the background already. It *has to* know the physical location in the first place in order to play the file. All I'm asking is that I get to see that view too.


 

 Indeed. Perhaps it's time you faced adding metadata :¬)
  
 There are apps to help automate that.


----------



## Krutsch

yoga said:


> In Audirvana 2, there is an *Artist* - Album filter. You can also choose any other filter type (bit depth etc)...


 
  
 My music *is* really well tagged; what really sucks about Audirvana's filter, in this above case, is that it's ARTIST and not AlbumArtist (and no option that I can find to set that).
  
 It's like we are back to 2004 with MusicMatch, using the "new" Audirvana UI; I swear, he's learning all of the same lessons everyone else learned 10 years ago about how to build a library manager.


----------



## Solrighal

I am updating my tags as we speak. I just resent that these developers can't implement such a bare-bones 'feature'. And don't get me started on why these playback programs sound different at all. I still can't get my head around that.


----------



## Krutsch

solrighal said:


> I am updating my tags as we speak. I just resent that these developers can't implement such a bare-bones 'feature'. And *don't get me started on why these playback programs sound different* at all. I still can't get my head around that.


 

 Is it your experience that they *do* sound different?


----------



## bixby

solrighal said:


> Can anyone explain why so many Mac players don't allow navigation by folder tree? I really liked the demo of Swinsian but I dropped a line to the developer asking if he had any plans to introduce folder navigation and got a rather pompous, curt reply that it wouldn't be happening. I mean, why not? What harm would it do? My music is all organised neatly in a proper folder structure and it's all for nothing. I use JRiver right now but although it sounds great it doesn't half look ugly.
> 
> There's surely a market for a Mac Foobar equivalent.


 
 Decibel does allow navigation by folder tree and it is one of the best sounding and lightest weight players available.  But don't look for lasting fm or scribbling  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 and all  the other bloat you get with many other so called players that are more social media engines.


----------



## Lohb

currawong said:


> Why not just use the Finder? You can set it so that music files will open with your favourite music player when you double-click on them easily enough.


 

 An oldie but goldie for that music software launching connection. Preferences pane add-on. Still alive and working on OSX Mavericks.
  
 http://www.rubicode.com/Software/RCDefaultApp/


----------



## Solrighal

krutsch said:


> Is it your experience that they *do* sound different?




Yes, they do. There's certainly a difference between JRiver & Vox anyway. Vox is very dark sounding. 



bixby said:


> Decibel does allow navigation by folder tree and it is one of the best sounding and lightest weight players available.  But don't look for lasting fm or scribbling    and all  the other bloat you get with many other so called players that are more social media engines.




Thanks for the suggestion. I actually tried out Decibel once but uninstalled it for some reason. I'll check it out again & see if anything has changed. 



lohb said:


> An oldie but goldie for that music software launching connection. Preferences pane add-on. Still alive and working on OSX Mavericks.
> 
> http://www.rubicode.com/Software/RCDefaultApp/




I'll look into that tonight when I get home, thanks.


----------



## Lohb

joeexp said:


> 2) Amarra - best Sound Quality - but slow as hell; It takes about a minute to start up on an iMac.
> 3) Audirvana - 2nd in Soundquality IMHO - fast and easy; Can play about anything out there - including ISOs - although a lot of people are complaining about the missing drag and drop feature from the previous version, I use it everyday for tagging and quickly finding things in my library.
> 4) Fidelia - SQ slightly below Audirvana - All the extras you have to pay for don't really improve the situation.
> 5) BitPerfect - Cool if you use ITunes a lot. SQ similar to Fidelia. Cool thing - it runs in the background and doesn't clutter anything. Just takes over the playback from iTunes.
> 6) PureMusic - SQ similar to Amarra  - but oh boy is this GUI ugly. Even the design of the icons sucks.


 

 Was number 1 Decibel ?


----------



## Solrighal

The best interface I've ever used on a Mac was Cog but that got updated to remove the folder tree functionality. I think it was called progress.


----------



## Solrighal

Nope, Decibel doesn't do it either.
  
 Here's what I'm after...


----------



## bixby

solrighal said:


> Nope, Decibel doesn't do it either.
> 
> Here's what I'm after...


 
 Decibel does show a folder view exactly like finder. The tree shows Artists and then you can drill down to Album, then to songs.  All of the columns available in finder are available in Decibel to show you file type, time, date added, etc  just like finder.
  
 The only things it does not give you compared to your pic is bit rate and time and that little pic in the corner, but you can change to a cover flow view if you wish.  
  
 Are you using the menu item "add tracks" in decibel?  Wish I could clip a screenshot but I am on my win machine atm.


----------



## bixby

bixby said:


> Decibel does show a folder view exactly like finder. The tree shows Artists and then you can drill down to Album, then to songs.  All of the columns available in finder are available in Decibel to show you file type, time, date added, etc  just like finder.
> 
> The only things it does not give you compared to your pic is bit rate and time and that little pic in the corner, but you can change to a cover flow view if you wish.
> 
> Are you using the menu item "add tracks" in decibel?  Wish I could clip a screenshot but I am on my win machine atm.


 
 Here are some screen shots:
  

  
  
Click on the pic to embiggen!


----------



## Solrighal

Yes, I know about add tracks but the way JRiver and Foobar work is as shown. It's like having my music folder permanently open. It's so much easier to simply drag files from the pane on the left to the play list on the right.

I know I'm the odd one out (not for the first time) but it seems to me that basic functionality has been removed and replaced with pointless features. I'd give anything for a Mac Foobar equivalent.


----------



## bixby

solrighal said:


> Yes, I know about add tracks but the way JRiver and Footer work is as shown. It's like having my music folder permanently open. It's so much easier to simply drag files from the pane on the left to the play list on the right.
> 
> I know I'm the odd one out (not for the first time) but it seems to me that basic functionality has been removed and replaced with pointless features. I'd give anything for a Mac Foobar equivalent.


 
 you can do that as well with decibel.  Just open finder to your music folder (and keep it open) and drag any album you want over to decibel, piece of haggis!


----------



## Solrighal

Yes that's true. But then I have two Windows open and two windows to minimize. There was a time when all media players worked the way I'm talking about. I just don't see that these advancements have actually moved anything forward at all. If I were to go the way you're suggesting I use Decibel then I'd be as well to use the much cleaner, slicker interface of Vox. 

I'll leave it at that though since nobody seems to get what I mean. I only thought I'd ask because of the unprofessional response I got from the Swinsian developer. That pee'd me off. 

Thanks for trying to help folks. Now, back to the music.


----------



## Krutsch

Crap ... I hate to admit this, but Audirvana+ in stand-alone mode really does walk all over iTunes Integration mode, although I am perplexed how that can be (and frustrated, as well, since I have all of my playlists in iTunes).
  
 God, will this ever end...


----------



## bpcans

^^^ Krutsch, I read your post and immediately switched from A+ iTunes intergrated to stand alone mode just to see if I could hear a difference in the The Crusaders "Healing the Wounds" CD from 1991 that I bought today for $1.07. Yes, A+ is more detailed and better sounding for sure. Tighter bass and clearer instrument seperation too. Are you streaming stuff from TIDAL as well as from your own library?


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> ^^^ Krutsch, I read your post and immediately switched from A+ iTunes intergrated to stand alone mode just to see if I could hear a difference in the The Crusaders "Healing the Wounds" CD from 1991 that I bought today for $1.07. Yes, *A+ is more detailed and better sounding for sure. Tighter bass and clearer instrument seperation too*. Are you streaming stuff from TIDAL as well as from your own library?


 
  
 It really is... who knows why?
  
 I played round with TIDAL, but I've canceled my subscription - it's cool and sounds great, but all of my casual listening playlists are on Spotify and I don't want to pay for both.
  
 Mostly, however, I play music from my library ripped from CDs (used or new).


----------



## bpcans

krutsch said:


> It really is... who knows why?
> 
> I played round with TIDAL, but I've canceled my subscription - it's cool and sounds great, but all of my casual listening playlists are on Spotify and I don't want to pay for both.
> 
> Mostly, however, I play music from my library ripped from CDs (used or new).


Maybe its because iTunes was designed for the easy "purchase" of music and not for wonderful playback.


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> Maybe its because iTunes was designed for the easy "purchase" of music and not for wonderful playback.


 

 Without a doubt... BTW, we need to setup a Twin Cities meet... are you game? Maybe you and I can make it happen.


----------



## bpcans

krutsch said:


> Without a doubt... BTW, we need to setup a Twin Cities meet... are you game? Maybe you and I can make it happen.


Somebody already beat us to it. Look under "Minneapolis February Meet". I think it's next Saturday at the Wayzata Public Library conference room from 12:00 - 4:00pm.


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> Somebody already beat us to it. Look under "Minneapolis February Meet". I think it's next Saturday at the Wayzata Public Library conference room from 12:00 - 4:00pm.


 

 Nice... thanks for the heads-up!


----------



## bpcans

krutsch said:


> Nice... thanks for the heads-up!


Hey, no problemo. Whether we make it or not you'll have to explain to me again how to unplug, disconnect, and turn off all the non-essentials on my MBP for glitch free playback. I'm probably running too many music players at the same time.


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> Hey, no problemo. Whether we make it or not you'll have to explain to me again how to unplug, disconnect, and turn off all the non-essentials on my MBP for glitch free playback. I'm probably running too many music players at the same time.


 

 I have a detailed set of notes in Evernote I've been compiling 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ... we will have to sync-up next weekend, if you can make it.


----------



## bpcans

krutsch said:


> I have a detailed set of notes in Evernote I've been compiling   ... we will have to sync-up next weekend, if you can make it.


That's my plan sir. Have a great St. Valentines Day!


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> That's my plan sir. Have a great St. Valentines Day!


 

 You too..!


----------



## chimmycham

Does anyone still use Audirvana Plus?
 If not, what is the newest best alternative?
  
 I Love Audirvana Plus.. just wondering


----------



## bpcans

chimmycham said:


> Does anyone still use Audirvana Plus?
> If not, what is the newest best alternative?
> 
> I Love Audirvana Plus.. just wondering


I use A+ and I think it's the best compliment to my present system right now. I like the way A+ represents the acoustic elements in a jazz combo, specifically the decay of the drummers cymbals splashes and the sound of a grand piano.


----------



## Solrighal

Does A+ sound better than other players?


----------



## isquirrel

solrighal said:


> Does A+ sound better than other players?


 

 IMHO, your experience may vary though, you can download trials of most of the music players out there so you can choose your favourite..


----------



## Solrighal

I believe A+ relies on an iTunes library which I don't have so I can't test it. I thought all bit-perfect players sounded the same.


----------



## chimmycham

solrighal said:


> I believe A+ relies on an iTunes library which I don't have so I can't test it. I thought all bit-perfect players sounded the same.


 

 A+ has nothing to do with iTunes, although it gives you the option to integrate your iTunes library, which I do not do.


----------



## Solrighal

chimmycham said:


> A+ has nothing to do with iTunes, although it gives you the option to integrate your iTunes library, which I do not do.


 
  
 In that case I'm downloading now.


----------



## Zoom25

Amarra killed Audirvana in transparency. Although I have been hearing great things about 2.0.9 and will try to see how it racks against Amarra 3.0

With the hd800, Amarra pushes the most air and resolution. While audirvana thickens up the vocals and takes the edge off all the music. Less resolution and fatter bass. Audirvana is also more suited for less than ideal recordings or formats.

There's definitely a need for both players in my setup, but I ultimately prefer Amarra.


----------



## V-DiV

zoom25 said:


> Amarra killed Audirvana in transparency. Although I have been hearing great things about 2.0.9 and will try to see how it racks against Amarra 3.0
> 
> With the hd800, Amarra pushes the most air and resolution. While audirvana thickens up the vocals and takes the edge off all the music. Less resolution and fatter bass. Audirvana is also more suited for less than ideal recordings or formats.
> 
> There's definitely a need for both players in my setup, but I ultimately prefer Amarra.


 

 That's good to know.  I am about to start experimenting with Audirvana and Amarra to see if either or both are a significant improvement over Fidelia, which I started using several years ago soon after it came out, but then stopped following the developments in players.


----------



## Solrighal

I guess I'll need to check out Amarra as well. Audirvana is still reading my music folder, very, very, slowly.


----------



## Zoom25

If you're checking out Amarra, make sure you do the following to hear it at it's best. Open Amarra and go to "Preferences". This should open a window. Click the "Optimize" button. Next, click "disable all." This action will require you to put in your operating password. This script will take a few seconds to take place. Next, restart your computer and re-open Amarra. Then simply load music and play. The restart is very crucial as during the restart a lot of the sound benefits and scripts take place. I highly recommend everyone to demo Amarra in it's best form.
  
 Amarra 3.0 -> Preferences -> Optimize -> Disable All - > Let the action take place -> Restart computer -> Open Amarra -> Get blown away
  
 Additionally, running this setting will also help Audirvana Plus, but not as much as what Amarra extracts.


----------



## Solrighal

Does Amarra have a view where I can see the folder structure? If it doesn't then it's a big fat fail. Audirvana doesn't either so it's a fail too. It's a shame because I did like the sound of it.


----------



## Zoom25

I just drop and drag folders into Amarra whenever I use it like with Audirvana 1.5.X series.


----------



## Solrighal

zoom25 said:


> I just drop and drag folders into Amarra whenever I use it like with Audirvana 1.5.X series.


 
  
 The Audirvana I downloaded doesn't seem to work like that. I don't know why no-one seems capable of implementing a folder tree view on Mac software. At least, they don't these days. Cog used to do it but even that has gone. JRMC is the only one that does it and even them it's a palaver to set up.


----------



## Solrighal

Well at least I'm able to drag & drop to Amarra, that's a plus I guess. I can't really hear any sonic advantage though. It does sound clearer than Audirvana did but it was very dark. Amarra sounds pretty much identical to JRMC as far as I can tell but it's not easy to compare software. The Amarra interface is ugly though. It shouldn't matter but at this price I want it all.
  
 Audirvana is uninstalled but I'll run with Amarra for a bit and see how it goes.


----------



## groovyd

zoom25 said:


> If you're checking out Amarra, make sure you do the following to hear it at it's best. Open Amarra and go to "Preferences". This should open a window. Click the "Optimize" button. Next, click "disable all." This action will require you to put in your operating password. This script will take a few seconds to take place. Next, restart your computer and re-open Amarra. Then simply load music and play. The restart is very crucial as during the restart a lot of the sound benefits and scripts take place. I highly recommend everyone to demo Amarra in it's best form.
> 
> Amarra 3.0 -> Preferences -> Optimize -> Disable All - > Let the action take place -> Restart computer -> Open Amarra -> Get blown away
> 
> Additionally, running this setting will also help Audirvana Plus, but not as much as what Amarra extracts.


 

 Did exactly that... doesn't sound any better then JRiver but was much clunkier and had more interface and playback glitches. I noticed while installed it also cut the gain of iTunes back and dulled the sound during the A/B test selection to make people think it was better.  Needless to say I no longer trust them and didn't find their player a step up in any way.


----------



## Solrighal

groovyd said:


> Did exactly that... doesn't sound any better then JRiver but was much clunkier and had more interface and playback glitches. I noticed while installed it also cut the gain of iTunes back and dulled the sound during the A/B test selection to make people think it was better.  Needless to say I no longer trust them and didn't find their player a step up in any way.


 
  
 Yeah, the interface is really ugly. I've just uninstalled it too. It's a shame. There's a missed opportunity here I feel.


----------



## groovyd

wouldn't it be great if apple just improved iTunes


----------



## Krutsch

zoom25 said:


> If you're checking out Amarra, make sure you do the following to hear it at it's best. Open Amarra and go to "Preferences". This should open a window. Click the "Optimize" button. Next, click "disable all." This action will require you to put in your operating password. This script will take a few seconds to take place. Next, restart your computer and re-open Amarra. Then simply load music and play. The restart is very crucial as during the restart a lot of the sound benefits and scripts take place. I highly recommend everyone to demo Amarra in it's best form.
> 
> Amarra 3.0 -> Preferences -> *Optimize -> Disable All - > Let the action take place -> Restart computer -> Open Amarra -> Get blown away*
> 
> Additionally, running this setting will also help Audirvana Plus, but not as much as what Amarra extracts.


 
  
 Everyone gets really excited about optimizing their Macs, but in my experience and opinion, it's really all about managing USB connections. Of course, I am assuming you are using USB for your DAC connection and, most importantly, your Mac has enough CPU and RAM to not break a sweat running audio applications (which is everything that is fairly recent).
  
 Open your System Information app and look at your devices. On my MacBook (Retina, Early 2013), my USB controller/device assignments look like this:
  

  
 The left-hand USB port is the top-most one that is managing the keyboard and trackpad, along with my external HDD with my iTunes and FLAC library.
  
 The right-hand USB port is the bottom one, which has its only active device, my USB-SPDIF converter.
  
 Really, switching things around produces occasional clicks/pops... arranged they way I have it now, quiet and trouble free.
  
 As always, YMMV...
  
 ...


----------



## Solrighal

groovyd said:


> wouldn't it be great if apple just improved iTunes


 
  
 Yes!!!
  
 Apple really lost the plot with iTunes to be honest. The Mac mini is almost perfect as a source computer but you need to run crappy third-party software if you want decent sound and navigation. Too much bloat!


----------



## Zoom25

krutsch said:


> Everyone gets really excited about optimizing their Macs, but in my experience and opinion, it's really all about managing USB connections. Of course, I am assuming you are using USB for your DAC connection and, most importantly, your Mac has enough CPU and RAM to not break a sweat running audio applications (which is everything that is fairly recent).
> 
> Open your System Information app and look at your devices. On my MacBook (Retina, Early 2013), my USB controller/device assignments look like this:
> 
> ...


 

 Yup. Already using that configuration on my mid 2012 Retina Macbook Pro.


----------



## Solrighal

I've never had any issues with my 2012 Mac mini connected via USB to an ODAC. The ODAC has been connected to the same port since day one so maybe I got lucky.


----------



## Krutsch

solrighal said:


> I've never had any issues with my 2012 Mac mini connected via USB to an ODAC. The ODAC has been connected to the same port since day one so maybe I got lucky.


 

 The Mac Minis have more USB controllers and as long as you stay away from the controller that is also running internal devices, such as the IR remote receiver and bluetooth, as well the one managing external storage, you will be OK. So, yes, I think you got lucky 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Put your DAC on the wrong port, however, and it's ticks and pops - I don't care what DAC you are using, they are data interruptions. I have recreated these artifacts using Early 2009 and Mid 2011 Mac Minis, as well as my MBP.
  
 Not everyone understands this; just read the Schiit Wyrd thread to see what I mean...


----------



## Solrighal

I followed your example & it seems my ODAC is not on it's own. It seems to be sharing with my midi keyboard, which is odd because they are on separate sockets.


----------



## Krutsch

solrighal said:


> I followed your example & it seems my ODAC is not on it's own. It seems to be sharing with my midi keyboard, which is odd because they are on separate sockets.


 

 Interesting... I assume that's the "Impulse" device listed? Maybe it's just not active while you are listening to music (similar to how I have my DAC on a shared controller with the MBP's iSight Camera, which is unused most of the time). Don't know... One can start with a best guess, with respect to isolating the DAC, but trial and error is needed to really finish. Glad to hear you aren't experiencing any artifacts.


----------



## Solrighal

krutsch said:


> Interesting... I assume that's the "Impulse" device listed? Maybe it's just not active while you are listening to music (similar to how I have my DAC on a shared controller with the MBP's iSight Camera, which is unused most of the time). Don't know... One can start with a best guess, with respect to isolating the DAC, but trial and error is needed to really finish. Glad to hear you aren't experiencing any artifacts.


 
  
 It's the one thing about the Mac mini that I don't like; not enough USB ports. It's inevitable given the form factor but still annoying. If I could find a reliable USB 3 powered hub I'd buy one but I still haven't found one that's reliable on a Mac.
  
 There's no audible effects though from my set-up.


----------



## V-DiV

It may be that Krutsch's observations are specific to USB 2 whereas Zorrofox is plugged in to USB 3 which has ~ 10 times the bandwidth, so sharing services are not as big a deal.


----------



## Solrighal

v-div said:


> It may be that Krutsch's observations are specific to USB 2 whereas Zorrofox is plugged in to USB 3 which has ~ 10 times the bandwidth, so sharing services are not as big a deal.




That's a good point I hadn't thought of.


----------



## Krutsch

v-div said:


> It may be that Krutsch's observations are specific to USB 2 whereas Zorrofox is plugged in to USB 3 which has ~ 10 times the bandwidth, so sharing services are not as big a deal.


 
  
 Both ports on my MBP are USB 3.0, but keep in mind that the DACs are all USB 2.0, as are all of the internal devices in the Mac Mini/Book that use the same bus. You can see this in the USB device browser.
  
 Bandwidth is not the issue, it's the interrupts that may cause drop-outs/clicks/pops. And, to be clear, I'm not saying these artifacts are constant - but it happens, even if only occasionally.


----------



## bixby

krutsch said:


> Both ports on my MBP are USB 3.0, but keep in mind that the DACs are all USB 2.0, as are all of the internal devices in the Mac Mini/Book that use the same bus. You can see this in the USB device browser.
> 
> Bandwidth is not the issue, it's the interrupts that may cause drop-outs/clicks/pops. And, to be clear, I'm not saying these artifacts are constant - but it happens, even if only occasionally.


 
 You reminded me that I should also follow this logic on my HP laptop which is being tested for a bedside rig.  Had quite a few drops which have been really minimized due to some network adjustments, but I never thought about the USB port assignments.  I will try some other ports to see if the last few occasional pops on hi rez can be eliminated this way.
  
 I know my usb map for the mini makes a difference, this should as well, thanks Krutsch.


----------



## V-DiV

krutsch said:


> Both ports on my MBP are USB 3.0, but keep in mind that the DACs are all USB 2.0, as are all of the internal devices in the Mac Mini/Book that use the same bus. You can see this in the USB device browser.
> 
> Bandwidth is not the issue, it's the interrupts that may cause drop-outs/clicks/pops. And, to be clear, I'm not saying these artifacts are constant - but it happens, even if only occasionally.


 

 My MBP is a late 2008 with (USB 2.0 & FW).  I wasn't sure that your 2011 MBP had USB 3.0 yet.  
 I found on my own to make sure to connect my USB Headamp Pico DAC/Amp to the second USB port, the one with the fewest services running, and I rarely have glitches, even though my machine is getting to be a bit underpowered.


----------



## Krutsch

v-div said:


> My MBP is a late 2008 with (USB 2.0 & FW).  I wasn't sure that your 2011 MBP had USB 3.0 yet.
> I found on my own to make sure to connect my USB Headamp Pico DAC/Amp to the second USB port, the one with the fewest services running, and I rarely have glitches, even though my machine is getting to be a bit underpowered.


 

 My MacBook Pro (Retina, Early 2013, USB 3.0) had the same issues as my underpowered Mac Mini (Early, 2009, USB 2.0 & FW 800) until I sorted out the USB port issues. Once I added RAM to the 2009 Mac Mini (up to 8BG) and placed devices on non-competing ports, I get flawless playback. I mean, not a single glitch.
  
 The Mac Mini 2009 model provides access to *3 different USB busses on the back:*
  
 - Port *2 shares a USB bus with the IR* connection and the bluetooth adapter.
 - Ports 1+5 (*HDD* - I *use 1*) and 3+4 (*DAC* - I *use 4*) are each on their own USB bus. 
  
 A real pain... but I don't think PC/Mac H/W designers were ever planning on having to deal with the ridiculous sensitivity of USB DACs.
  
 That said, since the 2009 model was the last to use an outboard power supply, I think this model is the best directly connected music server, once configured properly.


----------



## Lohb

I just upped my A+ 1.5.12 license. Can anyone tell me how to get rid of the side menu on A+ 2.0x permanently ?
 I need to grab and drag it left for the tree (if that is its name) to disappear every time I fire it up fresh.
  
 I like the new style and SQ seems different to 1.5.12....less etched.


----------



## Lohb

I also emailed Damien to incorporate drag-and-drop.


----------



## V-DiV

krutsch said:


> My MacBook Pro (Retina, Early 2013, USB 3.0) had the same issues as my underpowered Mac Mini (Early, 2009, USB 2.0 & FW 800) until I sorted out the USB port issues. Once I added RAM to the 2009 Mac Mini (up to 8BG) and placed devices on non-competing ports, I get flawless playback. I mean, not a single glitch.
> 
> The Mac Mini 2009 model provides access to *3 different USB busses on the back:*
> 
> ...




I've been using optical out for my Channel Islands DAC but I've ordered a USB DAC and it may be a bit of a problem. My late 2008 MBP only has 2 USB 2.0 ports. I'll put the DAC on the clean USB port. But my music library on an external Seagate Slim 2T hard drive will have to be on a USB hub, and that has already been a problem sometimes, sharing with another drive, mouse, etc.


----------



## crazychile

v-div said:


> I've been using optical out for my Channel Islands DAC but I've ordered a USB DAC and it may be a bit of a problem. My late 2008 MBP only has 2 USB 2.0 ports. I'll put the DAC on the clean USB port. But my music library on an external Seagate Slim 2T hard drive will have to be on a USB hub, and that has already been a problem sometimes, sharing with another drive, mouse, etc.


 
  
 I had the same issue with my late 2009 MBP, and putting the USB storage through a hub made it skip and hang up. I ended up transfering everything to a firewire drive to fix it. Although now that Apple has gone away from Firewire, I'll have to go back to USB when I buy a new Mac Mini.


----------



## Solrighal

Or buy a Thunderbolt drive. Or a car.
  
 Thunderbolt is ridiculously expensive.


----------



## Krutsch

v-div said:


> I've been using optical out for my Channel Islands DAC but I've ordered a USB DAC and it may be a bit of a problem. My late 2008 MBP only has 2 USB 2.0 ports. I'll put the DAC on the clean USB port. But my music library on an external Seagate Slim 2T hard drive will have to be on a USB hub, and that has already been a problem sometimes, sharing with another drive, mouse, etc.


 
  
 I've been considering, lately, re-trying the optical out approach. You are limited to 96 kHz (not that it matters, but that's for another thread...) although I read that the newer generations of MacBook Retinas will actually do 192 kHz from that port. And, of course, you need a mini-TOSLINK adapter. But, prior to the whole async USB hysteria, I thought optical out from a Mac sounded cleaner and with no pops/noise.
  
 Continuing on...
  


crazychile said:


> I had the same issue with my late 2009 MBP, and putting the USB storage through a hub made it skip and hang up. I ended up transfering everything to a firewire drive to fix it. Although now that Apple has gone away from Firewire, I'll have to go back to USB when I buy a new Mac Mini.


 
  
 While I have experienced drop-outs with the DAC side of things, I have been able to place drives on the busy ports with fewer problems. On my MacBook Retina, I am using a USB-powered 3.0 drive which will read/write 80+ MBps (plenty fast for music, especially with 16 GB of RAM to cache). On the older Mac Mini, I placed a Seagate Hybrid drive (1 TB 2.5" HDD with 4GB NAND Flash) into an aftermarket enclosure. Even with USB 2.0 it's performed nicely (roughly 37+ MBps), due to very aggressive caching which also mediates latency issues.
  
 I've made heavy use of Firewire in the past, which is faster than USB 2.0 and avoids the bus conflict issue, but reliability depends on the devices. With Seagate HDDs I've been able to daisy-chain devices, but with my Drobo I've had connection issues since Mountain Lion.
  
 Thunderbolt... yeah... who buys those?


----------



## V-DiV

crazychile said:


> I had the same issue with my late 2009 MBP, and putting the USB storage through a hub made it skip and hang up. I ended up transfering everything to a firewire drive to fix it. Although now that Apple has gone away from Firewire, I'll have to go back to USB when I buy a new Mac Mini.


 
  
 If I have problems with my USB, I may try my FW drive.  I think you can use a FW to Thunderbolt adapter or a FW to USB 3.0 adapter when you get a new Mac with no more FW.
  


krutsch said:


> I've been considering, lately, re-trying the optical out approach. You are limited to 96 kHz (not that it matters, but that's for another thread...) although I read that the newer generations of MacBook Retinas will actually do 192 kHz from that port. And, of course, you need a mini-TOSLINK adapter. But, prior to the whole async USB hysteria, I thought optical out from a Mac sounded cleaner and with no pops/noise.
> 
> Continuing on...
> 
> ...


 
  
 My present DAC only has s/pdif (coax & toslink).  I don't remember if asynchronous USB had come along when I got my DAC, at least at a price for the masses. Optical was the way to go to avoid the electronic and electromagnetic noise from inside the computer, even if it is prone to jitter.  I have an optical cabe with the normal toslink connector on one end and a mini-toslink on the other ready to shove into the Mac headphone out.


----------



## Krutsch

v-div said:


> If I have problems with my USB, I may try my FW drive.  I think you can use a FW to Thunderbolt adapter or a FW to USB 3.0 adapter when you get a new Mac with no more FW.
> 
> 
> My present DAC only has s/pdif (coax & toslink).  I don't remember if asynchronous USB had come along when I got my DAC, at least at a price for the masses. *Optical was the way to go to avoid the electronic and electromagnetic noise from inside the computer, even if it is prone to jitter.*  I have an optical cabe with the normal toslink connector on one end and a mini-toslink on the other ready to shove into the Mac headphone out.


 
  
 Don't worry about the jitter... really. Plug in that TOSLINK cable and enjoy the music!


----------



## V-DiV

krutsch said:


> Don't worry about the jitter... really. Plug in that TOSLINK cable and enjoy the music!


 

 That's what I'm doing right now.  I've been toslink-only in my home rig for some time, "and loving every minute of it."  (any Maxwell Smart fans?)


----------



## prez

New to this thread.  I have been dabbling with some of the listed apps on my mac and so far my favorite is Fidelia, WOW.  I love this app.  It sounds wonderful, and does what I want with playlists, etc. I had no idea there could be such a difference with players when access the same FLAC files, using the same headphone amp and headphones. Only downside, it looks expensive if you want all the bells and whistles.  But dang, this is so nice. I may not be able to return to iTunes.


----------



## JohnBooty

I've been looking for a fairly minimal player for OSX that lets me customize the way that track information is displayed - similar to the "custom columns" you can have in Foobar or the "expression columns" you can have in JRiver Media Center.
  
 Does anybody know of one?
  
 I've tried most of the players mentioned in this thread and haven't found such a feature. But it's possible I missed an application, or that I downloaded one and simply overlooked the feature I'm looking for.
  
 (I know there's a version of JRiver Media Center for OSX, but it's the ugliest thing I've ever seen.)
  
 (To clarify, when I say "customize" - I don't need an app that is fully skinnable like Foobar or JRiver. I don't necessarily mind if the app is skinnable, but all I'm interested in is customizing the way that track information is displayed.)


----------



## bpcans

^^^ JohnBooty, all the music players that I use, JRiver, iTunes, BitPerect, VOX, and Audirvana+ 2.0.9, are all pretty similar when it comes to display. From VOX and BP which are minimalist, to JRiver which can do quite a lot. The Amarra music player is real nice, but kinda spendy.


----------



## bixby

johnbooty said:


> I've been looking for a fairly minimal player for OSX that lets me customize the way that track information is displayed - similar to the "custom columns" you can have in Foobar or the "expression columns" you can have in JRiver Media Center.
> 
> Does anybody know of one?
> 
> ...


 
 well, there were a few mentioned in the thread that allow customization of track data.  If you did not like them or if it was not enough data, then you may have to search some of the lesser known ones for that functionality at perhaps the expense of sound quality.


----------



## JohnBooty

I saw quite a few that allow editing of metadata such as ID3 tags, but primarily I'm looking for the ability to alter the data shown in columns - again, like Foobar or JRiver.


----------



## groovyd

johnbooty said:


> I saw quite a few that allow editing of metadata such as ID3 tags, but primarily I'm looking for the ability to alter the data shown in columns - again, like Foobar or JRiver.


 

 agree - someone needs to sit down and make a proper native mac skin for JRiver... something that doesn't look like an afterthought.  Noire Dark is what I use now and it is decent but i'd love it if they sat one of their own down for a single release to knock out a respectable skin for it. Some things about it beguile me like the single pixel wide drag bars between windows.  Also would like a more minimal UI where the 6 dozen online services and esoteric options aren't visible.


----------



## Solrighal

groovyd said:


> agree - someone needs to sit down and make a proper native mac skin for JRiver... something that doesn't look like an afterthought.  Noire Dark is what I use now and it is decent but i'd love it if they sat one of their own down for a single release to knock out a respectable skin for it. Some things about it beguile me like the single pixel wide drag bars between windows.  Also would like a more minimal UI where the 6 dozen online services and esoteric options aren't visible.


 
  
 +1 on the need for a native-like skin.
  
 I don't see online services when I view JRiver.


----------



## groovyd

on mine there are tabs for each of Amazon, AMG, Google, Images, Wiki, YouTube across the top.


----------



## bpcans

groovyd said:


> on mine there are tabs for each of Amazon, AMG, Google, Images, Wiki, YouTube across the top.


Same on mine too.


----------



## Solrighal

Well, yeah, but they can be removed by creating custom views. It's actually a very powerful interface but very confusing initially...


----------



## groovyd

very confusing even after 3 years... i don't even try to change anything anymore, it just never works the way i expect and i got tired of fighting it.  things i close end up open again on the next run.


----------



## groovyd

solrighal said:


> Well, yeah, but they can be removed by creating custom views. It's actually a very powerful interface but very confusing initially...


 

 What skin is that? Looks way better then mine. Tried downloading some from their website but it just gives me a small .mjp file that does nothing.


----------



## Solrighal

groovyd said:


> very confusing even after 3 years... i don't even try to change anything anymore, it just never works the way i expect and i got tired of fighting it.  things i close end up open again on the next run.


 
  
 I used to have exactly the same issues. Then I found this thread...
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/j-river-tips-and-techniques-user-experiences-repository-13684/
  
 Almost everything is dealt with there. The reason I can't tell you how to set it up myself is because I'm not sure I remember how.
  


groovyd said:


> What skin is that? Looks way better then mine. Tried downloading some from their website but it just gives me a small .mjp file that does nothing.


 
  
 That skin is one of the built-in ones. Go to View > Skin > Purity.


----------



## groovyd

wow, very nice... not sure why i never noticed that one... could have sworn i clicked through them all.  that one just needs to move the min/close/max buttons to the left and use the mac style buttons and it is good enough for me.


----------



## Solrighal

groovyd said:


> wow, very nice... not sure why i never noticed that one... could have sworn i clicked through them all.  that one just needs to move the min/close/max buttons to the left and use the mac style buttons and it is good enough for me.


 
  
 Yeah, you wouldn't think the window buttons would be a problem but I go top-left every single time.


----------



## groovyd

maybe just take that skin and swap out just the buttons with the buttons from the Noire Dark skin which has the correct osx buttons. Would be real good if a skin could choose based on the os or to have the basic window buttons not managed by the skin but added by the JRiver itself.


----------



## Solrighal

It would be even better if JRiver would just pull their fingers out and create a proper native skin in the first place. It surely can't be beyond them.


----------



## bgentry

With a thread this size, it's really difficult for a beginner to figure out what's what about all the different players.
  
 I used the guide at the start of the thread and went through essentially all of them, and downloaded and evaluated 5 of them (I think).  After about a month of using several players, and not being super impressed, I decided to give JRiver Media Center a try.  Initially I didn't include it in my evaluation because it was a port of a PC program and the way it's listed in this thread makes it seem like a non-functional beta or alpha.
  
 I'm glad all the other players had some sort of shortcoming though, because JRiver does just about everything I could ask for and it does it well.  It's interface takes some learning.  It's features aren't always obvious.  But it does SO MUCH and has so many options, it seems like I'm only using a fraction of it's functionality.
  
 The biggest pluses for me about this program are:
  
 1.  Presentation of the library.  It's easy to find what you want and you can do most of that visually, and it's a pleasing experience.   "Large beautiful cover art display"
 2.  "Auto import" allows it to scan one or more directories in near real time, adding a subtracting music files on the fly.  This is more than awesome for situations like renaming directories (funny named album that you remove special characters from for example), everyday adding of new music, and of course trashing music you don't want any more.  It even picks up new tags that I add from external programs should I choose to do so.
 3.  It's ability to find and save cover art is the best of any program I've tried.  In 99% of albums I've tried, I've been able to find good quality, fairly large files, and have them saved to be used later.  This is surprisingly hard to do with other programs; it's really cool that JRiver does it so well.
 4.  The developers are actively working on it, fixing problems, taking feature requests, and releasing very regularly.  More regularly than I'm used to with almost any program of this type.
  
 This mac port has it's issues here and there.  Like I said, there's definitely a big dose of "that's not obvious, how do I do that?" going on with it.  But if you get past that part, it's really a fantastic player.
  
 If you're in the same boat I was a few months ago, trying to figure out which mac player to use to play high resolution audio, FLACs, etc, you should really give it a try.  I'm glad I did.
  
 Brian.


----------



## bixby

JRiver certainly is a very robust program.  I am glad you found a player which suits your needs.


----------



## bpcans

bgentry, great write up on the JRiver player. I like JRivers UI(user interface) better than all the other players for Mac OS X that I've tried.


----------



## Lohb

Any A+ users on 2.0x noticing a difference in integer mode 1 vs 2 ?


----------



## audiolibrarian

I did a quick skim through the pages and wanted to know if there was a music player that was like foobar where I could customize the way it looks and one that has a spectrogram, oh and of course, plays FLAC?


----------



## Solrighal

audiolibrarian said:


> I did a quick skim through the pages and wanted to know if there was a music player that was like foobar where I could customize the way it looks and one that has a spectrogram, oh and of course, plays FLAC?


 
  
 JRMC is your best bet but it's a complicated beast.


----------



## joeexp

lohb said:


> Any A+ users on 2.0x noticing a difference in integer mode 1 vs 2 ?


 

 No difference for what I can hear...


----------



## Zoom25

Finally got around to trying Audirvana 2.0.9 - It's the baby of Audirvana 1.5.10 / 1.5.12 and Amarra 3.0
  
 Comparison to 1.5.10:
 - Increased transparency and resolution
 - Still intimate sounding in comparison to Amarra 3.0 but more open sounding than Audirvana Plus
 - Bass resolution and speed better than 1.5.12 (almost Amarra like - very, very close)
 - Ditches the laid-back sound for a more lively and musical feel
 - Mid range is Amarra like (I think Amarra is still ahead by a hair of margin)
 - Improved imaging and treble response - pulls off air without adding fatigue
 - Best feature is soundstage hands down - does 3D better than Amarra. Everything falls into place perfectly. HD 800's are really able to capture this. I have yet to put my speakers through 2.0.9, but at least on HD 800, 2.0.9 is more favourable to Amarra 3.0
 - Soundstage - SERIOUSLY - it's sounding like a high end streamer (never heard better on a computer setup)
 - Amarra is a touch more aggressive with a bigger bite (although Audirvana might be more closer to the sweet spot - expect variance between system)
 - I can distinguish this very easily running the HD 800 out of neutral studio gear
  
 Completely different beast from previous Audirvana versions. It's voiced exceptionally well. I might prefer it to Amarra 3.0 in many cases.
  
 Overall, super happy with 2.0.9 - my favourite sounding Audirvana player to date. In terms of SQ ALONE, I could live with either Amarra 3.0 or Audirvana 2.0.9. I can finally put Audirvana on equal footing with Amarra. Been waiting so long to say this!
  
 EDIT: Wanted to mention I'm running Amarra 3.0.2. Will report back if Amarra 3.0.3 changes anything.
  
 EDIT2: If you have a HD 800, you must absolutely try Audirvana 2.0.9!!! Game/headphone changer. This is the closest I've gotten on headphones (HD 800 specifically) to sounding like ATC monitors in a custom built studio room. It's been a long time since I've had a smile this big. Absolutely destroying Amarra 3.0.2 on HD 800.


----------



## groovyd

Is it bit perfect?


----------



## Zoom25

This is the first time I've felt no need to get a dedicated streamer like Aries for sound quality benefits. I'll probably throw in a decent re-clocker like Gustard U12 and call it a day. All this needs is a streaming engine and iOS app.


----------



## prez

zoom25 said:


> This is the first time I've felt no need to get a dedicated streamer like Aries for sound quality benefits. I'll probably throw in a decent re-clocker like Gustard U12 and call it a day. All this needs is a streaming engine and iOS app.


 
 what is the point of a "re-clocker" in this scenario?  I assume you are referring to a word clock?


----------



## Lohb

zoom25 said:


> Finally got around to trying Audirvana 2.0.9 - It's the baby of Audirvana 1.5.10 / 1.5.12 and Amarra 3.0
> 
> Comparison to 1.5.10:
> - Increased transparency and resolution
> ...


 

 Heck, yeah.
 A+ 2.0 sounding great even out of my basic Macbook Air Cirrus internal DAC chip now (shock horror) !
 Decibel is nice n natural, but its GUI was a bit too simple/annoying.
 A+ 2.0 silky smooth now....loving the way album art streams in-and-out depending on whether your folder is connected from a drive or not.


----------



## joeexp

For me  -  Amarra is still a tad more "live-like" and "realistic" compared to Audirvana. 
 Which is a shame because Audirvana is more easy to use.


----------



## Twangsta

zoom25 said:


> Finally got around to trying Audirvana 2.0.9 - It's the baby of Audirvana 1.5.10 / 1.5.12 and Amarra 3.0
> 
> Comparison to 1.5.10:
> - Increased transparency and resolution
> ...


 

 It's a significant improvement. Rock guitar sounds much better now on HD800s.


----------



## Zoom25

prez said:


> what is the point of a "re-clocker" in this scenario?  I assume you are referring to a word clock?


 

 I'd be adding the U12 for a few reasons. Cleaner power, all outputs are hot at the same time, AES output especially, maybe newer XMOS chip in comparison to the XMOS in my Dangerous Source (although it works just fine - no qualms). More useful for my Late 2009 iMac then my 2012 Retina Macbook Pro with SSD.


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

zoom25 said:


> Finally got around to trying Audirvana 2.0.9 - It's the baby of Audirvana 1.5.10 / 1.5.12 and Amarra 3.0
> 
> Comparison to 1.5.10:
> - Increased transparency and resolution
> ...


 

 I've been waiting to upgrade to Audirvana from the 1.5.12 I have.  I use it in the iTunes integrated mode, with the latest Yosemite version.  I may want to try the standalone mode, but for now, could I upgrade and continue to use the new version in iTunes integrated mode?  Or does that still exist with version 2?  I understand that soon an IOS remote-style app will be available, as well.  This would be great, considering that Apple's newest version of the remote app no longer displays album art in the 'now playing' mode on the iPhone or iPad screen.


----------



## Krutsch

red jacket mike said:


> I've been waiting to upgrade to Audirvana from the 1.5.12 I have.  I use it in the iTunes integrated mode, with the latest Yosemite version.  I may want to try the standalone mode, but for now, could I upgrade and continue to use the new version in iTunes integrated mode?  Or does that still exist with version 2?  I understand that soon an IOS remote-style app will be available, as well.  This would be great, considering that Apple's newest version of the remote app no longer displays album art in the 'now playing' mode on the iPhone or iPad screen.


 

 Yes, in short. A+ 2.0 still supports integrated mode - I use this all the time. I am pretty pleased with A+, once the initial bumps were ironed out. Still not using stand-alone mode, although everyone (incl. me) thinks it (maybe) sounds better than stand-alone mode. And, yes, you can still use iTunes Remote with it.
  
 To be frank, I just really like the iTunes 12 UX and the A+ 2.0 interface feels really, really o...l...d... and clumsy. Sorry, A+ fans.
  
 BTW, if you are sick of Apple's Remote and their high-latency screen refreshes, as well as lack of album art in Now Playing, try an Android phone/tablet and "Retune". Crushes and destroys Apple' Remote app in every way, except one: while you can manage the "Up Next" queue, you cannot edit playlists on-the-fly.


----------



## joeexp

krutsch said:


> Yes, in short. A+ 2.0 still supports integrated mode - I use this all the time. I am pretty pleased with A+, once the initial bumps were ironed out. Still not using stand-alone mode, although everyone (incl. me) thinks it (maybe) sounds better than stand-alone mode. And, yes, you can still use iTunes Remote with it.
> 
> To be frank, I just really like the iTunes 12 UX and the A+ 2.0 interface feels really, really o...l...d... and clumsy. Sorry, A+ fans.
> 
> BTW, if you are sick of Apple's Remote and their high-latency screen refreshes, as well as lack of album art in Now Playing, try an Android phone/tablet and "Retune". Crushes and destroys Apple' Remote app in every way, except one: while you can manage the "Up Next" queue, you cannot edit playlists on-the-fly.


 

 Please give us an example of what you consider young and fresh! - Perhaps we can then petition for an UI upgrade!


----------



## Krutsch

joeexp said:


> Please give us an example of what you consider young and fresh! - Perhaps we can then petition for an UI upgrade!


 
  
 Anything that looks like Apple... just kidding... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I could do a full heuristic review of the UI, but what's the point and who am I to judge?
  
 I just find it hard to navigate around my collection from different viewpoints. For example, you can have the big list view of all of your songs, and sort by different columns, or the album view. But to change sort/display criteria, you need to open a dialog and tediously edit the sort criteria.
  
 So, switching from an artist-centric view to a genre or album title-centric view is tedious. Yes, I know I can just type stuff in the search box, but (a) I don't always know what I am looking for and, so I tend to scan via album covers and (b) I like to see search results sorted by category. Open iTunes 12 and type something in the search box; then so the same in A+ to see the difference.
  
 Additionally, the UI is missing fit-and-finish, from a visual design viewpoint. The Album Details field, for example, is very distracting with all of those text boxes with strong, black outlines. Again, *yes*, the information is all there and it works, but bring up the Get Info dialog on iTunes 12 and compare the two.
  
 I am not trying to sound like an Apple fanboy, but Apple puts huge effort into the visual details and those details really matter. Another app that doesn't get it is JRiver Media Center (Windows version). Another example of an app with fantastic feature/function, but a horror-show from a usability and visuals design viewpoint.
  
 I am not trying to harsh on the A+ author - he's performed miracles with A+. But, I wish Damien would bring on an experienced visual designer to help with the UI; the application is awesome, and he clearly knows what he is doing from a systems internals perspective. But, it's 2015 and the bar is very high.


----------



## Solrighal

If Audirvana allowed navigation by folder structure I'd buy it in a heartbeat but at the moment, for me, it's a steaming pile of junk.


----------



## joeexp

Nobody -  but  you  - seems to be needing a "folder structure"; Perhaps it isn't the software?


----------



## Zoom25

Love the sound on Audirvana Plus 2.0, and it has gotten much better stability since release. Although there are a few caveats. Most of them have to do with managing playlists and editing metadata. On a few albums, I am not able to edit metadata whatsoever. In this area, iTunes kills Audirvana Plus. iTunes playlist system and drag and drop are very useful.


----------



## steffi

Do these players/library managers do any better job of recognizing the same music stored in different formats?
  
 iTunes isn't very good at this.


----------



## Solrighal

joeexp said:


> Nobody -  but  you  - seems to be needing a "folder structure"; Perhaps it isn't the software?




I'm glad you get a laugh from other people's problems. Perhaps, instead of mocking other people's misfortune, you'd like to explain to a simpleton like me why it's NOT possible? 

The software is already using the folder structure so my asking to be able to use it directly doesn't seem like such a stretch.


----------



## audiolibrarian

solrighal said:


> I'm glad you get a laugh from other people's problems. Perhaps, instead of mocking other people's misfortune, you'd like to explain to a simpleton like me why it's NOT possible?
> 
> The software is already using the folder structure so my asking to be able to use it directly doesn't seem like such a stretch.


 
  
  
 I agree that the previous comment wasn't very helpful and would like to see people be more understanding that not everyone has the same preference. I for one hate pretty much all the audio players I've tried on a Mac. Sound quality isn't an issue, but rather a lack in options, customization or unnecessary bloat. To explain a little more for those who care to try and understand, I'll give a few examples. For the most part every player seems to give you an iTunes like look whether you want it or not, a layout that cannot be changed, or both. Then, some of them seem to just include a bunch of, what I consider junk, in the main program and I would rather these things be plugins that I can choose to have or not. To top it off most of these programs cost money and some a ridiculous amount when compared to something like foobar2000 or any of the really popular Windows audio applications that are FREE. It's quite sad, but it seems most people on a Mac just don't give a **** and use iTunes or whatever.
  
 Zorrofox, I wanted to know if you could explain to me this folder structure thing for me; sorry I didn't feel like going back tons of pages to find it.


----------



## Solrighal

The thing is I've already got my music pretty well sorted on an external drive. It looks like this.. 

Music / Artist / FLAC or MP3 / Album

I'm 7000 miles from home right now or I'd throw a screen grab up. 

The reason I have MP3 is because I need lossy versions for the car stereo. If I only had FLAC to deal with it wouldn't be such a problem. Also, my tagging is not perfect. This makes finding music that I know I have very difficult. 

And I agree with you in regards to the interface issues and particularly costs. My Mac mini is pretty much perfect hardware-wise as a server but it's let down by the software. 

And I still haven't read a definitive explanation as to why some Mac players sound better than others. Bit-perfect should be exactly that. 

I'm using JRiver MC19 because it allows the folder view I prefer (eventually) and isn't too expensive. It's ugly as sin though. 

Right now, I'd kill for a Foobar Mac equivalent. It really doesn't seem like too much to ask for.


----------



## audiolibrarian

So, I take it you want to exclude certain folders i.e. MP3 from view or am I missing something? I'm more or less just curious so that I am informed. I would really like to see a player similar or better than foobar, but it seems like the majority of the audience is content with these lack luster audio programs. I just want some customization and being able to play my FLAC. Not sure why Mac is such a disappointing experience compared to the Windows side of things. Please, if someone is reading these posts and can make a foobar like program for Mac, DO IT!


----------



## Krutsch

joeexp said:


> Nobody -  but  you  - seems to be needing a "folder structure"; Perhaps it isn't the software?


 

 That is a mean-spirited, bull-Schiit comment, and you know it. Many, many users of A+ have asked about folder-level management.


----------



## Solrighal

audiolibrarian said:


> So, I take it you want to exclude certain folders i.e. MP3 from view or am I missing something? I'm more or less just curious so that I am informed. I would really like to see a player similar or better than foobar, but it seems like the majority of the audience is content with these lack luster audio programs. I just want some customization and being able to play my FLAC. Not sure why Mac is such a disappointing experience compared to the Windows side of things. Please, if someone is reading these posts and can make a foobar like program for Mac, DO IT!




No, quite the opposite. I want to see everything in the location I put it. 

It's not that it's such a big deal either. As I said, I've managed to make JRMC provide the view I like. I just can't understand why Apple programs are so determined to obscure something as fundamental as the basic folder tree. It's already there, they just choose to make it invisible. And that's not logical. Computers must be logical.


----------



## joeexp

solrighal said:


> I'm glad you get a laugh from other people's problems. Perhaps, instead of mocking other people's misfortune, you'd like to explain to a simpleton like me why it's NOT possible?
> 
> The software is already using the folder structure so my asking to be able to use it directly doesn't seem like such a stretch.


 

 I'm not laughing! The OS X Finder already has very powerful tools [including Aliases] to organise your music. I'm just wondering why you would need another level of file organisation inside the Player.
  ,,,
  
 No harm intended.


----------



## joeexp

krutsch said:


> That is a mean-spirited, bull-Schiit comment, and you know it. Many, many users of A+ have asked about folder-level management.


 

 Stop the whining  - He can fend for himself!.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
 Always that lynch mob mentality coming through in this forum —


----------



## Krutsch

joeexp said:


> Stop the whining  - He can fend for himself!.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Wasn't defending anyone... just letting you know that you're wrong about the folder topic.


----------



## NiHM

I'm very much in agreement with Zorrofox.  I would love to be able to view my music collection using nothing more than the directory structure on my NAS.  Artist > Album(s).  That way, even if the tags aren't exactly to Audirvana's liking, my music will show up exactly where I *know* it is supposed to be.


----------



## Lohb

I've seen a few people in the thread asking why these players change the presentation of the music.....I'm curious as well, and so does anyone know technically why all these OSX music players have a sound signature style vs being a 'transparent transport' of bits to the DAC stage which would then at that stage introduce its own signature to the music data ?


----------



## Krutsch

lohb said:


> I've seen a few people in the thread asking why these players change the presentation of the music.....I'm curious as well, and so does anyone know technically why all these OSX music players have a sound signature style vs *being a 'transparent transport' of bits to the DAC stage* which would then at that stage introduce its own signature to the music data ?


 
  
 IMO, I believe it's all expectation bias / placebo. I've experienced this, first-hand. I went through a phase where I swore up-and-down that A+ in stand-alone mode sounded better than iTunes integration mode.
  
 As a software engineer, I could possibly understand how passing through Mac OS's Core Audio, with its translation of data to floating point and subsequent interpolation with some minor rounding errors, could possibly have an impact on what's passed to the DAC.
  
 However, the modern playback alternatives being discussed on this thread all by-pass these software layers and transport the data directly to the DAC. In most cases, this done using async USB, so there shouldn't be any timing considerations (i.e. what I've seen called "software jitter"). This is the case with both Windows and Mac OS.
  
 So, Bitperfect should sound exactly like Audirvana+, which should sound exactly like Amarra, which should sound exactly like Fidelia, which should sound exactly like Decibel.
  
 If anything is not working correctly, the subsequent effects are ticks/pops/drop-outs (I've experienced these on Macs with USB issues, as I've documented in this thread); it's not "congested mids" or less "air between the instruments".
  
 But, please, educate me if I am wrong about this. I've asked this question here and on other forums, but no one has an answer for why one playback engine would sound different from another. I say they don't and I challenge anyone to pass an ABX that proves otherwise.


----------



## olor1n

lohb said:


> Any A+ users on 2.0x noticing a difference in integer mode 1 vs 2 ?


 
  
 The difference between the integer modes is subtle through the HD650 and virtually inaudible through my Audioengine A2 speakers. Different story through the HD800 though. Integer mode 1 is clearer and more coherent, while mode 2 can sound congested and wooly. I can easily tell one from other in blind tests.
  


zoom25 said:


> Finally got around to trying Audirvana 2.0.9 - It's the baby of Audirvana 1.5.10 / 1.5.12 and Amarra 3.0
> 
> Comparison to 1.5.10:
> - Increased transparency and resolution
> ...


 
  
 I don't have experience with Amarra, but I can confirm that there is some pixy-dust voodoo at play with Audirvana+ 2.0.9 and its synergy with the HD800. The jump in sound quality over 1.5.12, which I stuck with for a long time as I was already quite content, was entirely unexpected and stark.


----------



## Lohb

olor1n said:


> The difference between the integer modes is subtle through the HD650 and virtually inaudible through my Audioengine A2 speakers. Different story through the HD800 though. Integer mode 1 is clearer and more coherent, while mode 2 can sound congested and wooly. I can easily tell one from other in blind tests.
> 
> 
> I don't have experience with Amarra, but I can confirm that there is some pixy-dust voodoo at play with Audirvana+ 2.0.9 and its synergy with the HD800. The jump in sound quality over 1.5.12, which I stuck with for a long time as I was already quite content, was entirely unexpected and stark.


 

 With your exp. on 800's with integer mode 1+2 I can believe that ...as one guy said, he uses his 800's like a microscope to 'look at' SQ changes in his audio chain.


----------



## Zoom25

olor1n said:


> The difference between the integer modes is subtle through the HD650 and virtually inaudible through my Audioengine A2 speakers. Different story through the HD800 though. Integer mode 1 is clearer and more coherent, while mode 2 can sound congested and wooly. I can easily tell one from other in blind tests.
> 
> 
> I don't have experience with Amarra, but I can confirm that there is some pixy-dust voodoo at play with Audirvana+ 2.0.9 and its synergy with the HD800. The jump in sound quality over 1.5.12, which I stuck with for a long time as I was already quite content, was entirely unexpected and stark.


 
  
 Agreed on comparison between Integer 1 and 2.
  
 I haven't used Amarra 3.X since hearing Audirvana 2.0.9. The library's been stable, despite annoyance with editing metadata and viewing. When Damien comes out with the IOS app, it will resemble my Spotify setup.


----------



## bpcans

I'm spending more time listening to Audirvana 2.0.10 in non-integrated mode than any of my other music players of late. Could be just a phase.


----------



## joeexp

+1


----------



## omasciarotte

krutsch said:


> IMO, I believe it's all expectation bias / placebo. I've experienced this, first-hand. I went through a phase where I swore up-and-down that A+ in stand-alone mode sounded better than iTunes integration mode…
> 
> But, please, educate me if I am wrong about this. I've asked this question here and on other forums, but no one has an answer for why one playback engine would sound different from another. I say they don't and I challenge anyone to pass an ABX that proves otherwise.


 
  
 Hey Krutsch,
  
 There have been several versions of this question (and replies) in head-fi, just want to reiterate some thoughts and opinions…First off, it may well be placebo effect but unlikely. Folks with better listening skills than you and I have found that they perceive a difference with different apps when all other factors remain the same. Second, I know from experience that very small changes in the way audio data is handled inside an app make audible differences during playback. Third, any reasonable "test" is all about your abilities, your gear and your mindset. A/B/X testing is not the end-all be-all that engineers would hope. See:
  

http://audioxpress.com/article/The-High-Resolution-Audibility-Test.html
  
 for more on that thought.
  
 Amarra, because of the way it’s built, allows you to switch, in real time, into bypass and back; from Amarra to iTunes and back. So, no relying on the memory of what you heard 20 or 40 seconds ago. If you don't hear a difference with quality HRA recordings, not low resolution music masquerading as high rez, then it's either your gear or your inability to pick out the differences…sorry. Also see:
  

http://audioxpress.com/article/Perceived-Meaningful-Resolution.html
  ​ for more thoughts on the audibility of HRA…Happy listening!


----------



## Solrighal

It's either bit-perfect or it isn't. Fact.


----------



## Krutsch

omasciarotte said:


> Hey Krutsch,
> 
> There have been several versions of this question (and replies) in head-fi, just want to reiterate some thoughts and opinions…First off, it may well be placebo effect but unlikely. Folks with better listening skills than you and I have found that they perceive a difference with different apps when all other factors remain the same. Second, I know from experience that very small changes in the way audio data is handled inside an app make audible differences during playback. Third, any reasonable "test" is all about your abilities, your gear and your mindset. A/B/X testing is not the end-all be-all that engineers would hope. See:
> 
> ...


 
  
 Fair enough... I asked to be educated and you provided links. I will read and keep an open mind, although you switched topics a little: playback engine differences to high-res audio.
  
 Thanks for the links.


----------



## omasciarotte

krutsch said:


> Fair enough... I asked to be educated and you provided links. I will read and keep an open mind, although you switched topics a little: playback engine differences to high-res audio.
> 
> Thanks for the links.


 
  
 I did!  That’s because implicit in your posting is the "since I can’t conceive of a mechanism, it must be hucksterism” assumption. That’s a dangerous trap, and one many of us have fallen into over the years. Last year, I was asked to do a USB cable review…I went into it thinking, “How silly is that!?” Lo and behold, it made a huge difference, an improvement BTW, in the sound when compared to other cables, even ones costing 10x more. I know, that’s a cable not software but, the “It’s digital so, that can’t happen” view applies to both.
 So, grab a demo, try it yourself and simply listen…very carefully.
  
 Thanks for keeping an open mind!


----------



## Krutsch

omasciarotte said:


> I did!  *That’s because implicit in your posting is the "since I can’t conceive of a mechanism, it must be hucksterism” assumption.*


 
 That's not really what I've said, with respect to the playback engine issue.
  
 As a software engineer with 25 years of experience, I know how this stuff is built. Assuming that the playback engine is there to decode an audio file and then transport to the DAC, via direct I/O pathways, without modifying the PCM data, I am puzzled by what could be causing perceived differences in sound. Not the same thing as saying: "...it's a mystery and so must be snake-oil."


----------



## omasciarotte

Quote Originally Posted by *Krutsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
   





> That's not really what I've said, with respect to the playback engine issue.
> As a software engineer with 25 years of experience, I know how this stuff is built. Assuming that the playback engine is there to decode an audio file and then transport to the DAC, via direct I/O pathways, without modifying the PCM data, I am puzzled by what could be causing perceived differences in sound. Not the same thing as saying: "...it's a mystery and so must be snake-oil."


 
  
 My apologies. Most of us think that part of the reason is activity within the CPU, I/O et cetera which, in turn, subtly modulates the supply rails, plus alters the resulting eye pattern and recovered noise floor. Noise directly radiated from the circuitry as duty cycles and other activities change may also be an influence…dunno. Alas, that what research scientists (and grad students) are for!      I know quite a few senior audio-only software engineers, and they freely admit that, at times, they too are puzzled by the subjective change heard from seemingly minor changes in their code.
  
 Caution: anecdote not directly associated with the above topic…
 I was reading a really interesting interview with Bob Ludwig, of Gateway Mastering fame, in a recent TapeOp magazine, and he mentioned how bad early PCM DACs and ADCs were, since they were designs "ripped from the textbook.” With Matlab, almost anyone can design a signal processing block, but it’ll most likely sound like crap. It usually takes experience to know what form or approach will sound good, maybe without knowing why. The “why” will come later, as the state of the art is advanced.


----------



## omasciarotte

I was just comparing a jazz hybrid SACD title (Perfect Houseplants at the moment) playing back in iTunes (12.1.2.27 & OS 10.9.5) against TIDAL running in Chrome against TIDAL running in a standalone player app currently in beta, and they all sound different. Not huge, “OMG, this is dog meat and this one ROCKS!” differences but subtle differences in transient response and soundstage. I know for a fact that the two TIDALs are delivering the same bits from their server so, that’s a given. And yes, the Red Book layer may be different bits, though it certainly is closely related to what TIDAL is delivering.
  
 Same results hold true across players; Audirvana Plus, Fidelia, Pure Music, Amarra or what have you…same bits, different presentation. BTW, was using a simple, convenient signal path for this test; a Geek Out 1k into LCD-3s.


----------



## Krutsch

omasciarotte said:


> Same results hold true across players; Audirvana Plus, Fidelia, Pure Music, Amarra or what have you…*same bits, different presentation.* BTW, was using a simple, convenient signal path for this test; a Geek Out 1k into LCD-3s.


 
  
 I am learning this to be true... even though it makes zero sense to me.
  
 I added a Bryston BDP-1 to my playback chain, a few days ago - still learning it's quirks - but the SQ is a significant step-up from my MacBook Retina playback chain. More clarity and presence in sound than I've personally ever experience from a Head-Fi rig.
  
 I was very surprised by what I heard. I know the guys at Bryston put a lot of effort into mitigating electrical noise and maybe that's the key element.
  
 All I know is: my local dealer "encouraged" me to take one home for an audition and it's staying on my desk.


----------



## omasciarotte

Quote Originally Posted by *Krutsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
  


> All I know is: my local dealer "encouraged" me to take one home for an audition and it's staying on my desk.


 
  
 Nice!


----------



## Solrighal

My experience is the same. I've heard them all & believe them all to be different. I have no idea why that is and it flies in the face of everything I previously believed to be true. 

I settled on JRMC 19 as the best but that's as much for the UI as it is for the actual sound.


----------



## Zoom25

Sorry for the off-topic post, but I was wondering what software you guys use to keep a library for videos? Like anything besides iTunes that gets the job done? I'm not sure if there is a videophile player version like there is with audio (Amarra, Audirvana etc). I just want something that can manage video library and play it. I can always run the audio through Amarra SQ. Thanks.


----------



## bixby

plex


----------



## Krutsch

bixby said:


> plex


 
  
 Does Plex actually work, now? I've tried it a few times in the past and the bugs just were too much for me.


----------



## bixby

surprisingly well with my windows machine and a $5 Roku purchased app it does work well.  I am able to watch the limited number of files on my windows machine with no issues aside from the occasional streaming blip since I do not have ethernet to the roku.  And the channels are quite nice like CBS to watch the new James Corden on CBS Late Late show or Madame Secretary or Scorpions as well as all the PBS stuff that is avail.
  
 In a word, I am quite pleased.  I did find out that any issues with my Roku app and the Plex server app are usually related to an upgrade on one or the other that has not been done.  Once in sync though quite nice.
  
 My friend has the "free" Mac app on his apple tv and it is his main TV/movie app for all his viewing of owned files.
  
 EDIT:  I will say the Plex info files have helped me a lot in getting it up and running and are amongst the best for any free apps out here.


----------



## valiant66

I've been using plex for over a year now. A Dedcated Mac mini as a server, controlled from my iPad OR iPhone , streaming to an Apple TV over an older wifi network, driving a surround processor. Works a treat. I run the mini headless and use VNC to control the server. Since Plex established an (optional - I don’t use it) revenue stream, they have money for coders and everything is much more stable. 

It takes a bit to set it up, but once running it's pretty seamless. 

Recommended.


----------



## Zoom25

I'll look into Plex. Should I get the 32 bit or 64 bit for my Macbook Pro Retina 2012 running Yosemite?


----------



## bixby

can't recall why but I think 32


----------



## AppleheadMay

zoom25 said:


> I'll look into Plex. Should I get the 32 bit or 64 bit for my Macbook Pro Retina 2012 running Yosemite?




64, Yosemite is a 64 bit OS.


----------



## Zoom25

Liking it so far. Trying to figure out the different apps and what not. Running it with the newly released Amarra SQ+. The audio conditioner is quite effective when needed.


----------



## bixby

appleheadmay said:


> 64, Yosemite is a 64 bit OS.


 
 oops, my apologies, yes, just saw this:
  
Plex Media Server version 0.9.8.6 is the last release to support 32-bit processors on OS X. All subsequent releases require a 64-bit processor for OS X.
  
  
I am running on win7 so I have to see what I use.........hmmmm.  I'm an idiot, yes I am also running 64 bit.


----------



## miceblue

I tried JRiver Media Center on someone's MacBook at a local meet. My goodness that UI is horrible. I wanted to see the preferences so I hit CMD+, like most apps have. Nope, apparently it's CMD+O. It's like the iTunes port for Windows how the preferences is CTRL+,. 
*facepalm*

I'm still using A+ 1.5 though. With LH Lab's new PureDSD protocol announced, there's a possibility that I might upgrade to the dreadful A+ 2.0 since Damian helped with the DoP standard.




Also I've discovered that upsampling audio in A+ makes a pretty noticeable difference in sound quality for me. I have no idea why it works, but the theory is that digital and analogue filters implemented in the DAC aren't always optimal. Upsampling audio forces the DAC to operate in a higher sampling rate, thus using the digital and analogue filters at that sampling rate and those don't interfere with the original audio.

If that's so, then my DACs' filters must be crap because I hear the improvement with all of the ones I have at hand. XD


----------



## AppleheadMay

miceblue said:


> I tried JRiver Media Center on someone's MacBook at a local meet. My goodness that UI is horrible. I wanted to see the preferences so I hit CMD+, like most apps have. Nope, apparently it's CMD+O. It's like the iTunes port for Windows how the preferences is CTRL+,.
> *facepalm*
> 
> I'm still using A+ 1.5 though. With LH Lab's new PureDSD protocol announced, there's a possibility that I might upgrade to the dreadful A+ 2.0 since Damian helped with the DoP standard.


 
  
 Yep, and once you get into the preferences it's like you're back in ancient Windows 95. Horrible indeed!
 iTunes + BitPerfect + DSD Master + XLD is all I need.
 When you use iTunes the old way, with the 5 column browsers it's perfect to delve through an organized library and find something for your mood.
  
 For movies I use two ways:
Aurora Blu Ray Copy + Aurora Blu Ray Player for my full BRD originals.
 Else MakeMKV + Plex for when I want an organized library.


----------



## joeexp

miceblue said:


> I tried JRiver Media Center on someone's MacBook at a local meet. My goodness that UI is horrible. I wanted to see the preferences so I hit CMD+, like most apps have. Nope, apparently it's CMD+O. It's like the iTunes port for Windows how the preferences is CTRL+,.
> *facepalm*
> 
> I'm still using A+ 1.5 though. With LH Lab's new PureDSD protocol announced, there's a possibility that I might upgrade to the dreadful A+ 2.0 since Damian helped with the DoP standard.
> ...


 

 I think you should leave the upsampling to your DAC. That's what they are there for. Although I can hear a difference, to me it sounds superficially smooth at the expense of finer details using the Audirvana up sampling option. Kind of like when you blow up a low-res picture in Photoshop.


----------



## AppleheadMay

joeexp said:


> I think you should leave the upsampling to your DAC. That's what they are there for. Although I can hear a difference, to me it sounds superficially smooth at the expense of finer details using the Audirvana up sampling option. Kind of like when you blow up a low-res picture in Photoshop.


 
 I let neither the software nor my Dac upsample, always play at original resolution.


----------



## miceblue

What DACs use upsampling these days?


----------



## joeexp

All - but NOS Dacs


----------



## Krutsch

joeexp said:


> I think *you should leave the upsampling to your DAC*. That's what they are there for. Although I can hear a difference, to me it sounds superficially smooth at the expense of finer details using the Audirvana up sampling option. Kind of like when you blow up a low-res picture in Photoshop.


 

 +1 ... I was just about to type that in; you beat me too it. Even the BitPerfect author is recommending this for the reason highlighted above.


----------



## Krutsch

miceblue said:


> I tried JRiver Media Center on someone's MacBook at a local meet. *My goodness that UI is horrible*. *I wanted to see the preferences so I hit CMD+, like most apps have.* Nope, apparently it's CMD+O. It's like the iTunes port for Windows how the preferences is CTRL+,.
> *facepalm*


 
  
 Couldn't agree more... the UI is atrocious. However, in most Mac apps, CMD+ means: zoom-in.


----------



## AppleheadMay

miceblue said:


> What DACs use upsampling these days?




allmost all. I always download the manual first when interested in a dac to see if it can be turned off.


----------



## bgentry

miceblue said:


> I tried JRiver Media Center on someone's MacBook at a local meet. My goodness that UI is horrible. I wanted to see the preferences so I hit CMD+, like most apps have. Nope, apparently it's CMD+O.


 
  
 Yeah, the interface is clunky if you are expecting the native Mac look and feel.  The preferences aren't where prefs are supposed to be.  The window pane controls are a little odd.  It's wrapped to look sort of like windows, because it's a port of a windows program.
  
 This really put me off at first because it wasn't *NATIVE*.  How could I *ever* use it?
  
 Then I tried it.  Days became weeks.  It was still sorta ugly.  But I was using it better and better every day.  My library was looking really good by now.  One good reason was because finding and saving album art was very easy, and very fast with this program.  All my albums had good looking, large album art.  The included Skins have quite a few looks, and I found several that looked really nice to me.
  
 At the 30 day mark, it expired.  That's when I realized I wasn't using any other players.  The Play Queue, the album art view and the Sheer POWER of this program are why I use it.  I'm very much past the initial shock of "but it doesn't look like a Mac App!".  Many of it's features aren't very intuitive.  It sometimes requires playing around to figure out where something is.  But once you do, you can do things with JRiver that you can't do with any other players I know of.  Custom views.  Very advanced smart lists.  The best playback queue implementation I've ever seen.
  
 If you give it a try, I can almost guarantee that you'll find it to be the most configurable, most powerful media player around.  I've been using digital audio players for just under 20 years.  I got my first one in something like 1996 when MP3s had just come out.
  
 JRiver is the best audio player I've ever used.  Period, end of sentence, no qualifications. THE Best.
  
 Standard disclaimer:  I have no relationship with JRiver other than being an enthusiastic customer.
  
 Brian.


----------



## Solrighal

bgentry said:


> Yeah, the interface is clunky if you are expecting the native Mac look and feel.  The preferences aren't where prefs are supposed to be.  The window pane controls are a little odd.  It's wrapped to look sort of like windows, because it's a port of a windows program.
> 
> This really put me off at first because it wasn't *NATIVE*.  How could I *ever* use it?
> 
> ...


 
  
 +1


----------



## groovyd

solrighal said:


> +1


 
 +2


----------



## miceblue

Er, oversampling DACs are not the same as upsampling in implementation, although they're similar mathematically. 

Oversampling is a requirement for Delta-Sigma modulation. If a file is sampled at 44.1 kHz, the DAC still sees it as a 44.1 kHz sampled file. All Delta-Sigma DACs are oversampling DACs and the oversampling process happens within the DAC chip. 

Upsampling is usually considered a conversion process. If you upsample a 44.1 kHz sampled file to 88.2 kHz, which usually just adds zeros for padding, the DAC will see it as 88.2 kHz AND it sill oversamples for the Delta-Sigma modulation process. Upsampling happens before the DAC chip since it's a conversion process. 

As mentioned earlier, upsampling would force the DAC to operate at a higher sampling rate process, in this case the DAC will see the file as 88.2 kHz. If it was operating at 44.1 kHz, the digital and analogue filters would be cutting off information at or very close to the Nyquist frequency, 22.05 kHz, and it could very well affect the output signal in frequency (if there's aliasing) or phase (if the digital filter changes the phase). Having the DAC operate at the upsampled rate of 88.2 kHz, the filtering would correspondingly be at 44.1 kHz and those filters don't interfere with the original 22.05 kHz signals at all because of the extra headroom. 

That being said, I don't know of any upsampling DACs these days. 




[rule]


krutsch said:


> Couldn't agree more... the UI is atrocious. However, in most Mac apps, CMD+ means: zoom-in.



Oh sorry, that looked confusing. I meant to say
CMD+,

As in Command comma.


----------



## Larry Ho

One thing I want to clarify for PureDSD is:
  
 It will help to improve the sound quality even in the "lower" sampling rate DSD files. 
  
 Why?  Because similar to native DSD mode in ASIO, there is not 8 bit marker, pack in, unpack here and there process for both software side and DAC side.
 Save the time, 100% bandwidth utilization and better jitter performance.
  
 Cheers,
 Larry


----------



## Krutsch

miceblue said:


> Er, oversampling DACs are not the same as upsampling in implementation, although they're similar mathematically.





> <snip, snip>


 
  
 A great write-up on the subject, to which I previously referred from the author of Bitperfect:
  
http://bitperfectsound.blogspot.com/2013/11/upsample.html
  
 ...I'm not arguing with anyone, just offering this as a reference.


----------



## Currawong

joeexp said:


> I think you should leave the upsampling to your DAC. That's what they are there for. Although I can hear a difference, to me it sounds superficially smooth at the expense of finer details using the Audirvana up sampling option. Kind of like when you blow up a low-res picture in Photoshop.


 
  
 YMMV. I've found that with DACs that use the ES9018 and the built-in filters, careful tweaking of the iZotope up-sampling in Audirvana gives noticeably better results sonically, especially if the USB input accepts up to 384 kHz. 
  
 Some DACs use a separate DSP or FPGA to produce their own filter algorithms which are better than the stock ones built in to the DAC chip. This is a case where high-quality computer up-sampling isn't worth bothering with IMO.
  


miceblue said:


> Upsampling is usually considered a conversion process. If you upsample a 44.1 kHz sampled file to 88.2 kHz, which usually just adds zeros for padding, the DAC will see it as 88.2 kHz AND it sill oversamples for the Delta-Sigma modulation process. Upsampling happens before the DAC chip since it's a conversion process.


 
  
 I think you may have it in reverse. Oversampling usually pads as far as I know, whereas a high-quality up-sampling algorithm will use mathematics to calculate the points that would be between the samples if the data was plots on a curve.


----------



## germanium

currawong said:


> YMMV. I've found that with DACs that use the ES9018 and the built-in filters, careful tweaking of the iZotope up-sampling in Audirvana gives noticeably better results sonically, especially if the USB input accepts up to 384 kHz.
> 
> Some DACs use a separate DSP or FPGA to produce their own filter algorithms which are better than the stock ones built in to the DAC chip. This is a case where high-quality computer up-sampling isn't worth bothering with IMO.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Oversampling is a filter algorithm that is built into modern DAC's though was originally a separate chip. Many DAC's even though they have built in oversampling filters still support the use of separate oversampling filters such as Pacific Microsonics HDCD digital filter. These oversampling filters do not just pad the numbers, they perform calculations in order to maintain the proper shape of the waveform & eliminate out of band noise that could cause artifacts via intermodulation with the sample frequency.
  
 Some filter algorithms intentionally allow a small amount of these artifacts in order to get a more perfect looking square wave or pulse train. They remove most the ringing at the 1/2 the sample frequency point which is the result of trying to put a signal through the DAC that is right at the limits of it's reproduction capabilities. This ringing will not be audible to 99% of the population. This ringing only happens under certain circumstances & does not usually happen in normal music reproduction. The algorithm that removes them can & does produce artifacts that can be heard at least by some people though up sampling may reduce or eliminate the artifact caused by the shallower digital filtering if done properly though this I'm not sure of totally if this is what is actually happening. By this I mean that even though the filter is less steep than what would be required for a 44.1 KHz sample rate  it still needs to be significantly rolled off by the time it reaches the new up sampled sample rate frequency in order to avoid artifacts. Depending on the new sample rate the filter can be significantly slower roll off than standard for the 44.1KHz sample rate. It is well known that the less steep the filter the less ringing there will be at resonance even in analog type filtering. In order for this to work properly it seems to me that the up-sampler would have to act in some ways like a slow roll off over sampler as well as the DAC's oversampling capabilities are limited in terms of acceptable internal roll off rates even on those that have selectable rates. With an up-sampler program you could do it at rates that are much more gradual than even the slowest DAC oversampler. You would want the roll off to take place before reaching the DAC it seems in this case.
  
 When I wrote that this ringing does not happen in normal music I used to have a CD that had an intentionally clipped sine wave that was recorded at less than max output This allowed me to see on an oscilloscope that the waveform though clipped did not ring as it does with a square wave or pulse train. The reason it rings with a square wave is the rise & fall times coincide with the maximum reproducible frequency of the sample frequency in question. An analog filter would also ring for the same reason as it would necessarily have to be quite steep to perform it's job. Only difference would be that there would be no pre-ringing.


----------



## miceblue

krutsch said:


> A great write-up on the subject, to which I previously referred from the author of Bitperfect:
> 
> http://bitperfectsound.blogspot.com/2013/11/upsample.html
> 
> ...I'm not arguing with anyone, just offering this as a reference.



Interesting read.






currawong said:


> I think you may have it in reverse. Oversampling usually pads as far as I know, whereas a high-quality up-sampling algorithm will use mathematics to calculate the points that would be between the samples if the data was plots on a curve.



Ah, I think you're right about that. It looks like the ESS DACs use zero stuffing.
http://www.esstech.com/PDF/sabrewp.pdf


----------



## Lohb

Guys any idea how this advanced parameter in Izotope in A+ would affect sound quality....? First shot is stock setting more-or-less (?)...2nd is tweaked settings. I've not done a total app wipe and fresh install for ages, so not sure now the stock setting really is original.
  
 Stock
  

  
 Tweaked
  

  
  
 Generally, have any of you found a better config. than stock setting on these advanced setting ?
 Was not really sure how the first 3 settings affect sound as they are slid left to right etc...


----------



## joeexp

IMHO those parameters don't have any effect unless you start choosing "Forced Upsampling".


----------



## Currawong

The top is not stock. 
  
 The only useful parameters to change are the number of samples used to do the calculations, which you might want to try maxing out to 2 million (as long as you have a reasonably powerful computer) and the pre-ringing. Power of 2 up-sampling is most ideal.
  
 Stock:

 The settings I use on over-sampling DACs, with some experimentation on the Pre-ringing one:


----------



## Lohb

Thanks for posting that Currawong.
  
 I was worried I'd knocked the entire sound off right up the line at A+ back-end settings.(But it appears not unless you over/up-sample)
  
 Good to get a tip from others in this thread vs some faceless izotope settings posting I picked up on Damien's old forum before with no reasoning behind it.


----------



## bpcans

I've tried every combination of settings using A+ 2.0.12, and for me in my setup A+ sounds best if in integrated iTunes mode with no upsampling, and even better in stand alone mode.


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> I've tried every combination of settings using A+ 2.0.12, and for me in my setup A+ sounds best if in integrated iTunes mode with no upsampling, and even better in stand alone mode.


 

 +1 ... unless you have an older DAC, you should avoid forced up-sampling and let your DAC do its thing on its own.


----------



## Eric510

While we're on the topic, I have a couple quick A+ questions (may not even be specific to A+) - does integer mode only kick in when using USB to your DAC? I'm running A+ and going toslink out to my Schiit Bifrost Uber and never see integer mode kick in. 

The other question is related to bitrate. 90% of what I listen to is 16/44.1 lossless ALAC files. A+ always spits the files out to my DAC at 24bit. the sample rate stays the same thankfully. I'm not too concerned about this but just wondering why this happens. Is there a setting I'm missing somewhere to correct this?


----------



## Krutsch

eric510 said:


> While we're on the topic, I have a couple quick A+ questions (may not even be specific to A+) - *does integer mode only kick in when using USB to your DAC?* I'm running A+ and going toslink out to my Schiit Bifrost Uber and never see integer mode kick in.
> 
> The other question is related to bitrate. 90% of what I listen to is 16/44.1 lossless ALAC files. *A+ always spits the files out to my DAC at 24bit.* the sample rate stays the same thankfully. I'm not too concerned about this but just wondering why this happens. Is there a setting I'm missing somewhere to correct this?


 

 Integer mode is specific to asynchronous USB and has no meaning for SPDIF (so, the answer to your question is 'yes').
  
 Many (most?) modern DACs require a 24-bit input; A+ is simply padding the least significant bits with zeros.


----------



## Lohb

eric510 said:


> While we're on the topic, I have a couple quick A+ questions (may not even be specific to A+) - does integer mode only kick in when using USB to your DAC? I'm running A+ and going toslink out to my Schiit Bifrost Uber and never see integer mode kick in.
> 
> The other question is related to bitrate. 90% of what I listen to is 16/44.1 lossless ALAC files. A+ always spits the files out to my DAC at 24bit. the sample rate stays the same thankfully. I'm not too concerned about this but just wondering why this happens. Is there a setting I'm missing somewhere to correct this?


 

 If your DAC supports integer mode, and you select it in preferences, you should see a green INT indicator top right of the player window just below 16/44.1 or whatever your source file is....EDIT : INT mode disappears when I listen straight off internal CIRRUS DAC..
  
 You can maybe lock the bit rate setting in APPS folder in UTILITIES folder with AUDIO MIDI SETUP if you want 16 over 24-bit.


----------



## bflat

New Audirvana user here on the latest version. I installed fresh and selected sync with iTunes and it found all my songs but didn't add my playlists. Is there something extra I have to do to get playlists to import? I am on 10.10.3 Yosemite. With Fidelia, it found my playlists just fine.
  
 Thanks!


----------



## Lohb

krutsch said:


> +1 ... unless you have an older DAC, you should avoid forced up-sampling and let your DAC do its thing on its own.


 

 Why is that ? I'm currently trying 24/88 vs 16/44 which I've left it at for a long time....


----------



## Krutsch

bflat said:


> New Audirvana user here on the latest version. I installed fresh and selected sync with iTunes and it found all my songs but didn't add my playlists. Is there something extra I have to do to get playlists to import? I am on 10.10.3 Yosemite. With Fidelia, it found my playlists just fine.
> 
> Thanks!


 

 Yeah... it's confusing and I had the same problem. When you select your iTunes library with this dialog:
  


 You will be asked to import your iTunes music folders in the dialog that pops-up after choosing your iTunes Library.xml file.
  
 Then, it syncs the collection of actual music files (in the box above, where it says Auto with a Sync button). Only after you have finished syncing the music files, you click on the 'Sync' button next to the 'iTunes library synchronization' field ... THEN it will sync your playlists.
  
 It took me a really long time to figure that out and I was only recently able to actually see my iTunes playlists


----------



## Krutsch

lohb said:


> *Why is that ? *I'm currently trying 24/88 vs 16/44 which I've left it at for a long time....


 
  
 It's what the DAC chip expects and it's easier to force the source to comply and to pad at the receiving end.


----------



## bflat

krutsch said:


> You will be asked to import your iTunes music folders in the dialog that pops-up after choosing your iTunes Library.xml file.
> 
> Then, it syncs the collection of actual music files (in the box above, where it says Auto with a Sync button). Only after you have finished syncing the music files, you click on the 'Sync' button next to the 'iTunes library synchronization' field ... THEN it will sync your playlists.
> 
> It took me a really long time to figure that out and I was only recently able to actually see my iTunes playlists


 
 Thanks a million! That was it! However, my first attempt didn't work, because I chose "Folders" after the sync prompt. My next attempt I chose "Import" and then my playlists appeared after a couple minutes.
  
 So after this my "one ring to rule all" is Audirvana! My quick feedback on others I've tried:

BitPerfect - critical flaw for me was no EQ and no AU plugin support
Best feature - price and integrated with iTunes
Worst feature - have to manually disable for system sounds and browser audio

Fidelia - critical flaw for me was no "powers of 2" upscaling and needed to pay more for advanced sampling features
Best feature - price
Worst feature - no DSD support and will most likely cost more as an option

Audirvana - has it all (now that I know how to get playlists!)
Best feature - price, has it all including DSD native and DSD to PCM conversion
Worst feature - price, still expensive, but had I started with Audirvana, it would have been overall cheaper

  
 I think the SQ is comparable for all so depending on what's important to you, any of the 3 above are far better than stock iTunes.
  
 Quick tip on purchasing Audirvana from the US - you can still pay in Euro and with the current exchange rate it's just under $70 so you save a few dollars.


----------



## AppleheadMay

bflat said:


> BitPerfect - critical flaw for me was no EQ and no AU plugin support
> Best feature - price and integrated with iTunes
> Worst feature - have to manually disable for system sounds and browser audio


 
  
 Not true, in AM-setup I route system sounds to my mac's internal speakers, all other audio (browser, game, ...) to my external BOSE USB 2.1 and when iTunes plays BP takes over and sends it to my dac. I can even play music through my dac while still hearing youtube through my Bose speakers.
 You just need to configure it right.
  
 What's more, when you use DSD Master from the same developer, you can store all your DSD files right in the iTunes library and play them as DSD on DSD capable dacs or non-DSD on devices that can't handle it.
  
 Audirvana gives you two libraries to work with. One can hold DSD but can't sync with idevices, the other is iTunes.
 I did try Audirvana, up to the last version as well but I hate multiple libraries for my music.
  
 And I do love using iTunes the old way, with the five browser colums on top. Let's me find any kind of music that suits my mood instantly.


----------



## bflat

appleheadmay said:


> Not true, in AM-setup I route system sounds to my mac's internal speakers, all other audio (browser, game, ...) to my external BOSE USB 2.1 and when iTunes plays BP takes over and sends it to my dac. I can even play music through my dac while still hearing youtube through my Bose speakers.
> You just need to configure it right.


 
  
 Your are right. I should have clarified that I only use my external DAC and amp for all of my sounds since I only listen via my headphones. I do something similar to what you describe though. I also listen to Spotify but it doesn't have an EQ so I installed Boom which adds system wide EQ. I select "Boom" as my system wide sound output device and then select my DAC in Audirvana so that it bypasses the crude EQ of Boom and instead uses the built in parametric EQ.


----------



## Krutsch

appleheadmay said:


> <snip, snip>
> 
> *Audirvana gives you two libraries to work with*. One can hold DSD but can't sync with idevices, the other is iTunes.
> I did try Audirvana, up to the last version as well but I hate multiple libraries for my music.


 
  
 I ended up with that anyway, as I have a large collection of multi-channel FLAC files that I play with A+ to my AVR via HDMI.
  
 Another thing I've discovered is that FLAC is just better supported than ALAC on things like network streamers (ALAC's meta data placement and format is more difficult to extract; and, ALAC is more complicated to transcode to PCM than FLAC - uses an order of magnitude more CPU on appliances, from what I've seen first-hand).
  
 But on my Mac, I just love iTunes. Sigh.


----------



## joeexp

Audirvana Plus 2.1 released with "Drag&Drop", folders displayed as albums, bit depth lowering in dithering,......
  
 Finally we got Drag&Drop back, for those who are missing it so much!


----------



## Lohb

Joy, he is obviously listening to what was wanted.


----------



## georgelai57

lohb said:


> Joy, he is obviously listening to what was wanted.



Now I can stop using JRiver and go back to A+

But how do I do drag and drop?


----------



## joeexp

Drag& Drop:
 Just drag files and Folders to > "Play Queue" over on the left hand side, just below Libraries….


----------



## georgelai57

Thanks. Had to read the manual


----------



## bflat

Audirvana forced up sampling questions - if I set this to no up sample does this mean:

It doesn't matter which conversion method I select - Apple or Izotrope?
All of the advanced settings for Izotrope mean nothing?
  
 Also if anyone has recommended settings for Gungnir that would be awesome. The same settings on my two DACs get vastly different results so I'm thinking just kill up sampling altogether.


----------



## bixby

Your assumptions are correct, if you set to no, you get no upsampling.
  
 After months and months of trying all different settings, the sound I ultimately preferred was NO Upsampling.


----------



## bflat

bixby said:


> Your assumptions are correct, if you set to no, you get no upsampling.
> 
> After months and months of trying all different settings, the sound I ultimately preferred was NO Upsampling.


 

 Sweet, I use EQ as well and without knowing what the heck those advanced features in Izotrope do, it can produce some really ugly results. Sans up sampling it is!


----------



## groovyd

I really don't get the up-sampling arguments... there is no way to add more 'quality' to the original samples, only deteriorate them by mathematical roundoff.  As well the DAC already does the best it can with the samples it is given.  You can be sure they have worked hard to that end when designing the DAC.  If it really needed up-sampling to improve the reconstruction filtering they would be doing that internally.


----------



## bixby

groovyd said:


> I really don't get the up-sampling arguments... there is no way to add more 'quality' to the original samples, only deteriorate them by mathematical roundoff.  As well the DAC already does the best it can with the samples it is given.  You can be sure they have worked hard to that end when designing the DAC.  If it really needed up-sampling to improve the reconstruction filtering they would be doing that internally.


 
 and nearly all dac chips do.................. up/over sample


----------



## Dzilio

Hello guys,
  
 Sorry for the nob questions. I recently migrated from windows to mac. Always used foobar or music bee or 1by1. The most important feature to me is to be able to browse though folders and select the ones to be played. I have more than 5 TB of music in external hds. I will not rearrange it with tags and created libraries and so on. Is there a mac audio player who has this feature (present in music bee) of selecting music to be played on by the folders organization. Currently, I using finder to select the folders and Vox to play then. But I would like to do both in the same software. 
  
 Thanks.


----------



## bixby

Audirvana Plus and Decibel both allow searching by folders using a finder and add instantly to the playlist.


----------



## Solrighal

dzilio said:


> Hello guys,
> 
> Sorry for the nob questions. I recently migrated from windows to mac. Always used foobar or music bee or 1by1. The most important feature to me is to be able to browse though folders and select the ones to be played. I have more than 5 TB of music in external hds. I will not rearrange it with tags and created libraries and so on. Is there a mac audio player who has this feature (present in music bee) of selecting music to be played on by the folders organization. Currently, I using finder to select the folders and Vox to play then. But I would like to do both in the same software.
> 
> Thanks.




If you want to actually see the folder structure within the player then your only option is JRiver. 

I have exactly the same requirements and nothing does it like JRiver.


----------



## valiant66

iTunes is a bloated, wonderful database that has too much !@#$ crammed into it, but it is a very, very capable music-playing database with over 15 years of baked in music management experience and millions of dollars spent in development. No other music player on any platform can claim that. Vox is a great music player, but depends on iTunes for its database management (almost all Mac players do). Finder is a great database manager, but a crappy music player. I strongly recommend you consider iTunes on the Mac.
  
 If your folders are arranged by *Artist - Album - (song)* then it's no problem. That's how iTunes "thinks" of music, and how it arranges it on disk (if you choose the "allow iTunes to manage music" option, which I generally recommend). There's a view in iTunes that lets you select music by artist.
  
 If your folders are arranged by *Genre - Album - (song)*, then import them into iTunes one Genre at a time and after the import tag each newly imported song with the genre. There's a view in iTunes that lets you select music by genre. But let iTunes manage the music, and it will put your Neil Young rockabilly songs and your Neil Young country songs both into a Neil Young folder, sorted by album.
  
 If your folders are arranged by *Playlist - (bunch of songs)* then import them one playlist at a time and after each import, create a playlist and add the newly imported songs to a new playlist. There's a view in iTunes that lets you select music by playlist. But let iTunes manage the music, and it will put your Beck unplugged songs and your Beck dance songs both into a Beck folder, sorted by album.
  
 If you have a large pop/rock collection and a large classical collection, consider maintaining two separate music collections. iTunes lets you pick which music library you want to open at launch if you hold down the Opt key while launching. This is also handy if you have a laptop with a small SSD internal drive and a large music collection on an external drive/network drive/NAS. You can keep a small collection of music for when you're travelling or whatever, and a large one for when you're home and switch between them at will. That works best if you let iTunes manage the music for you.
  
 In your case, you say more than 5 tb of music on external drives. IF you are using a tower or a permanently fixed laptop and IF your hard drives are ALWAYS connected and IF you are willing to give up on the conveniences of having iTunes manage your music, you can choose the "leave music where it is" option and go from there. You run the risk of badly confusing iTunes if you launch it and one of the HDs is missing and can't be found. A single 5 TB drive is not that expensive, you could consolidate all your music into one place if you let iTunes manage your music. Don't forget to backup.
  
 You say "I will not rearrange it with tags and created libraries and so on," - I would reconsider that. Even if you leave the music where it is (no iTunes-managed created libraries) tags add a lot of versatility to your music collection. To be able to create a playlist on the fly of "Canadian punk recorded between 1979 and 1984" (or whatever) with just a couple of clicks is a wonderful thing that only works if you have assigned tags... And for what it's worth, tagging your music in iTunes does not rearrange it on disk. If you let iTunes manage your music, the only thing that moves stuff around on disk is if you change the Artist, the Album, or mark a song as being part of a Compilation. There's an entire directory called _Compilations_ where music is arranged *Album - (song)*. Tagging in iTunes is fast, too, you don't have to do it one song at a time. You can select 50 albums and tag them all "live" in one click.
  
 If you are determined to avoid iTunes, consider Songbird. It's a retired Mozilla fork that incorporates a database with a music player. It may do what you need. Other that that I got nothin'...


----------



## Dzilio

bixby said:


> Audirvana Plus and Decibel both allow searching by folders using a finder and add instantly to the playlist.


 
 Thanks. I've tried both, but its not exactly the same process as the one I'm trying to describe. In music bee you search through folders on a side bar (like windows explorer) and automatically the audio files are played. The folder with the files is the "playlist". i don't need to transfer the files to the playlist and so on...


----------



## Dzilio

valiant66 said:


> iTunes is a bloated, wonderful database that has too much !@#$ crammed into it, but it is a very, very capable music-playing database with over 15 years of baked in music management experience and millions of dollars spent in development. No other music player on any platform can claim that. Vox is a great music player, but depends on iTunes for its database management (almost all Mac players do). Finder is a great database manager, but a crappy music player. I strongly recommend you consider iTunes on the Mac.
> 
> If your folders are arranged by *Artist - Album - (song)* then it's no problem. That's how iTunes "thinks" of music, and how it arranges it on disk (if you choose the "allow iTunes to manage music" option, which I generally recommend). There's a view in iTunes that lets you select music by artist.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks for the info! Maybe I will give iTunes another chance. I don't know. I will try JRiver as recommend here as well.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Oh the joy of using folders for everything in Windows, how I miss those days.


----------



## Solrighal

dzilio said:


> Thanks for the info! Maybe I will give iTunes another chance. I don't know. I will try JRiver as recommend here as well.




Is this the view you're looking for?


----------



## AppleheadMay

This is the view I'd be looking for ...


----------



## Dzilio

solrighal said:


> Is this the view you're looking for?


 
  
 Yes! That is it. Which player is that?


----------



## Solrighal

appleheadmay said:


> This is the view I'd be looking for ...


 
  
 That looks very like the default JRiver view. Too much info for me.


dzilio said:


> Yes! That is it. Which player is that?


 
  
 That's JRiver 19.
  
 To be honest, JRiver is configurable in a number of ways. There's a dedicated thread on this site as well as JRiver's own help site. JRiver aren't very helpful but the guys here have bailed me out lots of times.
  
 It's a complex beast but if you can imagine it then there will be a way to do it.
  
 The icing on the cake is that it sounds the best to my ears of all the players I've tested, which is all of them. YMMV.
  
 edit - I'm an idiot. I typed this reply on my mobile thinking I was on a different site. There's no help here but there is here..
  
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/j-river-tips-and-techniques-user-experiences-repository-13684/
  
 Sorry about that.


----------



## bgentry

valiant66 said:


> iTunes is a bloated, wonderful database that has too much !@#$ crammed into it, but it is a very, very capable music-playing database with over 15 years of baked in music management experience and millions of dollars spent in development. No other music player on any platform can claim that.




I was going to argue with you about this, but I realize that you obviously *like* itunes and I won't argue over what you or I *like*. but I'll give my own opinion. ITunes is awful. ITunes keeps changing how it presents music to the user and how the user must interact with it. Every version or two, itunes adds or removes major features. This requires the user to then adjust to the program. That's about the worst design paradigm possible. I *like* Apple products. It's like itunes is being designed by a different company. I recommend itunes to almost no one.

Which brings me to the Original Poster. If you have 5 TB of music, RUN FAR AWAY from itunes. It chokes hard at around the 50,000 song mark. You likely have way more than that.

Oh and to the "15 years of design" comment: JRiver has been around for at least that long. It's a far superior player in pretty much every measurable way.

Brian.


----------



## Dzilio

I


bgentry said:


> I was going to argue with you about this, but I realize that you obviously *like* itunes and I won't argue over what you or I *like*. but I'll give my own opinion. ITunes is awful. ITunes keeps changing how it presents music to the user and how the user must interact with it. Every version or two, itunes adds or removes major features. This requires the user to then adjust to the program. That's about the worst design paradigm possible. I *like* Apple products. It's like itunes is being designed by a different company. I recommend itunes to almost no one.
> 
> Which brings me to the Original Poster. If you have 5 TB of music, RUN FAR AWAY from itunes. It chokes hard at around the 50,000 song mark. You likely have way more than that.
> 
> ...


 

 I realized that today after trying one more time to use iTunes with my library.... JRiver seems very interesting, but it is pricey. I will not use 1/4 of it can offer. I just want to be able to browse through folders and listen to music (mainly FLAC files) without needing to add folders manually to playlists, and so on... I'm willing to pay for it, of course, but $50 is over my budget. I was thinking in something around $20 tops. But it seems that such player does not exist I guess...


----------



## bgentry

dzilio said:


> The most important feature to me is to be able to browse though folders and select the ones to be played. I have more than 5 TB of music in external hds. I will not rearrange it with tags and created libraries and so on.




So you have an enormous music collection, but you have no metadata outside of the file system? Do your files have song name, album name, etc in their tags? Frankly I can't imagine trying to navigate such a huge collection by file system alone. You are inherently limiting yourself by insisting that ONLY the file system be used for organization. Frankly it's a very backwards thing to insist on today when music programs are so sophisticated and can present the music to you in so many useful ways.

If your music has good tags, you owe it to yourself to try a player that reads the tags and YES, builds a library. Building a library doesn't necessarily mean that it moves your files around. Quite the contrary. JRiver (for example), won't touch your files unless you tell it to. It will leave your files *exactly* where they are. But it then builds an external database (in it's own location away from the music) that it uses to index and sort the music. So you can then browse in different ways.

Do you have a very large classical collection? Classical has the most complicated metadata of all music types. Most players don't handle classical in a way that satisfies a lot of classical listeners. Which forces some people to make complex file and folder structures to emulate the way that they think about their collections. If this describes your situation, I understand. Again, classical is the hardest to organize of all. BUT.... JRiver handles classical in the most flexible way. You can set it up almost however you want as long as you are willing to put in the time. If you're not willing to configure it, and you do have a complicated classical collection, maybe what I wrote above doesn't apply to you.

If you don't have a huge classical collection, you should really try a player that uses metadata. It's 2015. 

Brian.


----------



## Dzilio

bgentry said:


> If you don't have a huge classical collection, you should really try a player that uses metadata. It's 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 I do have a huge classical collection (about half of my collection is classical). And I know it is the tendency to use metadata, but just to think of all the work when you already have another system of classification...


----------



## bgentry

dzilio said:


> JRiver seems very interesting, but it is pricey. I will not use 1/4 of it can offer. I just want to be able to browse through folders and listen to music (mainly FLAC files) without needing to add folders manually to playlists, and so on... I'm willing to pay for it, of course, but $50 is over my budget. I was thinking in something around $20 tops.




1. JRiver has a free 30 day trial. You can try it and see if it works for you or not. That way you know what you are getting before you pay.
2. As for price, how much do you have invested in your music collection? Unless it is mostly pirated music, or somehow mostly free music, you have to have thousands of dollars invested. I have thousands invested and my collection is a small fraction the size of yours. I have more invested in audio equipment. Why? Because I love music! With that in mind, $50 for a player that REALLY works well is just... it's nothing dude. Think of the hours upon hours you will use and enjoy your music player. Again, unless you paid nothing or next to nothing for your music and playback equipment.

Good luck on your quest for a new player. I spent about two months looking and testing before finding out that JRiver was perfect for me. I hope you find one you like as much.

Brian.


----------



## AppleheadMay

dzilio said:


> I
> 
> 
> I realized that today after trying one more time to use iTunes with my library.... JRiver seems very interesting, but it is pricey. I will not use 1/4 of it can offer. I just want to be able to browse through folders and listen to music (mainly FLAC files) without needing to add folders manually to playlists, and so on... I'm willing to pay for it, of course, but $50 is over my budget. I was thinking in something around $20 tops. But it seems that such player does not exist I guess...




You have 5TB of music which must have cost a small fortune but find $50 too much for a player?
Or is all your music illegally downloaded?
Sorry but I fail to understand.




dzilio said:


> I do have a huge classical collection (about half of my collection is classical). And I know it is the tendency to use metadata, but just to think of all the work when you already have another system of classification...




And that system is?


----------



## mikesale

dzilio said:


> I do have a huge classical collection (about half of my collection is classical). And I know it is the tendency to use metadata, but just to think of all the work when you already have another system of classification...



Okay, what is your system of classification?


----------



## Dzilio

It's not ilegal music... But $50 bucks in the current currency of my country will become 4x it. So it's lot. Truth to be told, I'm thinking if this small annoyment of having to use finder to go to folders and then load on Vox is that "big" of a problem that I have to spend $50 to solve it... Because I'm happy with Vox (except for the lack of folder/directory feature). I'm using it my Schiit Asgard 2, Modi 2, and Hd600 and I'm having (for me, because its subjective) good sound results.


----------



## Dzilio

mikesale said:


> Okay, what is your system of classification?


 

 I arrange the music in folders. First by genre (e.g., Classical, Prog. Rock, Classical Rock, Jazz, etc.), then by artists and then by albums. The audio files per se are named by artist and song title.


----------



## AppleheadMay

To the River fans (on OSX) out here I have some questions.
I did download it once and attracted to play with it for a few hours but gave up on it because of the typical Windows look and feel, especially the settings.
But I know it's good software and I still have an open mind about it.

If I would use it it would have to be able to access my media from a network drive, playing music on an iMac, some music and videos on a MBP and video only on a Mac Mini, preferably via the HTPC (Plex-Like) view.

For music, does it handle ALac and aac? Else I need to convert.
And what about DSD or DSDhybrid files created with BitPerfect DSD Master?
For video, can it handle full-ripped bluray in image files or bd-folders or does it have to be MKV?

Do you know of any video tutorials about JRiver, or nice articles, preferably wit screenshots?
Some educating pdf's maybe?
I'd love to get better informed before I give it another try.

Thank you for any advice and information you can give me, I will study it with pleasure.


----------



## Solrighal

dzilio said:


> I
> 
> I realized that today after trying one more time to use iTunes with my library.... JRiver seems very interesting, but it is pricey. I will not use 1/4 of it can offer. I just want to be able to browse through folders and listen to music (mainly FLAC files) without needing to add folders manually to playlists, and so on... I'm willing to pay for it, of course, but $50 is over my budget. I was thinking in something around $20 tops. But it seems that such player does not exist I guess...


 
  
 What you're looking for does exist..
  
http://cogx.org/development.php
  
 Download the nightly build. It was ages ago but it will give you exactly the functionality you're looking for. I used to use it myself but, for whatever reason, in my opinion the sound quality is below par.
  
 Go ahead & give it a try. It's free so you've got nothing to lose.


----------



## Solrighal

I have 4TB of music in FLAC format on 2 x 2TB USB3 external drives. I use JRiver for four reasons.
  
 1. It allows me to see my folder structure as per my screenshot earlier.
  
 2. It handles FLAC format.
  
 3. It accepts VST3 plug-ins.
  
 4. It sounds fantastic.
  
 The default skins do look ugly but there are other options out there. Try deviantArt.
  
 JRiver will handle the most complex networks you can imagine.
  
 As far as I know JRiver can deal with any audio file type.
  
 I'll pass on video handling as I've never tried. For videos I use Movist.
  
 For more info on all features go here..
  
http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Media_Center


----------



## bgentry

appleheadmay said:


> I did download it once and attracted to play with it for a few hours but gave up on it because of the typical Windows look and feel, especially the settings.
> But I know it's good software and I still have an open mind about it.




I was turned off by the look at first too. I didn't want to like it because it was both pay-ware *and* came from Windows. But then I kept using it and using it and... I realized I couldn't find anything better. I got used to the look. It's not a big deal at all. Plus a few good skins (like Onyx, and Carbon) make it a lot more pleasant for me, as I tend to like dark color schemes.



> If I would use it it would have to be able to access my media from a network drive, playing music on an iMac, some music and videos on a MBP and video only on a Mac Mini, preferably via the HTPC (Plex-Like) view.




If you can see the network drive in Finder, JRiver can see the files there, so no problem. For multiple machines you've got several options, but one of the REALLY nice things about JRiver is how they do licensing. One license entitles you to install JRiver on any machine (of the same operating system) that you own. Not for your friends. But as many machines as you reasonably use yourself. So every machine you listed would be one license.

MC supports a client server model, where one machine can host the library to other machines, but I know very little about that. Obviously, you can maintain independent libraries on multiple computers, using the same files (on a network drive), or just some of the files, or whatever. Note that JRiver also talks to network playback devices that support DLNA. So you can "push" audio from MC out on your network in multiple "zones". Very cool.

Video support for JRiver on the Mac is NOTHING like their video support for Windows. There is no Theater View on MC for Mac. Video support is rather limited. I use VLC for most video on my Mac.



> For music, does it handle ALac and aac? Else I need to convert.
> And what about DSD or DSDhybrid files created with BitPerfect DSD Master?




JRiver MC plays just about any audio format you can think of including ALAC, AAC, DSD (single and double rate). I don't know anything about DSDHybrid or BitPerfect DSD Master. If it's single or double DSD it should play it. It also plays DSD directly from an ISO image, which is very convenient.



> For video, can it handle full-ripped bluray in image files or bd-folders or does it have to be MKV?




As far as I know that works on Windows, but not on the Mac. But you'd need to research to be sure, even on Windows as I don't run JRiver on windows.



> Do you know of any video tutorials about JRiver, or nice articles, preferably wit screenshots?
> Some educating pdf's maybe?




Depends on what you're after education-wise. The WIKI is pretty good, but it covers a LOT, and it's not tutorial style at all; it's more of a reference guide.

http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Main_Page

There's a good tips and tricks thread, but it's REALLY long.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/j-river-tips-and-techniques-user-experiences-repository-13684/

Here are Ted's Video screencasts on JRiver MC. They are mostly about Tagging, Custom Views, and integration with JRemote (remote control app for IOS).

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/j-river-tips-and-techniques-user-experiences-repository-13684/index3.html#post272960

What kind of stuff do you want to learn about? JRiver is extremely powerful and full featured. DSP, Search Language, Expression Language, Custom Views, etc... I might be able to point you in the right direction.

Brian.


----------



## mikesale

dzilio said:


> I arrange the music in folders. First by genre (e.g., Classical, Prog. Rock, Classical Rock, Jazz, etc.), then by artists and then by albums. The audio files per se are named by artist and song title.


 

 OK, given that you have 2TB classical flac: clearly you cannot easily find the following (correct me if I'm wrong and how):
  

Mozart Symphonies
All the Mahler 2nd Symphony recordings you have
All the recordings for Conductor of a specific Composer
All the Mozart Serenades
By performer (in solo, concerto, or small ensemble... e.g. Rostropovich on cello instead of as conductor)
Find WPO performances of Piano Concertos not conducted by Karajan
Find Piano Concertos performed by Rachmaninov that he also composed
  
 Typically, a major work will have 5-15 "artists", how do you get them in your file system name?
  
  
 I'm guessing you really listen to the a small portion of your 2TB you know well? Or you don't care about conductors, orchestra, or performers or major works and just put the composer for the artist (or swap composer for any of the "don't care about" metadata)?


----------



## Dzilio

mikesale said:


> OK, given that you have 2TB classical flac: clearly you cannot easily find the following (correct me if I'm wrong and how):
> 
> 
> Mozart Symphonies
> ...


 

 You are right. In case of classical music, the classification is not that simple. In my case, usually starts by composers. However, there are some folders divided according to conductors. And another ones divided according to subcategories (e.g. "opera", "classical guitar", "Piano"). It all depends on the quantity of albums. If I have 10 albums of Beethoven's works, then there is a folder for "Beethoven". The same goes from conductors. I don't have a lot of things of the same performer, except for classical guitar (Juliam Bream, John Williams, etc.), then there is a folder for each one of them. I know.... it is a mess. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 But it's my "organized mess".


----------



## AppleheadMay

bgentry said:


> I was turned off by the look at first too. I didn't want to like it because it was both pay-ware *and* came from Windows. But then I kept using it and using it and... I realized I couldn't find anything better. I got used to the look. It's not a big deal at all. Plus a few good skins (like Onyx, and Carbon) make it a lot more pleasant for me, as I tend to like dark color schemes.
> If you can see the network drive in Finder, JRiver can see the files there, so no problem. For multiple machines you've got several options, but one of the REALLY nice things about JRiver is how they do licensing. One license entitles you to install JRiver on any machine (of the same operating system) that you own. Not for your friends. But as many machines as you reasonably use yourself. So every machine you listed would be one license.
> 
> MC supports a client server model, where one machine can host the library to other machines, but I know very little about that. Obviously, you can maintain independent libraries on multiple computers, using the same files (on a network drive), or just some of the files, or whatever. Note that JRiver also talks to network playback devices that support DLNA. So you can "push" audio from MC out on your network in multiple "zones". Very cool.
> ...


 
  
  
 Thanks for the info bgentry!
 I would be intersted in it for music alone or both music and movies but only if it can handle full bluray or mkv at the least.
 I searched around a bit and although it wasn't really an announced feature, video is possible since v2 for OS X. But that's about it, video seems quality to really crappy (read: choppy even) and only compressed formats from what I read on the forums.
 Still, I might give it another try with music on a spare macbook I have lying aaround for testing to see how I like it.
 Thanks for the links to the tutorials, I'll look for some more on youtube as well. I don't have the time to really try it out myself right now but watching a screencast about it at night really interests me.
  
 I don't suppose you can point Jriver to your iTunes library music folders and let it play from those without harming the iTunes library itself?
 iTunes is rather picky about changes made in it's folders that aren't reflected into it's library xml file.


----------



## Twangsta

dzilio said:


> You are right. In case of classical music, the classification is not that simple. In my case, usually starts by composers. However, there are some folders divided according to conductors. And another ones divided according to subcategories (e.g. "opera", "classical guitar", "Piano"). It all depends on the quantity of albums. If I have 10 albums of Beethoven's works, then there is a folder for "Beethoven". The same goes from conductors. I don't have a lot of things of the same performer, except for classical guitar (Juliam Bream, John Williams, etc.), then there is a folder for each one of them. I know.... it is a mess.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 It's quite glaring this has not been sufficiently solved yet, I'm a systems engineer and have been developing software professionally for over 15 years. It's really beginning to bother me that nobody has done this yet. iTunes is probably the best Iv'e seen and is yet inadequate to handle general multidimensional views into our music libraries. 
  
 Im I right in saying that we need a generic browser that can list our collections by any field? For example generate a list by conductor, orchestra, composer, era of composition, year of recording, country of origin etc, these are the kind of listing we want? To be able to handle special cases with incomplete data?
  
 I think this is a project worth pursuing, how much would you guys pay for something like this, such that this organiser plugs into some of our fav existing playback engines. This includes phone support for remote operations etc. I'm hard pressed for time but I think it's high time a tool to curates our collections  be available!


----------



## AppleheadMay

twangsta said:


> It's quite glaring this has not been sufficiently solved yet, I'm a systems engineer and have been developing software professionally for over 15 years. It's really beginning to bother me that nobody has done this yet. iTunes is probably the best Iv'e seen and is yet inadequate to handle general multidimensional views into our music libraries.
> 
> Im I right in saying that we need a generic browser that can list our collections by any field? For example generate a list by conductor, orchestra, composer, era of composition, year of recording, country of origin etc, these are the kind of listing we want? To be able to handle special cases with incomplete data?
> 
> I think this is a project worth pursuing, how much would you guys pay for something like this, such that this organiser plugs into some of our fav existing playback engines. This includes phone support for remote operations etc. I'm hard pressed for time but I think it's high time a tool to curates our collections  be available!


 
  
 Someone should indeed develop an iTunes/Jriver plugin for that. I think some true classical connoisseurs would pay a nice price for it.
 Personally,as someone who really likes certain kinds of classical music but is in no way a connoisseur, it would be worth a nice price to me as well but I'd say the real upper limit I'd pay would be $150 and then only if it's an iTunes plugin. $100 would be more reasonable.
 Anything more than that and I consider it a product along the lines of Amarra and some plugins for photo apps that cost way more than the apps themselves: pure theft. Yesyes, my opinion.
 Audirvana and Jriver are what I consider reasonably priced software, just like the Google NikSoftware photo plugins at $150 for a damn complete suite that offers the best there is in photo editing.
 BitPerfect, my absolute favorite since it delivers the same quality as the others IMO and is an iTunes plugin, is what I call rediculously underpiced. I'd be happy to pay a 100 bucks for that software.


----------



## bgentry

appleheadmay said:


> I don't suppose you can point Jriver to your iTunes library music folders and let it play from those without harming the iTunes library itself?
> iTunes is rather picky about changes made in it's folders that aren't reflected into it's library xml file.




Sure. You can tell JRiver to import the top level folder or folders that your music is stored in (even if used by itunes). JRiver will then build it's own database, in a separate location. It won't move the files. It will only try to write to those files if you have it enabled *and* you edit the metadata of the files using JRiver. As long as you don't edit, it shouldn't try to write to them at all.

Brian.


----------



## bgentry

twangsta said:


> Im I right in saying that we need a generic browser that can list our collections by any field? For example generate a list by conductor, orchestra, composer, era of composition, year of recording, country of origin etc, these are the kind of listing we want?




You may or may not know that people are using JRiver for Classical with Views that are wildly different than normal music. Something like this:

http://www.pix01.com/gallery/7E547B99-5004-478D-A4AC-37AD672F51A4/MC_Screens/25397618_orig1.jpg

Part of the power of JRiver is that it lets you define Views in almost any way you want. Further, JRiver has a real database. You can add fields to it. Fields like Composer, Performers, Orchestra, Soloists, etc. So that's the double edged sword: If you are willing to add tags to your Classical music to identify these various things... JRiver can display them in many different and friendly ways. I'm not a big classical fan at all (though I do appreciate and own some), so I haven't pursued anything like this in my collection. But there has been a LOT of discussion about Tagging and organizing Classical music with JRiver. Here's the Wiki page from JRiver with links to some relevant discussions:

http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Classical_Music

The picture above was taken from one of the discussions in the Wiki. Like I said, I can't offer any personal advice on this. Just that JRiver seems to do it better than anything else I've ever heard of and people have done a LOT with it.

Brian.


----------



## Twangsta

bgentry said:


> You may or may not know that people are using JRiver for Classical with Views that are wildly different than normal music. Something like this:
> 
> http://www.pix01.com/gallery/7E547B99-5004-478D-A4AC-37AD672F51A4/MC_Screens/25397618_orig1.jpg
> 
> ...


 
  
 Those are interesting views but I can also see they are not complete, not sure from the images how JR's db handles compound values, dynamic cascading with population indicators. 
  


appleheadmay said:


> Someone should indeed develop an iTunes/Jriver plugin for that. I think some true classical connoisseurs would pay a nice price for it.
> Personally,as someone who really likes certain kinds of classical music but is in no way a connoisseur, it would be worth a nice price to me as well but I'd say the real upper limit I'd pay would be $150 and then only if it's an iTunes plugin. $100 would be more reasonable.
> Anything more than that and I consider it a product along the lines of Amarra and some plugins for photo apps that cost way more than the apps themselves: pure theft. Yesyes, my opinion.
> Audirvana and Jriver are what I consider reasonably priced software, just like the Google NikSoftware photo plugins at $150 for a damn complete suite that offers the best there is in photo editing.
> BitPerfect, my absolute favorite since it delivers the same quality as the others IMO and is an iTunes plugin, is what I call rediculously underpiced. I'd be happy to pay a 100 bucks for that software.


 
 I've done a lot of work in the 3D, maybe I'll come up with some crazy but intuitive UI, the backend design is easy enough, we've been doing such systems for ever. Cascading selections from lists and dropdowns  are so boring, I'll have to give this one some thought. it has to be a dynamic tree based wizard with a live view of the current state of selection. There's a flow to ones selection, start some where and then drill down or from a one to many, I'll have to play with this idea... thanks for replying!


----------



## Argo Duck

^ Would be very interested to hear what you come up with


----------



## isquirrel

Can't recommend Roon highly enough, easily the best user interface and the sound quality is superb, surprisingly way better than Audirvana, also natively integrates Tidal.
  
 They have a trial available worth giving it a shot.


----------



## Solrighal

isquirrel said:


> Can't recommend Roon highly enough, easily the best user interface and the sound quality is superb, surprisingly way better than Audirvana, also natively integrates Tidal.
> 
> They have a trial available worth giving it a shot.


 
  
 $119 *per year* is laughable.
  
 Just sayin'.


----------



## AppleheadMay

bgentry said:


> Sure. You can tell JRiver to import the top level folder or folders that your music is stored in (even if used by itunes). JRiver will then build it's own database, in a separate location. It won't move the files. It will only try to write to those files if you have it enabled *and* you edit the metadata of the files using JRiver. As long as you don't edit, it shouldn't try to write to them at all.
> 
> Brian.


 
  
 Thanks!
 I'll certainly give it another try. Might take me a few weeks to get to it but I'll read (and watch) up a little in the meantime.
  
 Thanks for all the links as well!


----------



## joeexp

isquirrel said:


> Can't recommend Roon highly enough, easily the best user interface and the sound quality is superb, surprisingly way better than Audirvana, also natively integrates Tidal.
> 
> They have a trial available worth giving it a shot.


 

 Yep - $119/year; That's the problem. "Way better then Audrivana …" - I seriously doubt that. Wishful thinking perhaps….
 I didn't perceive better SQ with Roon compared to Audirvana. And I have tried all of them. YMMV.


----------



## nuno1959

Hi guys
  
   I've been looking for an iTunes replacement for some time now. I have a 2013 iMac 27'', 24GB RAM, store my music on external drives + a couple of off site back-ups & use an SPL Crimson audio interface since it allows me to both listen & record the music i play. It then connects to my sound system : a  Roksan Kandy 2 amp + B&W 600 & something floorstanders 
  
   At this point i'm still running Mountain Lion for the simple reason i HATE iTunes 11. Not that i have TONS of music but i've spent MONTHS of my life digitising hundreds of LP's ( w/ quite a bit of click & pop removal, drove me nuts.. ) then added my CD collection & got artwork for them all so yes, my music library has been & is, a labour of love & at almost 3TB it's enough to make iTunes 11 feel like i'm reading an endless phone book & just about as fun :
  
   Yes, maybe because i'm an artist, i'm VERY visual & LOVE having a browse through my music by looking at album art & choosing something that fits my mood...
  
   Another advantage i find in iTunes 10.5.7 is that it allows me the dark background against which, brightly coloured covers don't seem to ''sear'' my retinas as much as iTunes 11 white background, on top of that it allows me to adjust the size of said covers AND most importantly, as i selected my music to be displayed under the tab ''Artist'' those stacks are an absolute gem :
  
  Many artists i only have 1 or 2 albums but i also have many that i have 12, 20, 40 or 190 like bloody Mozart ( & i'm not even a classical music buff, go figure.. )
  
   This + the genre system i developed for myself ( A for Alternative, B for Blues, C for Classical, the desired letter written before the artist's name.. ) makes it quite compact & extremely fast to browse & find whatever it is i feel like listening to.
 Another feature i really like is the little crooked arrow left of the track's status bar which by clicking on it takes you to the album you're listening. Easy, simple, couple of clicks takes me any& everywhere i might want
   Not so on iTunes 11… since i generally do like Apple stuff, i gave it a shot for a couple of weeks, tried adapting/liking it but…. totally NOT my thing !
  
   As you can also see on my photo below, i keep a minimum of things in the left column since i couldn't care less about having a gazillion things i won't use anyway.
   Instead of going on & on, here's a screenshot how it looks :
  

  
  Now the thing is i WOULD like to move on to Yosemite & although there are workarounds to keep iTunes 10.5.7 working, fact is they are workarounds & they bring up a whole lot of nags regarding updates & the store, etc… & i just can't be bothered to be constantly fighting an uphill battle to be honest..
  
  So, despite i've read a considerable amount of this thread ( the later parts of it anyway.. ) i would like to ask you guys which of the players mentioned here would you feel would give me the closest experience as my iTunes 10.5.7 ?
  SPECIALLY features like artist's albums organised in stacks, large album covers & preferably a dark-ish background ? Obviously, sound quality is also important despite my system not being top flight audiophile stuff or anything like that
  
  Damn, i just HATE reading endless lists of artists, then albums, then songs - sorry but to me it's just as fun as reading a phone book & kills the mood...
  
  Many thanks for your patience & assistance
  
 Cheers 
  
 Nuno


----------



## timlumley

You need to investigate ROON from what you say it has all you could wish for. 
Dark User Interface 
Meta Data to die for 
Music discovery like you've never seen before 
Tidal integration
Superb sound quality 
And much more

Give it a try


----------



## nuno1959

Hi Tim
  
 I have looked into it - even if without actually trying it.. - & without wanting to come across snotty or plain rude, it feels a little too chock full of features & unnecessarily complex for my intended use ?
 Or have i just got it wrong ? It's possible, i AM a bit of a stubborn mule… 
  
 If it did what i want - open my music collection, neatly/simply displaying artist's stacks w/ my pre-selected album on top..  following the alphabetical & genre order i've set-up, etc.. - I'd be happy to go with the life licence, yes it's a chunk of change BUT… how much more have i spent in my music collection over 40 years ? Even if a little at a time, a lot more so… 
 Do you know if they have a free demo version one can try for a number of days ? I couldn't really suss it out in their site
  
 Or maybe you have a link or 2 you could point me to this info ? That would be fantastic
  
 Many thanks for your help & suggestion, i will look deeper into it !!


----------



## groovyd

JRiver starts off by just sounding great, the best sound of all the players I have tried especially when decoding lossy files so that must be worth something.  It has a dark mode as well with similar look to your version of iTunes by default so wouldn't need much finegling.  It handles vast libraries with ease and has all the tricks regarding DSP, volume leveling etc.  It is stable meaning it won't crash or glitch up on you every 3 songs like some of the other players I have tried that claim to be for audiophiles.  It is still very much a recent port for them and it isn't perfect by all means but it is about as close as I have found yet and I have tried them all and they have been stable as a rock on Windows forever so most of that applies for the Mac and there is still plenty of room for improvement.  They are very active on development releasing upgrades every few weeks and have a forum where you can get answers to questions and announce bugs for them to fix, and they do fix them.
  
 It has your artist stacks and large album covers which you can easy adjust the sizes on.  Give it a serious audition.  It is a very full featured player so has tons of options you probably will never use as well that can be daunting at first but give it a chance and I think you will be impressed.


----------



## nuno1959

Hi G !!
  
 I once tried JRiver - maybe a year ago, if that ?.. - gave it a good try but it kept behaving erratically, didn't crash or freeze but it just felt weird..
 So, when the end of the demo/purchase option came up, i didn't buy it & thought i had uninstalled it :
 Today I've just installed it, tried to launch it &… TA DA !! A message box comes up stating ''Your demo period is up, blah, blah..'' or something like that
  
 I have now uninstalled it with AppZapper, re-downloaded it, tried re-installing it, relaunch it &.. same message came up !
 This means obviously that AppZapper has left behind some file which upon re-installing JRiver & re-launching it, it ID's the system or something !?
 Do you have any suggestions of some file i must discard so JRiver thinks it's installing for the first time ?
  
 I am keen on trying this one out
  
 Cheers


----------



## groovyd

give a shout out on their forum here and they will surely get you going... 
  
 http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?board=39.0


----------



## joeexp

The clumsy User Interface if JRIVER is just unbearable. One has to have certain standards.
 That really kills it for me. Then what's the point having a Mac???


----------



## Solrighal

It could be argued the other way too. Why don't Apple et al build-in a means of navigating via folder structure which is, after all, an industry standard?

I don't choose the music I'm going to listen to based on a pretty cover. I know what I want & I know where it is.


----------



## Solrighal

I'm not even going to mention iTunes inability to deal with FLAC. 

Oh, wait..


----------



## bgentry

joeexp said:


> The clumsy User Interface if JRIVER is just unbearable. One has to have certain standards.
> That really kills it for me. Then what's the point having a Mac???




It's definitely a different experience than itunes. For me that's a good thing. I can do many different things in JRiver that are next to impossible in itunes. The views are very configurable. If you are after a very simple presentation, where there aren't a lot of options for the user, itunes is ok. Other Mac centric programs like Swinsian might look or feel more like you expect. JRiver is absolutely NOT for everyone. For me, it's THE best, hands down, no contest. But that's me. I'm a power user.

Brian.


----------



## groovyd

joeexp said:


> The clumsy User Interface if JRIVER is just unbearable. One has to have certain standards.
> That really kills it for me. Then what's the point having a Mac???


 
 haha, yeah like there is anything better, lol... i have tried them all.


----------



## joeexp

groovyd said:


> haha, yeah like there is anything better, lol... i have tried them all.


 

 Let me rephrase then; If there was a prize for the ugliest music player on OS X the ranking would be a follows:
  
 1) JRIVER  - Looks like software designed for WIN98  - even by PC standards that is poor.
 2) PURE MUSIC - what were the thinking, just look at the icons for the app to see that design has always been afterthought here.
 3) AMARRA -  the faux metal look is killing me. Kind of like software on unix workstations from the 80s.
 ….
  
 We should start a petition for an OS X player that's worthy of the Mac, with an UI that is contemporary, modern and goes with the rest of El Capitan/Yosemite ...


----------



## Solrighal

Swinsian is one of the most aesthetically pleasing players I've seen & used but unfortunately it's missing some core features for me personally. I emailed the developer asking if what I was looking for might be an option in future & got such a rude reply that I'd never give him money no matter what he brings out! There's so much pretentiousness in OS X players it's quite sickening.


----------



## timlumley

Hi, Nuno1959,
  
 I know what you mean, we're all looking for Utopia when it comes to the best Music Player to suit all our needs and the very best in Sound Quality.
  
 Yes Roon do a 14 day trial period which may not sound much but I've certainly found it sufficient for my needs. If you search for Roon Labs it should take you to their home page.
  
 This Player has only been available since May this year so it is very much a work in progress for the guys at Roon. That is not to say this player is basic or has many buge it doesn't, it is very much the opposite of that.
  
 You should know that these guys are the same ones that are responsible for Sooloos which Meridian use as their streaming service. These guys built the Sooloos system, Meridian bought the Company and now those very same guys are developing Roon.
  
 There is a very active Forum as well. The Roon guys partake in this Forum on a daily basis.
  
 They want the Player to be as user friendly as possible and if you have any suggestions for improvements or ideas for future releases they are very open, and actively encourage you to voice these in the Forum.
  
 Hope this helps.
  
 Just to let you know I have no vested interest in Roon, I'm just very impressed with the Player as it is at the moment and excited to see what developments come in the future.
  
 Regards,
 Tim


----------



## isquirrel

100% agree with the above post, I have tired pretty much all the Mac OS X programs and certainly found the UI lacking. Today A+ V2.1* was the best sounding, that has changed with the latest version of Roon which now supports Interger mode, direct mode and a few other optimisations. I was auditioning some high end speakers last week and had an issue with the DAC and in my troubleshooting I switched from A+ to Roon, I was so surprised at the difference is sound quality that I thought I must have changed something else, I hadn't, Roon was a major improvement which was easily heard. 
  
 I am a software dev, so can't help paying some attention to UI design, Roon murders anything else in this department as well. The way it interfaces with all of my libraries and across the network and integrates Tidal is a thing of beauty. These guys know what they are doing. I hear they have good funding behind them and so expect to see the platform improve further and further. Damian is a nice guy but in software dev you need brains and funds. The guys have roon appear to have both of those boxes ticked and get my $ 
  
 For my dedicated Win server I use Win 8.1 with JRiver at the moment as a DLNA library server and output to JPlay streamer, that is by some margin the best SQ. However my setup is extreme I have cut down my Win install to only running 27 processes & using only 650mb/ram so I can get away with a single 4GB ram stick for best SQ. I also run it headless accessing it via remote desktop, so don't have to run any additional GUI drivers and resources. Can't get Roon running on this setup yet due to some Graphics issues I am working on.


----------



## groovyd

one nice thing about JRiver is their Remote app.  It is quite a well written intuitive interface, perhaps better then the desktop ui. i agree there isn't a good music player for mac that just checks all the boxes and looks good doing it yet.  i also agree all music player devs are full of pretentiousness and often rude.


----------



## bgentry

isquirrel said:


> Today A+ V2.1* was the best sounding, that has changed with the latest version of Roon which now supports Interger mode, direct mode and a few other optimisations. I was auditioning some high end speakers last week and had an issue with the DAC and in my troubleshooting I switched from A+ to Roon, I was so surprised at the difference is sound quality that I thought I must have changed something else, I hadn't, Roon was a major improvement which was easily heard.




If you heard a large difference, something else was going on. Level change, EQ, loudness processing, ....something. You're not going to hear differences in players as "wow that's huge!". At least I don't think so. I've seen this happen many, many times in the audio world, and people almost always ascribe a change to what they think it is, rather than what it really is. Volume level is the biggest one that gets people. Louder always sounds better, even when it's only 1 to 1.5 dB.

Brian.


----------



## sheldaze

It kinda bothers me because I don't understand the technology behind the players, but there were obvious differences between the players - beyond volume differences. In December last year, I auditioned the latest releases of Amarra, Audirvana, and Pure Music. I flat out did not like Pure Music - I could tell there was an improvement over plain iTunes, but it wasn't enough. I loved Amarra immediately, but only in the cache memory mode. I did not, at the time, like Audirvana as much, but I could tell that it was an excellent playback tool.
  
 There's a particular piece of Yoga music that I found most revealing of the difference between the two products. Regardless of the volume, I found Audirvana too crisp. I simply could not get the placement and sound that I desired - I could not get into the zen moment that the music was supposed to provide. With Amarra, it was easy to get into that mode. I decided to keep both software.
  
 I've since then collected different headphones and DACs (if you care the original setup experiment was done with Audio-Technica ATH-M50x headphones and AudioQuest Dragonfly version 1.2 USB DAC). Certain setups to me sound too crisp still and benefit from Amarra. For all the others, I use Audirvana.


----------



## Solrighal

That there are differences at all amazes me!
  
 JRiver & Vox sound markedly different.


----------



## isquirrel

bgentry said:


> If you heard a large difference, something else was going on. Level change, EQ, loudness processing, ....something. You're not going to hear differences in players as "wow that's huge!". At least I don't think so. I've seen this happen many, many times in the audio world, and people almost always ascribe a change to what they think it is, rather than what it really is. Volume level is the biggest one that gets people. Louder always sounds better, even when it's only 1 to 1.5 dB.
> 
> Brian.


 

 Volume level was set to the DAC's maximum, that is what I heard. All of this is our subjective opinions on these forums, unless a proper blind test is conducted with an informed audience its just my opinion and I most likely completely wrong as usual.


----------



## sheldaze

solrighal said:


> That there are differences at all amazes me!
> 
> JRiver & Vox sound markedly different.


 
 Agreed! And each product claims to be bit-perfect 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Here is an older review that not only claims to note differences between the players, but goes one step further to give each player a rating based on its accuracy:
  
http://www.audioholics.com/how-to-shop/best-audiophile-music-software
 Until I'm ready to jump into the sound and science threads (and I'm just having too much fun listening to music now), I'll just have to trust my ears


----------



## Solrighal

sheldaze said:


> Agreed! *And each product claims to be bit-perfect*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 That's what I don't understand either. If they're all bit-perfect then they should all sound the same. The fact that they don't surely means that some processing of the signal is taking place?
  
 As long as your wallet can support what your ears hear there's no need for science.


----------



## Krutsch

solrighal said:


> That's what I don't understand either. *If they're all bit-perfect then they should all sound the same.* The fact that they don't surely means that some processing of the signal is taking place?
> 
> *As long as your wallet can support what your ears hear there's no need for science.*


 
  
 They are and they should, IMO. That last sentence pretty much sums up all of Head-Fi.


----------



## groovyd

In my experience the differences people hear is not the output of the player per say rather the quality of decoding on lossy tracks.  Often one decoder will indeed sound different then another unless the track is lossless and the decoder works.  For example iTunes AAC decoder sounds way different then JRiver's and I believe JRiver's sounds better, smoother and more accurate in the highs.  But these are lossy decoders, meaning they make decisions as to how much precision is given to decoding the stream at some other compromise like computational performance, cpu or memory usage, or just a plain poorly written decoder.  Lossy decoding is a mathematical approximation technique with varying degrees of precision in the calculations.
  
 My point here being if we are to compare different players we must first agree to only compare lossless tracks, and then we must agree to disable all additional processing of the player such as EQ, DSP effects, crossfeed, etc.


----------



## Solrighal

I only use lossless. Players are all different.


----------



## groovyd

someone needs to design a usb pretend dac that just captures the playback bitstream samples as pcm files and lets you compare the samples using an app visually or as a diff type compare.  this little hardware widget would be the ultimate myth buster.


----------



## sheldaze

> I only use lossless. Players are all different.


 
 I too am playing back lossless, ripped from a CD.
 I can only assume there is another type of audio processing, beyond standard EQ, DSP, crossfeed, which is an audible part of the software playback.


----------



## groovyd

sheldaze said:


> I too am playing back lossless, ripped from a CD.
> I can only assume there is another type of audio processing, beyond standard EQ, DSP, crossfeed, which is an audible part of the software playback.


 
 i can believe this... some of these players have so many settings you never know what is on and off.  there is always something deep in the menus somewhere doing something.


----------



## nuno1959

Thanks Tim
  
 I will definitely look into them
 Tried installing JRiver & it started acting funny from the word go - maybe because a while ago i toyed with it & maybe didn't un-install it as i should ? Possible...
 Audirvana mucks up album covers, mixes titles, splits albums - to be honest my levels of patience these days are more for PLAYING music & recording it rather than fumbling round some stupid player so, i can't be bothered !!
 Swinsian is also full of little this, that & the other….
  
 Talk about plug & play, yeah right…. 
  
 Off to Roon i go….


----------



## Silent One

Food for thought .::.
  
 I own a handful of music players. In recent past I have experienced a couple of things:
  
 1. The same player, same version sounding different with a different OS on same machine - dual boot.
 2. Music players sounding slightly different with different versions.
  
 In regards to the first point, I believe a computer's or music server's processing can affect sound. To the second point - what do the designers tweak anyway when they do between versions?


----------



## Currawong

I don't think this has anything to do with the bit-perfect quality of the stream, but electrical issues. I don't know about over other interfaces, but USB isn't designed for continuous music streaming to a DAC. It is designed to be interrupted, to share the data pipe with other devices of different types and protocols and isn't insulted well for noise by audio equipment standards. 
  
 I suspect what is happening that Audirvana Plus and other players sound better is that they send a more consistent stream, especially if they can completely take over the physical bus between the computer and the DAC. This means less processing going on in the USB converter chip in the DAC resulting in less electrical level (not data level) distortion on the DAC end.  All electrical components emit noise of some form or another when operating (remember how holding your cell phone next to a speaker would cause it to make noise?) so it could be that less interrupt and other processing in USB receiver chips results in less noise bleeding into the circuits of the DAC. Again, this is speculation, but based on how electronic components work.


----------



## Silent One

@ Currawong
  
 I too, suspect electrical issues...


----------



## AppleheadMay

Well, with iTunes Music now launched I'm getting scared of what will happen with my own owned music library of uncompressed music in the future.
 I think I'll keep iTunes for podcasts, browsing music in the iTunes store, putting lossy copies of some of my music in to have them with me everywhere via iTunes Match and let it be the hub for OSX and IOS as that seems to be it's mean function.
  
 My movies are bluray rips played via Mac BluRay Player, not that handy and no real interface.
 So I'm thinking of make MKV's from them and use Plex since Jriver on Mac is not suited for video yet (they have added it without advertising it but it's buggy as hell). 
 Anyone has info on the quality (or loss thereof) of MKV vs full bluray rip?
  
 For My main music library I have a hard time deciding between Audirvana and Jriver.
 According to the review of all these players in the link above SQ of Audirvana is better.
 Jriver looks and feels like a Windows program.
 A lot of people here seem to be big fans of it.
 Opinions on Audirvana vs Jriver welcome!
  
Only interested in these two, not Roon, seems more like a nice interface while I prefer the option of column browsing. Besides, it's 32-bit and we're 2015 already.


----------



## bixby

appleheadmay said:


> Well, with iTunes Music now launched I'm getting scared of what will happen with my own owned music library of uncompressed music in the future.
> I think I'll keep iTunes for podcasts, browsing music in the iTunes store, putting lossy copies of some of my music in to have them with me everywhere via iTunes Match and let it be the hub for OSX and IOS as that seems to be it's mean function.
> 
> My movies are bluray rips played via Mac BluRay Player, not that handy and no real interface.
> ...


 
 if you are going solely on sound, each has a sonic signature and it is best to decide upon audition which you prefer in your system.  Neither is better or worse than the other, just a bit different.


----------



## groovyd

I'm not really a JRiver fan however it is what I currently use because I haven't found anything better all around.  It does have it's flaws and it really needs to drop the skin support (for geeks) and just implement a reasonable native OSX interface with both normal and dark mode options and focus on making the interface easier to use.


----------



## Solrighal

groovyd said:


> I'm not really a JRiver fan however it is what I currently use because I haven't found anything better all around.  It does have it's flaws and it really needs to drop the skin support (for geeks) and just implement a reasonable native OSX interface with both normal and dark mode options and focus on making the interface easier to use.




+1


----------



## Krutsch

appleheadmay said:


> ...
> 
> My movies are bluray rips played via Mac BluRay Player, not that handy and no real interface.
> So I'm thinking of make MKV's from them and use Plex since Jriver on Mac is not suited for video yet (they have added it without advertising it but it's buggy as hell).
> ...


 
  
 This OT, but MKV is simply a container for video/audio tracks, NOT a video or audio compression format. So, the quality is completely up to you. Decide how you are going to store, manage and playback your movies... then, choose a video format (e.g. h.264), an audio format (e.g. AC-3 + 2-channel AAC/160)  and a container (e.g. MP4 or MKV). If you are new to all of this, do a lot of reading and some experimenting before committing to a particular direction. Ripping movies (well) is w-a-y more complex and time consuming than ripping music.
  
 On to music... For me, Audirvana wins... I make heavy use of Audio Unit (AU) plug-ins for EQ on my Mac (and starting with surround plug-ins for my AVR) and I think the sound quality is excellent. It has fewer features than JRiver, but they are features that I actually use; in addition to AU support, being able to adjust the DAC sample rate switching delay has proven useful for one of my DAC/amps.
  
 I've tried the Mac OS version of JRiver and spent significant time with the Windows version of JRMC - I don't care for the user interface and the plethora of settings, et al. To me, it feels like a kitchen sink with a lot of complexity and a sub-standard visual design. Features that aren't in iTunes (e.g. DLNA client) were buggy for me, but YYMV and it's been more than a year since I've played with JRMC, so take my opinion for what it's worth.


----------



## bpcans

I use Audirvana and JRMC interchangeably depending on my mood. Audirvana for its better SQ and JRMC because it can play my FLAC files.


----------



## elnero

bpcans said:


> I use Audirvana and JRMC interchangeably depending on my mood. Audirvana for its better SQ and JRMC because it can play my FLAC files.


Audirvana can play FLAC files.


----------



## bpcans

elnero said:


> Audirvana can play FLAC files.


Yes Audirvana can also play FLAC files, but can it convert MP4 files to FLAC? Not sure, just axing a question.


----------



## bflat

bpcans said:


> Yes Audirvana can also play FLAC files, but can it convert MP4 files to FLAC? Not sure, just axing a question.


 

 No, it only converts DSD to PCM in real time. However, there are numerous conversion utilities that are free or close to free.


----------



## bgentry

bpcans said:


> Yes Audirvana can also play FLAC files, but can it convert MP4 files to FLAC? Not sure, just axing a question.




MP4 broadly means "the MPEG4 CODEC", which is a lossy video format (H.264 is an example of this). For audio files there are files with the extension ".M4A", which can either be Apple's AAC format (lossy), or Apple's ALAC format (lossless). That's really confusing using the same extension for two different file types. Plus the name is close enough to MP4 that people get it confused.

If you mean anything other than ALAC files, there's no reason to convert them to FLAC. ...and there's no real reason to convert those to FLAC either unless your player can't play ALAC.

So what exactly are you trying to do?

Brian.


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> Yes Audirvana can also play FLAC files, but can it convert MP4 files to FLAC? Not sure, just axing a question.


 

 If you are using A+ in iTunes integration mode, then you will need to convert to ALAC. *Google: XLD* - fantastic, freeware tool that is the standard for Mac OS music file conversation. 
  
 I use it for ripping CDs, as well, with CDParanoia.
  
 If you are using A+ in stand-alone mode, it will play FLAC with no conversion necessary.


----------



## bpcans

bgentry said:


> MP4 broadly means "the MPEG4 CODEC", which is a lossy video format (H.264 is an example of this). For audio files there are files with the extension ".M4A", which can either be Apple's AAC format (lossy), or Apple's ALAC format (lossless). That's really confusing using the same extension for two different file types. Plus the name is close enough to MP4 that people get it confused.
> 
> If you mean anything other than ALAC files, there's no reason to convert them to FLAC. ...and there's no real reason to convert those to FLAC either unless your player can't play ALAC.
> 
> ...


*


krutsch said:



			If you are using A+ in iTunes integration mode, then you will need to convert to ALAC. Google: XLD - fantastic, freeware tool that is the standard for Mac OS music file conversation. 

I use it for ripping CDs, as well, with CDParanoia.

If you are using A+ in stand-alone mode, it will play FLAC with no conversion necessary.
		
Click to expand...

*Thanks you guys. A lot of times I'm messing around with files and formats just because, none of it really affects the sound all that much IMO. Or does it?


----------



## Krutsch

bpcans said:


> Thanks you guys. A lot of times I'm messing around with files and formats just because, *none of it really affects the sound all that much IMO. Or does it?*


 
  
 Well... that's a debatable topic. Lossless audio is lossless and ALAC and FLAC will both decode into the exact same PCM data.
  
 But, FLAC is easier to decode and it's also easier for software to read the meta data. You can see this on a low-powered Linux music player, such as MPD (i.e. like my Bryston BDP-1), by watching CPU usage during playback. Some folks believe that minimizing CPU utilization translates into less "noise" (EMI/RFI) during playback and, hence, improves sound quality.
  
 If you are using a modern MacBook Retina, there is so much CPU available it's almost beyond belief, so it shouldn't matter which format you choose, from a sound quality perspective.


----------



## bpcans

Thanks Krutsch, I think I'll listen to some Brahms and go to bed.


----------



## Solrighal

JRMC will convert the files for you. Why bother with yet another piece of software?


----------



## Krutsch

solrighal said:


> JRMC will convert the files for you. Why bother with yet another piece of software?


 
  
 With all the talk about A+, I guess I neglected to re-read the earlier posts and recall that he already has JRMC.
  
 But here's the real reason: I just don't like JRMC, so I go out of my way to find any excuse to encourage others to use something else.


----------



## bgentry

krutsch said:


> But here's the real reason: I just don't like JRMC, so I go out of my way to find any excuse to encourage others to use something else.




JRMC is very "not Mac like". It's not intuitive in it's operation for many things. Because it has a different design paradigm. It took me a while to warm up to it. In my opinion, there is no more powerful player anywhere. It has the best queue based implementation I've seen so far, which is HUGE from a useability standpoint. It can do things that no other player I've seen can do, mostly because of it's sophistication.

It's kind of like flying an Apache helicopter. It's not easy. But it can do a LOT and it's extremely powerful. ...and once you've been flying it a while, you can easily operate it day to day. If you'd rather ride while someone else flies your twin engine prop plane instead, there are lots of other players that make things more easy and FAR less capable. I mean NO INSULT. it's just how it is. Easy and Powerful rarely go together.

Brian.


----------



## Solrighal

I haven't seen a single useful facility in other players that JRMC can't do also. Whereas there are a few things JRMC can do that no other players can match.
  
 As far as usability & aesthetics are concerned I don't really buy those arguments either. I would imagine most people cut their computing teeth on a Windows machine & if you can get around Windows then there's no excuse for not being able to get around JRMC. There are some functions that are complicated to understand but since no-one else implements those functions at all it's a moot point. As far as aesthetics are concerned it's largely irrelevant for me. Once I have it all set up I access my music via an Android app called eos.
  
 Having said all that, I don't care what anyone else uses. It's their money.


----------



## Silent One

Never test drove JRMC. And I'm ok with the handful players I have for my Mac music server at this writing. However, I was lookin' forward to your pointing out what it can do that the others can't.


----------



## Solrighal

Well, unlike some others I don't need to use iTunes at all. I can navigate my music by folder structure. I can create as many data fields as I like. It has built in trans-coding so no need for a separate app. It allows the use of 3rd party VST/VST3 plug-ins which can be fun.
  
 It sounds better than anything else I've used.


----------



## Krutsch

krutsch said:


> But here's the real reason: I just don't like JRMC, so I go out of my way to find any excuse to encourage others to use something else.


 
  
 Sorry... I was being snarky; I really did forget that he was already using JRMC, which was the only reason I recommended XLD.
  


bgentry said:


> Easy and Powerful rarely go together.


 
  
 Yeah... but when they do, that's when a product demonstrates real usability.
  
 As of 4/24/14, there are 800 million iTunes users. While JRMC uniquely satisfies the needs of many enthusiasts, their user base is likely not even close to a 1/100th of that number.
  
 It's a popular audiophile sport to trash iTunes, but when you remember that a music player's primary purpose is to manage and playback digital music files, it's hard to ignore what iTunes continues to accomplish: making computer-based music accessible and fun.
  
 And that is the very definition of usability.


----------



## Solrighal

It doesn't make my music any more accessible to me. In fact, with the absence of basic folder tree navigation it actually hinders me.

As for there being 800 million users, well, so what? Applying the same logic to headphones would likely see us all wearing Skullcandy and the end of this forum. Popularity is no measure of competence, in my experience.


----------



## Krutsch

solrighal said:


> As for there being 800 million users, well, so what? *Applying the same logic to headphones would likely see us all wearing Skullcandy* and the end of this forum. *Popularity is no measure of competence, in my experience.*


 
  
 Your comparison is sort-of apples to oranges, but fair point taken.
  
 What's the most popular, highest rated headphone on Head-Fi? I don't think it's Skullcandy...
 ...you have a pair on your head, right now.


----------



## Solrighal

krutsch said:


> Your comparison is sort-of apples to oranges, but fair point taken.
> 
> What's the most popular, highest rated headphone on Head-Fi? I don't think it's Skullcandy...
> ...you have a pair on your head, right now.


 
  
  
 Yeah, true, but it's popular in this forum and, as everyone knows, we don't get out much


----------



## AppleheadMay

krutsch said:


> This OT, but MKV is simply a container for video/audio tracks, NOT a video or audio compression format. So, the quality is completely up to you. Decide how you are going to store, manage and playback your movies... then, choose a video format (e.g. h.264), an audio format (e.g. AC-3 + 2-channel AAC/160)  and a container (e.g. MP4 or MKV). If you are new to all of this, do a lot of reading and some experimenting before committing to a particular direction. Ripping movies (well) is w-a-y more complex and time consuming than ripping music.
> 
> On to music... For me, Audirvana wins... I make heavy use of Audio Unit (AU) plug-ins for EQ on my Mac (and starting with surround plug-ins for my AVR) and I think the sound quality is excellent. It has fewer features than JRiver, but they are features that I actually use; in addition to AU support, being able to adjust the DAC sample rate switching delay has proven useful for one of my DAC/amps.
> 
> I've tried the Mac OS version of JRiver and spent significant time with the Windows version of JRMC - I don't care for the user interface and the plethora of settings, et al. To me, it feels like a kitchen sink with a lot of complexity and a sub-standard visual design. Features that aren't in iTunes (e.g. DLNA client) were buggy for me, but YYMV and it's been more than a year since I've played with JRMC, so take my opinion for what it's worth.


 
  
 Thanks for the info.
  
 On the musaic side, as soon as I have a few days off I'll be trying out both Audirvana and Jriver again.
  
 On the video side, I know MKV is a container for compression formats. All I wonder is if there is a possibility to retain original BRD quality inside the MKV container, meaning full HD at the same framerate without compression and DTS HD Master audio. Which video options should I choouse then?


----------



## bixby

krutsch said:


> Well... that's a debatable topic. Lossless audio is lossless and ALAC and FLAC will both decode into the exact same PCM data.
> 
> But, FLAC is easier to decode and it's also easier for software to read the meta data. You can see this on a low-powered Linux music player, such as MPD (i.e. like my Bryston BDP-1), by watching CPU usage during playback. Some folks believe that minimizing CPU utilization translates into less "noise" (EMI/RFI) during playback and, hence, improves sound quality.
> 
> If you are using a modern MacBook Retina, there is so much CPU available it's almost beyond belief, so it shouldn't matter which format you choose, from a sound quality perspective.


 
 I wonder how much CPU ultilization is affected by playing a noncompressed file like aiff or wav?


----------



## Krutsch

appleheadmay said:


> Thanks for the info.
> 
> On the musaic side, as soon as I have a few days off I'll be trying out both Audirvana and Jriver again.
> 
> On the video side, I know MKV is a container for compression formats. *All I wonder is if there is a possibility to retain original BRD quality inside the MKV container*, meaning full HD at the same framerate without compression and DTS HD Master audio. Which video options should I choouse then?


 
  
 There is, but that's out of scope for this forum.


----------



## Krutsch

bixby said:


> I wonder how much *CPU ultilization is affected by playing a noncompressed file* like aiff or wav?


 
  
 That's an interesting topic, as well. I did some casual measurements with my Bryston BDP-1. I was expecting a big reduction in CPU usage between FLAC/ALAC and AIFF/WAV, but the results were a surprise for me.
  
 Without going into the details, AIFF used roughly 3% of the CPU with MPD playback, which was slightly higher than WAV. AIFF is a basically a big-endian version of WAV, so all the system has to do is strip-off meta data, byte-swap (to little endian for the x86 architecture) and then feed to the sound card (and out via S/PDIF). Apple has a little-endian version of AIFF, but there transcoder will truncate 24-bit files to 16-bit, so I used XLD to preserve the audio resolution.
  
 FLAC playback was roughly 2x that value at 6% for playback of the same tracks (a mix of redbook and high-res tracks); the CPU values were pretty consistent, regardless of resolution or file size. YMMV.
  
 An ever bigger surprise was Apple Lossless (ALAC), which consumed rough 50% of the CPU - wow. I looked into that further and, hence, my earlier comment about ALAC being more difficult to decode. I know from other stuff I've done that the metadata storage and retrieval is more complex with ALAC (being more flexible), than say MP3 or FLAC. As such, I've been recommending FLAC to folks unless they are sticking with iTunes.
  
 Fun stuff...


----------



## bflat

krutsch said:


> That's an interesting topic, as well. I did some casual measurements with my Bryston BDP-1. I was expecting a big reduction in CPU usage between FLAC/ALAC and AIFF/WAV, but the results were a surprise for me.
> 
> Without going into the details, AIFF used roughly 3% of the CPU with MPD playback, which was slightly higher than WAV. AIFF is a basically a big-endian version of WAV, so all the system has to do is strip-off meta data, byte-swap (to little endian for the x86 architecture) and then feed to the sound card (and out via S/PDIF). Apple has a little-endian version of AIFF, but there transcoder will truncate 24-bit files to 16-bit, so I used XLD to preserve the audio resolution.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm assuming you are testing this on one of the alternate players since that's what this thread is about. Don't know if you mean PC or Mac though.
  
 There is something wrong with your measurement. Under OS X 10.10.4 and Audirvana, my 24/96 ALAC file consumes less than 1.5% CPU. Same track under iTunes shows about 3%, but iTunes has all kinds of background stuff going on that has nothing to do with ALAC decoding. This is all done on a 2 Ghz i7 processor on a Macbook Pro and no difference of using internal DAC or my external Teach DAC. There is no way any audio format needs 50% CPU utilization unless it is transcoding on the fly. On my RWAK, the battery life is no different between ALAC and FLAC. DSD is another story though.


----------



## JamesBr

solrighal said:


> Yeah, true, but it's popular in this forum and, as everyone knows, we don't get out much


 
 Another Valide point


----------



## Krutsch

bflat said:


> I'm assuming you are testing this on one of the alternate players since that's what this thread is about. Don't know if you mean PC or Mac though.


 
  
 Sorry, I think you were skimming and not reading.


----------



## paaj

There must be something wrong as 50% CPU use is ridiculous for audio, certainly if FLAC only takes 3%.
 I guess the BDP-1 has a lousy CPU and/or faulty codecs. On a DIY streamer with onboard fanless Celeron, running MPD, ALAC only takes about 6%.
  
 Maybe you measured during loading of a file?
  
  
 And back on topic: 
  
 Roon is looking to be a good alternative for iTunes, good looks and actually offers more with their integrated reviews and new ways to travel through your collection. Not enough change for me to justify  the price though, so I'll stick with iTunes for now.


----------



## Krutsch

paaj said:


> There must be something wrong as 50% CPU use is ridiculous for audio, certainly if FLAC only takes 3%.
> I guess the BDP-1 has a lousy CPU and/or faulty codecs. On a DIY streamer with onboard fanless Celeron, running MPD, ALAC only takes about 6%.
> 
> *Maybe you measured during loading of a file?*
> ...


 
  
 I develop system software for a living; I know how to measure CPU utilization. The Bryston appliance is using a low-power CPU to avoid, in theory, generating electrical noise during playback. ALAC really is more complicated to decode than FLAC, which the only point I was making in response to a previous question.
  
 As for Roon, I suspect you didn't spend any real time exploring Roon. It's fair to say you don't like it, but Roon versus iTunes is really an apples and oranges comparison.
  
 iTunes (which I love) is a step up from playing music directly from a folder, but is very 2-dimensional and limited, with respect to helping you discover new music or learn more about the music in your current library (or even better curate what you have).
  
 I've been spending the day playing around with Roon, I've crashed it a couple of times, so it's a work in-progress, but setup was a snap and I am blown away with the richness of the user experience, especially since I have a large classical collection and a TIDAL account.
  
 I can't imaging not paying the $$ when the trial runs out... this is just way too fun.


----------



## isquirrel

+1 Totally agree on Roon, love it, now if I get it to work on music server that would be great !


----------



## Krutsch

isquirrel said:


> +1 Totally agree on Roon, love it, now if I get it to work on music server that would be great !


 

 Oh, no doubt... +100 ... I really hope they incorporate DLNA server and control-point functionality. I really want Roon as a library manager and UI to drive my streamers.


----------



## Wilderness

I use Audirvana with iTunes.  Audirvana switches automatically between 16/44 and 24/96.  Another feature is the option to play songs from RAM instead of the spinning hard drive.  It is easy to use, reasonably priced, and sounds good.  I do not use the stand alone Audirvana music player.
  
 If people want an alternative to iTunes, a good music player for the Mac is Pono.  It is a forked version of JRiver that has a much better interface that is easy to use and much better looking.  It also switches automatically between 16/44 and 24/96 and offers the option to play songs through RAM.  And it is FREE!  Apparently it will only sync to the Pono player, which I do not have.
  
 iTunes users have been having a lot of problems lately with Match, Apple Music and Apple Cloud.  I don't use any of these.  I only use iTunes to manage my music and sync my iPhone and iPad, and so I have not been experiencing any problems with iTunes. 
  
 I would like to find an alternative to iTunes that would let me sync my iPhone, iPad, and Sony's ZX2 Walkman from my Mac.  The only way to sync my playlist to my Walkman from my Mac, that I have found, is to use Sony's content transfer app and with a Mac that requires deleting all of my 100 Gigs of music and playlist from my Walkman and then dragging my playlist from iTunes and then that process takes four hours.  I tried Parallels, Windows 8.1, and Sony's MediaGo, but that was a mess and did not work to sync my Walkman.


----------



## miceblue

Is JRiver Media Center worth getting over Foobar (Windows) and Audirvana Plus 1.5 (Mac)? I tried the MC 20 Mac app and it feels like a pre Mac OS X 10.2 application....seriously.


----------



## bgentry

I'm guessing you already own Audirvana. What does it not do that you're looking for? Or what would you like to see done differently?

JRiver isn't for everyone. I think it's hard to dispute that it's the most flexible, most powerful player available. But that power means it's not always the most intuitive or friendly player. It's not unfriendly or super difficult. It's just different. I think it's fantastic, but it's really all about the user experience you want and the features you desire.

As for the look: It's not a native mac app built using the standard kit. It's a true natively complied mac app, but it's look is unlikely to change any time soon. I got used to it pretty quickly, but if that's a big thing for you, it might be a deal breaker.

Brian.


----------



## georgelai57

JRiver MC21 - as a first time buyer of MC20, am I missing something here? We can upgrade to MC21 even though we don't know what exactly it will bring?
For seasoned users who have upgraded previous versions in the past, how much of a saving is it to pre-order?
I find this approach weird.


----------



## Solrighal

I've got MC19 and have no intentions of 'upgrading'.


----------



## bgentry

georgelai57 said:


> JRiver MC21 - as a first time buyer of MC20, am I missing something here? We can upgrade to MC21 even though we don't know what exactly it will bring?
> For seasoned users who have upgraded previous versions in the past, how much of a saving is it to pre-order?
> I find this approach weird.




It's something like $8 in savings. The pre-order upgrade is a way of supporting them and getting a discount. This is my first year with MC, so I'm not sure what to expect from MC21. There's a LOT of discussion, but not much documented about what they plan. Other than a bunch of minor interface stuff that they've said will be in the first build of MC21.

Their development model is explained here:

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=81987.0

I actually find their approach to development to be very refreshing. I think it's one reason their software is so mature and includes so many little features that you might not have thought of until you see it.

Brian.


----------



## georgelai57

Thanks Brian. For $8, I'll wait.


----------



## groovyd

yeah the difference in price isn't worth it but to be honest you don't really ever know what is coming next so exactly when do you decide to upgrade, on the first update you see something you want might make sense.  In that case your subscription is still only good for MC21 so say it takes 6 months until they push a release with something you care about and you jump in.  Well you paid full price for only 6 more months of improvements and the past 6 months you lost out on those improvements along the way, assuming they were improvements.  It is hard to make sense of, the whole process.  I just buy in early because besides the small savings well I don't see any other player I am interested in so might as well support what I know and hope for the best.


----------



## miceblue

Well then, I just bought the A+ 2 upgrade. For $39 it might be okay. I still have the disk image for 1.5.12, so if I need that I'll just use that.

Okay, I opened it up and the user interface seems to be much improved over what I remember from the 2.0.0 interface back when it was released. However...it doesn't read my tags completely accurately for some reason.

Ripped from CD, tags completed in XLD and verified in MP3Tag:



Uh...what? It can't even recognise the "Genre" tag....is there another metadata name for genre other than "Genre"?

Foobar reads the tags just fine:



I mean come on, even iTunes can read the tags if I convert the FLAC file directly to ALAC via XLD:


----------



## Krutsch

FYI, Audirvana+ 2.0 fans... I've been catching up things on ComputerAudiophile and it sounds like the long awaited iOS Remote for A+ has been submitted to the Apple Store for review.
  
 In my experience, it takes about 10 days for the app to make it to publication, once submitted, assuming no issues with the review process.
  
 I can't wait... I have high expectations...


----------



## joeexp

Audirvana 2.2 with remote app is out -


----------



## auee

My MacBook Air is limited to 4GB of RAM. Pure Music requires a minimum of 8GB to play hi res files; sample rates of 88.2 and above. If you have a MacBook Air with 4GB of RAM, what players work for you with hi res files?


----------



## sheldaze

auee said:


> My MacBook Air is limited to 4GB of RAM. Pure Music requires a minimum of 8GB to play hi res files; sample rates of 88.2 and above. If you have a MacBook Air with 4GB of RAM, what players work for you with hi res files?


 
 I'm kind of shocked at those listed requirements. I demo'd Pure Music, but did not like the sound. I bought Audirvana Plus and Amarra.
 I have a very old MacBook from 2008 with a 2.1 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and 4GB RAM. I have problems with other things, like when a web page runs Adobe Flash. But I have no issues with either player and 24/192 audio.


----------



## Kiats

Jriver worked on my 5 year old iMac. Played dsd 64 and 128 with no issues. Ditto with DXD.


----------



## Krutsch

auee said:


> My MacBook Air is limited to 4GB of RAM. Pure Music requires a minimum of 8GB to play hi res files; sample rates of 88.2 and above. If you have a MacBook Air with 4GB of RAM, what players work for you with hi res files?


 

 Bitperfect. That's what I used on my 4GB RAM -equipped Mac Mini. Works great with iTunes.


----------



## Lohb

Anyone else having A+ 2.2 work when they close their Macbook/Air/Pro lid without the need for nosleep app ?


----------



## joeexp

lohb said:


> Anyone else having A+ 2.2 work when they close their Macbook/Air/Pro lid without the need for nosleep app ?


 

 Same here - Well observed. I also can remote-control my MBP with the lid closed, without the need for a no-sleep  app.


----------



## JamesBr

solrighal said:


> I've got MC19 and have no intentions of 'upgrading'.


 
 haha, why would you


----------



## miceblue

I'm still having issues with A+ 2._

Playing MJ's Xscape [Deluxe] album, it plays the previous song in the listing despite showing the information for the correct song.
e.g. double-click on "Love Never Felt So Good (Original)" and it plays Xscape (remixed)


Me = what..........?


----------



## auee

I downloaded Vox for Mac on for my MacBook Air. I do recommend Vox for use as a player only based upon SQ and versus iTunes. With Vox, I detect greater resolution and smoothness or liquidity to the music.  It will play all  of the usual file formats up to 24/192 at their original sample rate and switches sample rate on the fly - something that the good folks at Apple keep neglecting to incorporate into iTunes. But keep in mind that I have not listened with the other players so the basis or foundation of my opinion is quite limited. 
  
 It is no substitute for a full featured library management player. You need to know what you want to hear and load it accordingly. But it is free so for iTunes users, you have nothing to lose by trying it.


----------



## bgentry

I guess Vox is OK, but for me it's just woefully under powered. For a casual listen of a half dozen tracks every now and then? Sure. For your everyday music player? Not for me. I want album art. I want a way to browse my collection. Metadata management ...and a few other things that a true player/library solution does.

Not trying to pick on anyone here at all. I just keep seeing all this talk about Vox and I wonder if everyone with a Mac doesn't know that there are other Library based players other than the horrid itunes. There are definitely good alternatives that do the whole deal of player and library in one package.

Brian.


----------



## auee

bgentry said:


> I guess Vox is OK, but for me it's just woefully under powered. For a casual listen of a half dozen tracks every now and then? Sure. For your everyday music player? Not for me. I want album art. I want a way to browse my collection. Metadata management ...and a few other things that a true player/library solution does.
> 
> Not trying to pick on anyone here at all. I just keep seeing all this talk about Vox and I wonder if everyone with a Mac doesn't know that there are other Library based players other than the horrid itunes. There are definitely good alternatives that do the whole deal of player and library in one package.
> 
> Brian.


 
  
 I have no dispute with you regarding Vox's lack of music management features. It is not a full featured music player with library management and I said as much. But I stand by my point that it works quite well as a simple music player capable of switching sample rates on the fly. 
  
What about SQ? How do you rate Vox against the other music players you have listened with?


----------



## bgentry

auee said:


> What about SQ? How do you rate Vox against the other music players you have listened with?




I haven't done any A/B testing with players for sound quality. My impressions are just anecdotal; i.e. non-scientific, not based in any kind of methodology. They all sound decent to me, but I've spent the most time with my player of choice, JRiver MC. It sounds fantastic to me. 

Brian.


----------



## AppleheadMay

A simple iTunes plugin like BitPerfect solves all your problems, add DSD master and you can even play DSD straight from iTunes.
 I tried just about all players for Mac and if I would have to switch I would get Jriver since it has management features like iTunes does.


----------



## sheldaze

Anyone here using Audrivana Plus and a HRT microStreamer? I am getting frequent dropouts for one HDtracks album, with a unique 24/48 bit rate. I have not experienced dropouts for any other album, be it burned to AIFF, or downloaded from HTtracks or Pono. And when I say dropout, the sound does not return. I cannot get it to start playing sound by "rewind" to the beginning of the current track or by switching to another track within the album. Only by switching to another album, or quitting and restarting A+, can I regain sound. However 30 seconds later, it will dropout again.
  
 I will be posting something similar in the HRT microStreamer thread to see if anyone there has had a similar experience.


----------



## Krutsch

appleheadmay said:


> A simple iTunes plugin like BitPerfect solves all your problems, add DSD master and you can even play DSD straight from iTunes.
> I tried just about all players for Mac and if I would have to switch I would get Jriver since it has management features like iTunes does.


 

 +1 ... BitPerfect + iTunes really is all you need and the value is unbeatable at $9.99 US. With my NAD D 1050, I will switch to Audirvana+ 2.0, because A+ supports a configurable sample rate switching delay and the NAD takes about 1s to switch sample rates. And, I do like to play around with some AU plug-ins with A+. But for SQ, I personally can't hear a difference between A+ and BitPerfect, but I haven't tried a rigorous A/B/X.
 That said, I am enjoying my honeymoon period with Roon


----------



## isquirrel

krutsch said:


> That said, I am enjoying my honeymoon period with Roon


 
  
 Me to, from the Roon forums it seems V1.1 it set to be released imminently, I have stopped using JRiver/JPlay and running Roon straight into the DAC's ASIO driver for the best sound.


----------



## AppleheadMay

isquirrel said:


> Me to, from the Roon forums it seems V1.1 it set to be released imminently, I have stopped using JRiver/JPlay and running Roon straight into the DAC's ASIO driver for the best sound.


 
  
 Love Roon, but it hasn’t got the old-fashind selecting way iTunes or JRIVER HAS,


----------



## Krutsch

isquirrel said:


> Me to, from the Roon forums it seems V1.1 it set to be released imminently, I have stopped using JRiver/JPlay and running Roon straight into the DAC's ASIO driver for the best sound.


 

 Great news... I've reported a couple of defects and I am impressed how quickly they followed-up for more details.
  
 I think these guys are pulling-off the first real revolution in music library management, since iTunes itself. Still some work to be done, but I like where it's at, today.


----------



## bgentry

krutsch said:


> +1 ... BitPerfect + iTunes really is all you need and the value is unbeatable at $9.99 US.




Yeah, *if* you like itunes. I can't see how so many people live with it. It's steadily gotten worse and worse. I can't imagine going back to it now. ...and with better alternatives, I should never have to. 

Brian.


----------



## bgentry

isquirrel said:


> Me to, from the Roon forums it seems V1.1 it set to be released imminently, I have stopped using JRiver/JPlay and running Roon straight into the DAC's ASIO driver for the best sound.




Huh? "Best sound" ? Isn't JRiver widely regarded as having audiophile level quality? Or are you in the camp that thinks extra processes change the sound, power cables change the sound, and so do Brilliant Pebbles ? I'm mostly joking about the pebbles.

Brian.


----------



## Krutsch

bgentry said:


> Huh? "Best sound" ? Isn't JRiver widely regarded as having audiophile level quality? Or are you in the camp that thinks extra processes change the sound, power cables change the sound, and so do Brilliant Pebbles ? I'm mostly joking about the pebbles.
> 
> Brian.


 

 They *all* have "audiophile level quality" ... even iTunes by itself. You must be in the camp that thinks feeding 1s and 0s into a buffer, asynchronously, using different code changes the sound. I'm mostly joking about the code.


----------



## bgentry

I think the same data delivered to the same audio hardware produces the same sound. I think what I hear from the players I've tried on my system is incredible quality. Quality that surpasses what I've heard from speaker based systems that cost thousands of dollars. Headphone audio is a different world and very revealing. So far, I don't think any player I've tried has been a limiting factor, as long as it is configured properly. If not, the errors can be obvious. Sometimes the errors are more subtle, but still something that I hear within minutes of listening. On a Mac this is a bit easier than windows because you don't have to use a driver (usually) and you don't have to intentionally bypass the system "mixer" to keep it from resampling. 

Again, I have not done A/B player testing. I just know that what I've heard is amazing.

Brian.


----------



## Solrighal

There's a very distinct & obvious difference in sound on my system when I compare Vox & JRMC19.
  
 Just sayin,.


----------



## bpcans

solrighal said:


> There's a very distinct & obvious difference in sound on my system when I compare Vox & JRMC19.
> 
> Just sayin,.


To my ears they do sound different, not better or worse, but different for sure.


----------



## isquirrel

bpcans said:


> To my ears they do sound different, not better or worse, but different for sure.


 
 +1 are with that statement, there is no doubt to my ears, that how the bits are handled makes a difference.


----------



## bgentry

solrighal said:


> There's a very distinct & obvious difference in sound on my system when I compare Vox & JRMC19.




Tell us what you hear.

Brian.


----------



## Solrighal

They shouldn't be different though. Bit-perfect is Bit-perfect. Or not, it seems.


----------



## sheldaze

solrighal said:


> They shouldn't be different though. Bit-perfect is Bit-perfect. Or not, it seems.


 

 It would be nice for someone on a Computer Science level to do a concise writeup. Everything I've listened to sounds different. All good - but all different


----------



## miceblue

iTunes cuts off frequencies above 19 kHz when playing 16/44.1 music I believe; unless they fixed that in the recent version.


----------



## AppleheadMay

miceblue said:


> iTunes cuts off frequencies above 19 kHz when playing 16/44.1 music I believe; unless they fixed that in the recent version.


 
  
 Not if you use BitPerfect I imagine?
  
 I love using iTunes for management and use the old style with the column browsing, no covers or anything. I use BitPerfect and DSDMaster with it.
Jriver is something I could get used to as well.
 I can't get used to Roon but I can imagine for people not liking iTunes it's an amazing way of browsing their music. I think it's an great app anyone should try.
 I find most of the other players lacking in library management.


----------



## Solrighal

appleheadmay said:


> Not if you use BitPerfect I imagine?
> 
> I love using iTunes for management and use the old style with the column browsing, no covers or anything. I use BitPerfect and DSDMaster with it.
> Jriver is something I could get used to as well.
> ...


 
  
 Anyone with a credit card.


----------



## AppleheadMay

solrighal said:


> Anyone with a credit card.


 
  
  
 Heh. Indeed!
 I never bought it, I just tried it and canceled.
 Pretty pricey indeed, 150 a year or 450 for life if I remember well? but it beats the pricey Amarra IMO.
 Still, anyone can try it for free and see what it's all about.


----------



## JamesBr

appleheadmay said:


> Heh. Indeed!
> I never bought it, I just tried it and canceled.
> Pretty pricey indeed, 150 a year or 450 for life if I remember well? but it beats the pricey Amarra IMO.
> Still, anyone can try it for free and see what it's all about.


 
 You get what you pay for they say .... quality comes at a certain price!


----------



## bgentry

^ That's ridiculous. $150 a year is a rip off and $450 is just crazy.

Brian.


----------



## Solrighal

jamesbr said:


> You get what you pay for they say .... quality comes at a certain price!


 
  
 A fool & his money is soon parted.


----------



## AppleheadMay

bgentry said:


> ^ That's ridiculous. $150 a year is a rip off and $450 is just crazy.
> 
> Brian.


 
  
  
 Just as crazy as Amarra's prices. 
 Not saying that it's worth 450 but it's worth more than Amarra IMO.


----------



## auee

My reluctance is you need to buy it for each computer; should permit installation on 2 computers - desktop and laptop.


----------



## AppleheadMay

auee said:


> My reluctance is you need to buy it for each computer; should permit installation on 2 computers - desktop and laptop.


 
  
  
 Really? That's crappy indeed.


----------



## kaboomooo

JRiver is pretty good, but the problem is some time it will shut down for no reason. In some case the audio output stop working all together. Restart my Mac will fix the issue but that means it is not the most reliable software.


----------



## bgentry

kaboomooo said:


> JRiver is pretty good, but the problem is some time it will shut down for no reason. In some case the audio output stop working all together. Restart my Mac will fix the issue but that means it is not the most reliable software.




It's certainly not perfect. But that's more severe of an error than I've experienced in several hundred hours of listening time with JRiver MC 20 for Mac. I've had the application become completely locked up a half dozen times. In each case I just used Force Quit to kill the app and then restarted it. Have you tried to force quit it? If you like the software and want to continue using it, you should report your problem in the JRiver Mac forum here:

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?board=39.0

Brian.


----------



## Zoom25

The new Audirvana 2.2 (2.2.0.7) update seems to have taken things a step further than the last time I was using Audirvana Plus (2.0.9). It's really doing wonders with my HD 800.
  
 Currently, I use Spotify with Amarra SQ due to it's excellent database. Tidal also works well with Amarra SQ. In fact, they have a new Tidal for Amarra app. However, I didn't opt for Tidal or the new Tidal for Amarra app. I didn't find any meaningful difference between Spotify and Tidal in their maxed out settings when running through either Amarra SQ or direct fed to my DACs.
  
 At this point, the way in which Audirvana Plus handles files vs. other players is more important than worrying about lossless (Tidal) and AAC/MP3/OGG (Spotify).
  
 What really interests me is that Audirvana Plus will at some time integrate Qobuz. If that player can deliver the same sonics with streaming, I might just have to switch over from Spotify.
  
 I really, really love not having to downloading or catalogue my music anymore because of Spotify, but at the same time I really dig the sound of Audirvana Plus. If the Qubuz integration goes well, it might be my end game for my computer based rigs.


----------



## bpcans

I've been playing the new Audirvana 2.2 in intergrated mode lately myself. I think it sounds better for some reason. A bit more soundstage and a tad tighter bass. It could be I just slept well last night too.


----------



## kaboomooo

zoom25 said:


> The new Audirvana 2.2 (2.2.0.7) update seems to have taken things a step further than the last time I was using Audirvana Plus (2.0.9). It's really doing wonders with my HD 800.
> 
> Currently, I use Spotify with Amarra SQ due to it's excellent database. Tidal also works well with Amarra SQ. In fact, they have a new Tidal for Amarra app. However, I didn't opt for Tidal or the new Tidal for Amarra app. I didn't find any meaningful difference between Spotify and Tidal in their maxed out settings when running through either Amarra SQ or direct fed to my DACs.
> 
> ...


 
 Audirvana is nice, but since I already paid for JRiver don't feel like it to buy another player.....


----------



## sheldaze

kaboomooo said:


> Audirvana is nice, but since I already paid for JRiver don't feel like it to buy another player.....


 

 I agree! The step-up from vanilla iTunes to any of the players is quite a nice upgrade. But then between the players, JRiver, Audirvana, Amarra, etc. the sonic differences are much more subtle.


----------



## bpcans

kaboomooo said:


> Audirvana is nice, but since I already paid for JRiver don't feel like it to buy another player.....


kaboomooo, I agree with you about not needing to pay for a player that you won't use. I have a few different music players on my MacBook because I wanted to try as many as possible to find the sound that I liked, but that's just me.


----------



## Zoom25

In the recent past, I did a comparison between Amarra 3.0.2 and Audirvana Plus 2.0.9. I said they were close in performance, but ultimately I preferred Audirvana Plus in most categories. Fast forward to today's Audirvana Plus, I'm not touching Amarra. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## sheldaze

zoom25 said:


> In the recent past, I did a comparison between Amarra 3.0.2 and Audirvana Plus 2.0.9. I said they were close in performance, but ultimately I preferred Audirvana Plus in most categories. Fast forward to today's Audirvana Plus, I'm not touching Amarra. I'll leave it at that.


 

 I have done the same. At one point, I was using Amarra with Audirvana as my alternate playback software. But I suspect I had a few "harsh" DACs and the Amarra sound was more soothing. Now that I've sold things I do not like, I use Audirvana exclusively.
  
 I only wanted to state, for people invested in one or another, or new people concerned about getting the "wrong" application, that you cannot really go "wrong" by using Amarra instead of Audirvana. The deltas between the two are subtle, and may not even be heard by some people. The delta between any of the software options and the original iTunes, to my ears, is immense


----------



## Zoom25

sheldaze said:


> The *deltas* between the two are subtle, and may not even be heard by some people. The *delta* between any of the software options and the original iTunes, to my ears, is immense


 
 Agreed! Even so, the sigmas are even better!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Jokes aside, I think Audirvana is becoming a solid platform. The new iOS remote really helps. No more need to be stuck at the computer.


----------



## joeexp

sheldaze said:


> I have done the same. At one point, I was using Amarra with Audirvana as my alternate playback software. But I suspect I had a few "harsh" DACs and the Amarra sound was more soothing. Now that I've sold things I do not like, I use Audirvana exclusively.
> 
> I only wanted to state, for people invested in one or another, or new people concerned about getting the "wrong" application, that you cannot really go "wrong" by using Amarra instead of Audirvana. The deltas between the two are subtle, and may not even be heard by some people. The delta between any of the software options and the original iTunes, to my ears, is immense


 

 +1 My number one playback software is now Audirvana; I believe  the latest version sounds even better then Amarra IMHO. Amarra is adding a tad to much syrup to the mix. Again YMMV


----------



## Zoom25

I finally got the Audirvana iOS remote. It took awhile to get it working, but the FAQ on their website really helped. Had to change the firewall settings to allow Audirvana Plus via System Preferences. It's quite responsive (temporally as well) so far in terms of track change and volume adjustment. It's almost like my Spotify experience. Really good for night time use when I don't want to be near a computer/laptop or have their lights shining at me. I am using my iPhone 6 Plus to control playback.
  
 I am very impressed by the sound. This new version added a subwoofer and a mid driver cone to the HD 800. My other headphones did benefit from the new version, but the HD 800 responded the most. It's not subtle at all. Will give it a go with my monitors as well.


----------



## Solrighal

joeexp said:


> +1 My number one playback software is now Audirvana; I believe  the latest version sounds even better then Amarra IMHO. Amarra is adding a tad to much syrup to the mix. Again YMMV


 
  
  


zoom25 said:


> I finally got the Audirvana iOS remote. It took awhile to get it working, but the FAQ on their website really helped. Had to change the firewall settings to allow Audirvana Plus via System Preferences. It's quite responsive (temporally as well) so far in terms of track change and volume adjustment. It's almost like my Spotify experience. Really good for night time use when I don't want to be near a computer/laptop or have their lights shining at me. I am using my iPhone 6 Plus to control playback.
> 
> I am very impressed by the sound. This new version added a subwoofer and a mid driver cone to the HD 800. My other headphones did benefit from the new version, but the HD 800 responded the most. It's not subtle at all. Will give it a go with my monitors as well.


 
  
 What EQ settings are you guys using?


----------



## Zoom25

No eq, no Audio Units, or other processing in either audirvana plus or amarra. I only use EQ with amarra SQ. bass boost preset for krk kns 8400. Apple EarPods with its own settings. Built in MacBook Pro speakers have their own preset. I really dig those presets.


----------



## Solrighal

So why do these programs sound different? There clearly must be some EQ in operation.


----------



## Zoom25

FROM THE WEBSITE:  
 _______
  
BIT-PERFECT PLAYBACK  The DAC sample rate is automatically switched to the audio file original one to ensure unaltered signal is played.

 All internal processing is done using 64 bit precision to eliminate information loss due to rounding errors.

 In addition, optional processing can be configured for upsampling, volume control, and Audio Unit plugins.




  ​ SHORTEST AUDIO SIGNAL PATH  Advanced optimizations:


Audio device Exclusive Access
Direct Mode
Integer Mode




  ​ FULL MEMORY PLAY  File loading, processing, converting to DAC native format are all done before playback to minimize any possible interference




  ​ SYSOPTIMIZER  SysOptimizer can be configured to stop the OS X background services potentially interfering with sound quality, and give to Audirvana Plus the extreme priority during playback to ensure the maximum signal streaming precision.

IZOTOPE INSIDE  The world benchmark processing for:


64-bit SRC best in class sample rate conversion technology
MBIT+ dithering Volume Control (Dithering is meant to reduce the audible impact of the inevitable reduction in the audio signal precision when reducing the bitdepth, which happens when using a digital volume control. iZotope MBIT+ is the leading technology that pushes the noise way out of the audible spectrum.)

 And these filters can be tuned precisely by configuring their advanced parameters.


----------



## Zoom25

I wonder if by changing the sound engine and the signal path, is it possible to affect the clocking performance of the DAC?


----------



## Solrighal

I have no idea. I'm also no debating that they sound different because I've tested most myself and most do indeed sound different. I just don't understand why, especially when they all claim bit-perfect playback. It's a mystery. 

Back in my Windows days I went through several players and don't remember hearing any difference at all.


----------



## Zoom25

solrighal said:


> I have no idea. I'm also no debating that they sound different because I've tested most myself and most do indeed sound different. I just don't understand why, especially when they all claim bit-perfect playback. It's a mystery.
> 
> *Back in my Windows days I went through several players and don't remember hearing any difference at all.*


 

 Yeah, back then I used to use KLM player, VLC, and the windows player. I doubt they used ASIO though. I didn't get to try Foobar though.
  
 There's probably a lot more going on in the background that the developer wouldn't want to give away to his competitors or public. Just enough points on the website to kind of make it sound legit.


----------



## Solrighal

I used to use QCD mostly, a great wee minimalist player with a fantastic community. When it eventually became overwhelmed with useless features and the community disbanded I switched to Foobar2000 which, in my opinion, is still the best player software on any platform. 

Now that I'm on OS X I use JRMC, if only because it's as close to Foobar2000 as I've found.


----------



## Zoom25

I would love to try Foobar2000 and compare it to Audirvana Plus and other players. I have an old HP laptop running Windows Vista from 2006 that I can try booting up. Would there be a difference in running it on Vista vs. newer OS (7,8, or 10). I might try this out for fun.


----------



## Solrighal

I don't think it would make a difference whaat version of Windows you use but I could be wrong. It wouldn't be a fair comparison though unless the harware were identical.


----------



## kaboomooo

JRiver is really giving me a hard time in the last couple of days. Playing some DSD file and some how no audio at all! My USB DAC still show up in the system everything looks normal but even when I open Youtube no sound at all... I will have restart my MBP to get everything working again... This happen a few times now in the last couple of days... 
  
 I feel some A** need to be kick here


----------



## Zoom25

solrighal said:


> I don't think it would make a difference whaat version of Windows you use but I could be wrong. It wouldn't be a fair comparison though unless the harware were identical.


 

 Yeah, it wasn't a fair comparison. Foobar2000 got destroyed in every sound aspect. It was super stable though.
  
 Maybe in the future if I end up getting my hands on a decked out PC, I'll give it a shot.


----------



## bpcans

kaboomooo said:


> JRiver is really giving me a hard time in the last couple of days. Playing some DSD file and some how no audio at all! My USB DAC still show up in the system everything looks normal but even when I open Youtube no sound at all... I will have restart my MBP to get everything working again... This happen a few times now in the last couple of days...
> 
> I feel some A** need to be kick here


This happened to me too. I fixed it by unplugging the USB from my MBP to my DAC and simply plugging it back in. Easy peasie.


----------



## Krutsch

Heads-up: Roon 1.1 is out for Mac OS X and Windows, with a new Android remote app (iPad version submitted for Apple's approval).
  
 I know what I'm doing tonight...


----------



## isquirrel

Yep so is Roon Server which allows for running an unattended computer media server without the Open GL drive component overhead. I have it installed and it does save memory usage and cuts down on the amount of processes running. You must have a seperate PC or Mac running on the same network to control Roon and manage your music libraries and playback devices.
  
 I cannot detect any difference in SQ so far.


----------



## bixby

zoom25 said:


> Yeah, it wasn't a fair comparison. Foobar2000 got destroyed in every sound aspect. It was super stable though.
> 
> Maybe in the future if I end up getting my hands on a decked out PC, I'll give it a shot.


 
 Inquiring minds would like to know.  Was the windows machine tweaked?  What flavor of ASIO?
  
 I had to do a lot of stuff to the machine to get Foobar to work and wound as it does today.  I agree, it is very stable on my machine and it kicked my Linux setup out of the room for sound and stability.  I have not brought it down to compare to the Mac system, but yea, I don't think it would win.


----------



## Zoom25

bixby said:


> Inquiring minds would like to know.  Was the windows machine tweaked?  What flavor of ASIO?
> 
> I had to do a lot of stuff to the machine to get Foobar to work and wound as it does today.  I agree, it is very stable on my machine and it kicked my Linux setup out of the room for sound and stability.  I have not brought it down to compare to the Mac system, but yea, I don't think it would win.


 
  
 Here are the specs on my Mac:
  
  
  
 The Windows machine on the other hand was a HP laptop - Intel Core duo with 2GB of RAM and clocked at about 2GHz (forgot the processor as well). I forgot the rest of the specs. I simply don't want to wait right now for it to boot up. It had a hard drive, whereas my Mac runs on SSD. I also run my Audirvana Plus on extreme under "SysOptimizer" FWIW. Meanwhile, nothing like that was enabled on the windows machine.
  
 I tested the same FLAC albums on each laptop at same headphone volume output on my Dangerous Source. Digital out volume was maxed on both setups to be fair. Only used my HD 800 for this test.
  
 For some reason I wasn't able to install WASAPI or ASIO. I checked up on hydrogen audio and they basically said not to bother with it for playback purposes. It's apparently good for live playback with low latency, but creates problems as well on certain computers. So I played it straight out of the stock Foobar. I was a bit out of my element as I hadn't properly used a windows machine in many years.
  
  
*Sound comparison:*
  
*Sibilance* was very noticeable through Foobar. I can now totally understand why some people might say that HD 800 needs mod or tube amps. Through Audirvana Plus, it was completely removed and only present in very bad recordings.
  
*Treble* - treble energy was elevated in general on Foobar. Top end had more airy feel, but it felt more forced and synthetic. Whereas, on Audirvana, it's done a lot more naturally with dynamics to spare.
  
*Stage presentation*: Foobar with HD 800 throws a soundstage that it ahead of you completely. Audirvana throws a soundstage where you are in the middle of the stage. So with Audirvana, anything that is in front, feels in front of your ears, and anything in rear sounds behind your ear. With Foobar, anything placed in the rear of the recording is near your ear or slightly forward. On the other hand, anything placed at the front of the recording is held in front of your face. Foobar just shifts the stage away from you. I actually enjoyed both presentations. I could live with either one of them.  
  
*Mid range*: This is where Audirvana was leagues apart. I couldn't focus on aspects like imaging or decay too much because the mid range on Foobar simply didn't hold up. It felt dry, recessed, and lacking in resolution and dynamics. I could tolerate the treble of HD 800 through Foobar, but the lifelessness in vocals was the dealbreaker.   
  
*Bass texture* and *slam*: Audirvana won this in every way technically possible. Still, Foobar maintained a nice kick and rhythm.
  
*Soundstage*: The panning of instruments and sounds was more diffused in Audirvana Plus, whereas it felt more distinct in Foobar (a more rigid left, centre, and right). 
  
 ________
  
 Overall, I actually really enjoyed my Foobar2000 experience. The overall sound and presentation was very nostalgic. I grew up with that flavour of sound and presentation for many years in my youth.
  
 I really want to give Foobar a proper shot at some point with good hardware and optimized settings. I didn't bother quoting more specifics on the two computer, because of the large mismatch between them in specs. I have no idea how Foobar scales with better hardware and software tweaks.


----------



## Krutsch

Initial impressions for Roon 1.1: fantastic.
  
 I found a number of software issues with 1.0 (some of which I reported on their forum) and they fixed every single defect I'd discovered; even stuff I didn't bother to report. A very thorough release, so far.
  
 If you review their release notes, it's crazy how much they put into this release; the UI is full of easter eggs.
  
 Next step: I need to get Roon Headless running on my Mac Mini in the 2-channel system.


----------



## bgentry

zoom25 said:


> The Windows machine on the other hand was a HP laptop - Intel Core duo with 2GB of RAM and clocked at about 2GHz (forgot the processor as well). I forgot the rest of the specs.
> [...]
> For some reason I wasn't able to install WASAPI or ASIO. I checked up on hydrogen audio and they basically said not to bother with it for playback purposes.




I'm not all that experienced with Windows audio, but I've read quite a bit about it. The real kicker seems to be that if you don't use WASAPI or ASIO you have to go through the Windows System Mixer, and the system mixer resamples! So if you don't use the exact same sample rate on the mixer that you use in your player, windows is going to resample it for you, on the fly. It won't be a high quality resample either.

What you want to do, is have the player control the sample rate completely. Most people would tell you that you want to have the player output the sample rate of the song you are listening to. So CD rips at 44.1kHz for example. Some people want to upsample in the player (for example from whatever the song is, up to 96kHz). If you want to do that, you want the player doing it, NOT windows.

So, as good as your report of your observations seems to be, your test was flawed if you weren't careful to eliminate the system mixer's resampling.

Brian.


----------



## Zoom25

bgentry said:


> I'm not all that experienced with Windows audio, but I've read quite a bit about it. The real kicker seems to be that if you don't use WASAPI or ASIO you have to go through the Windows System Mixer, and the system mixer resamples! So if you don't use the exact same sample rate on the mixer that you use in your player, windows is going to resample it for you, on the fly. It won't be a high quality resample either.
> 
> What you want to do, is have the player control the sample rate completely. Most people would tell you that you want to have the player output the sample rate of the song you are listening to. So CD rips at 44.1kHz for example. Some people want to upsample in the player (for example from whatever the song is, up to 96kHz). If you want to do that, you want the player doing it, NOT windows.
> 
> ...


 

 I didn't have WASAPI or ASIO, although I do remember setting up playback stream to my DAC at native sample rate. I think that option exists for me because I previously used to hook up my MIDI controllers and needed to specify those settings. I'll bring out the machine again tomorrow to try getting ASIO/WASAPI working and double check on any resampling. I also hate resampling anything on the software ends. With all DACs I've tried so far, it doesn't mesh well with their internal oversampling.


----------



## Zoom25

Also, what do you guys think of the Microsoft Surface lineup for audio purposes? I figured I would get relevant feedback from the people here.


----------



## Zoom25

Been listening to Audirvana Plus with my monitors. Same results as with the HD 800. Feels like a veil was removed allowing vocals to sound more lifelike and present in the room. Bass tightened up as well. Most pleasing was having a really good centerstage performance. Vocals that are supposed to be panned smack in the dead middle actually were dominant in the middle with the right weight. This is a huge thing for me!!! IMO lack of strong centerstage performance is one of the things that I've observed in nearly all low-mid end components or systems. It seems like a trivial thing but it makes a huge difference in the long run. It removes listening fatigue as well.


----------



## joeexp

krutsch said:


> Initial impressions for Roon 1.1: fantastic.
> 
> I found a number of software issues with 1.0 (some of which I reported on their forum) and they fixed every single defect I'd discovered; even stuff I didn't bother to report. A very thorough release, so far.
> 
> ...


 

 I just tried Roon and it completely messed up my Audio File Folder structure!
 Not just the structure also the folder names have been changed. 
 Thanks a bunch Roon! I really didn't need this. ….
  
  
 And in the Trash it goes!


----------



## Solrighal

joeexp said:


> I just tried Roon and it completely messed up my Audio File Folder structure!
> Not just the structure also the folder names have been changed.
> Thanks a bunch Roon! I really didn't need this. ….
> 
> ...


 
  
 Surely it doesn't actually change the names of the folders?


----------



## joeexp

I creates new folders and moves the files into them; Kind of Artist > Albums; This really doesn't work for classical Music ...
  
 There should be a big warning sign telling the user that the folder structure is about to be tempered with..


----------



## Solrighal

joeexp said:


> I creates new folders and moves the files into them; Kind of Artist > Albums; This really doesn't work for classical Music ...
> 
> There should be a big warning sign telling the user that the folder structure is about to be tempered with..


 
  
 I presume you have a backup of your music folder?


----------



## bixby

zoom25 said:


> Here are the specs on my Mac:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Sounds like you Win machine needs a bit more horsepower.  WASPI is preferable not ASIO, I was wrong about that and it does sound better than Windows direct mode.  Settings in Foobar can be hard to setup especially if you found getting WASPI to load.  I will say it took me a lot longer to get the Win machine sounding good, but now it is much better than the Linux setup.  
  
 Glad you tried it.  A+ is a great sounding player and hard to beat in many systems.


----------



## Krutsch

joeexp said:


> I creates new folders and moves the files into them; Kind of Artist > Albums; This really doesn't work for classical Music ...
> 
> There should be a big warning sign telling the user that the folder structure is about to be tempered with..


 
  
 If you read the release notes, Roon shouldn't be touching your files or folders - even meta data changes you make manually are stored in an external database (see: 3 Layer Meta Data in their release notes).
  
 For me, I've never seen Roon touch or move a single file - with earlier versions or the new 1.1 release.
  
 Are you setting up Roon to sync use your iTunes Library (i.e. synching your iTunes library) or just pointing it at one or more folders (i.e. Watch Folders)?


----------



## auee

I compared the SQ of Vox to Audirvana Plus yesterday over the course of three hours and prefer the latter by a fairly large margin. It offered greater resolution, more natural timbre, greater rhythm and pace, and simply a more involving listening experience without any increase in listener fatigue. The former is free and good for what it is. Audirvana Plus is not free, but worth it. I do have a caveat; I did not get the chance to use it with a large library and have read that it is very slow loading one.


----------



## auee

I am employing the sync folder method of adding music to Audirvana Plus, stated in the manual as follows:
  
"The library contains the tracks coming from the audio files in the selected folders and/or in the iTunes database.
 There are two ways to do this import:
 1) By adding the folders to sync with Audirvana Plus.
 This is the recommended method, as any folder content update will then be automatically pushed to Audirvana Plus (except for the network volumes). Adding new files inside these folders will make their tracks automatically appear in Audirvana Plus.
 - Under "Select the folders to add to the library", click on “+” button at the bottom left of the list to add a new folder to synchronize. This will raise the folders selection window where you’ll select one or more folders to add to the list.
 - You can force a synchronization by clicking on the “Sync” button located on the row of the folder to synchronize.
 - To delete a folder from the synchronization list, and remove all its tracks from Audirvana Plus library, select it and press the “-“ button"
  
Now my question is: how does Audirvana's library database interact with music files that are on one or more external hard drives when such hard drives are not always connected to the computer when Audirvana is being used? I know that this would be a disaster under iTunes; it will mess up the library and cause the dreaded ! next to such files. With Audirvana, will the files in the external hard drives simply not be shown in the library when the HDs are not connected and appear in the library when connected? 
  
This would be great and I hope someone knows to save me a trial and error mistake.


----------



## Krutsch

FYI ... the Roon remote app for iPad was released yesterday (last night?). The app is hard to find on the store (searching Roon doesn't yield the app), so use the download links from the Roon download page for iOS and Android.
  
 The iOS version requires newer iPads, as does the Android version (which seems very restrictive; neither my Note 4 nor my older Nexus 7 are eligible).
  
 I am running RoonServer an an old Mac Mini (2009) and it's blazing fast. My iPad Mini 2 beautifully replicates the desktop experience. You can tell this is a was design goal from the very beginning.
  
 For me, this ends my search for an end-game music library, playback engine and browsing interface.


----------



## Lohb

auee said:


> I compared the SQ of Vox to Audirvana Plus yesterday over the course of three hours and prefer the latter by a fairly large margin. It offered greater resolution, more natural timbre, greater rhythm and pace, and simply a more involving listening experience without any increase in listener fatigue. The former is free and good for what it is. Audirvana Plus is not free, but worth it. I do have a caveat; I did not get the chance to use it with a large library and have read that it is very slow loading one.


 

 Yep. 2.2 is superb, even if it was a paid upgrade for older owners of 1.5.x.
 It all starts at the mastered file's quality and the player's decoding/handling quality of that before it gets pass up the line and for whatever reason, all these players have a quite distinct signature.


----------



## Zoom25

I decided to give Roon a try and have been comparing it to Audirvana Plus. I am very impressed by how clean Roon looks and navigates. I've yet to give their iOS app a try. I'm using Direct Mode, exclusive, integer on both software. Everything is optimized to the max on both software.
  
 Soon looks like it's been designed by professionals, whereas Audirvana looks slightly amateurish. Although I've gotten used to Audirvana Plus and it works fine. I haven't tested Tidal integration either.
  
*Sound impressions:*
  
 - Only based off HD 800 atm. Will involve more headphones and monitors later.
 - Both are very close sounding. I'll easily take either over Amarra. 
 - Three differences noted: bass, mids, soundstage depth
 - Bass: Audirvana has slightly bit more heft in the lower octaves. It's honestly negligible. Both are very good at handling bass.
 - Soundstage: There is slightly more depth on Audirvana Plus. The music feels more immersive on Audirvana. It draws me in more.
 - Mids: This is where I am absolutely sure there was a REAL difference between them. Audirvana simply adds magic to vocals. Audirvana handles vocals with control that has been unbeatable so far on OS X for me. Roon is a bit dry and flat in comparison, however, with excellent resolution. It's just that Audirvana gives you the last 5%, the magical and involving 5%. The higher dynamic range and subtleness in vocals is where Audirvana Plus is golden. It transforms from a recording to hearing a real person without any digital artifacts.
  
 These differences are very subtle. Either player would be fine sound wise and could live with. If I stopped using Audirvana Plus and continued with Roon, it would easily become my reference player. It's only in direct comparison when the differences can be truly observed.
  
 I will most likely end up not pursuing Roon even though it's better in every regard minus SQ. It's just that at the end of the day I care about the sound more. Audirvana Plus is the only player so far that has made me feel actively emerged in the music. With all other players, I'm simply hearing it passively.
  
 EDIT: The difference is VERY REAL. Going from Audirvana to Roon felt slightly weird but got used to it. Instead of going back and forth, I stuck with Roon for an hour listening getting used to the overall sound. Next, I wanted to try the same tracks (files) from various artists and albums on Audirvana Plus. This time around, the difference seemed much more pronounced. It was like several layers of veil was removed.


----------



## joeexp

+1 Similar experience I have got. Since Version 2.2, Audirvana is just in a class of its own. It even sounds better then Amarra 3.0 YMMV.
 The iPhone app is fab for remote controlling! Although as you said the UI could do with some improvement. SQ is king.


----------



## Zoom25

I've been doing another experiment. It's one I've done a couple of times over the years (at least since 2006) on both Mac and Windows with different setups. It's comparing WAV vs FLAC (compressed). I have never found a difference between them in real time playback. They are both lossless, however, FLAC is compressed. Although there is FLAC uncompressed, which I look forward to add to the equation. The output should be the same as both are bit perfect copies of each other. However, the audio streams of various players (Amarra, Roon, and Audirvana Plus) are also bit perfect, as measured by developers themselves, yet many here can hear very clear differences. The developer of Roon actually tries to tackle this on Computer Audiophile.
  
 For fun, I decided to take a few of my albums from my catalogue (which is 95% FLAC) and convert them to WAV. I used XLD for this. I batch converted 30 albums in less than a minute. It's ridiculously fast! I put all the files in the same directory on my Macbook Pro from which Audirvana reads.
  
 (In the past I've talked to a couple of guys from Pioneer representatives at event talking about why they don't support FLAC on their CDJ's. This was around 2011. They also hinted at real time performance issues and that it's noticeable when played on massive top end club systems like Funktion One, which I can vouch for its sound. Nonetheless, I thought they were being somewhat snobbish. I understood their argument about real time performance and conversion, however, most computer guys would argue that decoding and processing of FLAC is negligible at this point with computers advancing. So in that respect, my pimped out SSD Macbook should make any negativity of FLAC decoding process even less than before, i.e. FLAC and WAV playback should be essentially the same. On the other side of things, having a very quiet and optimized computer might actually let you hear differences more easily. 
  
 All the original FLAC tracks had various bit rates. However, their converted WAVs all had 1411 kbps, by default.
  
 SysOptimizer on extereme, with direct mode, exclusive, and integer mode engaged. NO EQ, DSP, or audio units engaged. All OS X volume levels at 100%.
  
 I have been testing to see if there any differences by two following methods. Letting an entire song play in FLAC and then in WAV, or vice versa and seeing if there was an overarching difference in sound. Another was to compare certain complex sections of songs, usually 5-10 seconds interval at max. Just go back and forth a good 50 times to see if I can pinpoint what I've been hearing. I've especially been focusing on decays, reverbs, and sustains on trails.
  
 The results so far have been confusing and beautiful. I would've laughed reading this post a few years back. More (scientific) experimentation remains to be done.


----------



## Krutsch

zoom25 said:


> ...most computer guys would argue that decoding and processing of FLAC is negligible at this point with computers advancing. So in that respect, my pimped out SSD Macbook should make any negativity of FLAC decoding process even less than before, i.e. *FLAC and WAV playback should be essentially the same*. On the other side of things, having a very quiet and optimized computer might actually let you hear differences more easily.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Intersting post; thanks for taking the time to write it.
  
 I performed similar experiments with my Bryston BDP-1, which is basically a low-powered AMD CPU -equipped, purpose built Linux box.
  
 When I measured CPU utilization, it was eye-opening to see how close FLAC was to WAV and AIFF (which is basically WAV with a byte-swap required during decoding). FLAC was so close to AIFF that I decided to just stick with that format. Apple Lossless, however, required an order of magnitude more CPU to play, on average. MP3 and AAC also required significantly more CPU than FLAC.
  
 If you believe that electrical noise caused by a higher activity CPU can affect audio playback (and I personally do), than FLAC is a great choice.


----------



## Zoom25

I will also add in AIFF and FLAC uncompressed to the comparison to WAV. I'm done comparing WAV to compressed FLAC for now. Results were fairly consistent over different tracks. I don't think this experiment would've been as useful if I didn't utilize Audirvana Plus. It removes veil upon veil.
  
 EDIT: End of Day 1 Results
  
 Format Preference based on SQ:
 1) WAV
 2) AIFF
 3) FLAC (compressed)
  
 Have yet to try FLAC uncompressed. Should throw in ALAC as well for good wholesome comparison. WAV is a nuisance in terms of storage and metadata!


----------



## Zoom25

Figured out how to get metadata and tagging with WAV through Audirvana Plus when converting with XLD. It's a very simple step.
  
 XLD -> Preferences -> General Tab -> Output Format: WAV -> Click on the "Option Icon" and check off the "write tags" box, and for _Format_ specify "Both," and _Encoding_ should be UTF8.
  
 In Audirvana Plus, now both WAV and FLAC albums appear with same tags, i.e. the Audirvana Plus experience remains the same as before with FLAC album directories. For this particular computer setup, this negates the need for AIFF.
 ____________________________________
  
 Regarding FLAC (compressed) vs WAV (of the same file), I noticed that when I click on the FLAC file there is a brief (1/100s) buffer delay which shows visually on Audirvana Plus with the line loading from left to right on the track bar. With ALAC, this process is even slower. WAV on the other hand loads instantaneously. You don't see a left to right movement where the line darkens, instead it appears as if the line simply turns on upon clicking. It's impossible for me to capture the motion. I should add the respective AIFF file to the mix, but I have currently deleted all of my AIFF set from previous day's set. Maybe later.
  
 Just a random observation.
  
 Day 2. End of transmission.


----------



## Zoom25

krutsch said:


> Intersting post; thanks for taking the time to write it.
> 
> *I performed similar experiments with my Bryston BDP-1*, which is basically a low-powered AMD CPU -equipped, purpose built Linux box.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Nice. How did it go with BDP-1? In the past I also tried a BDP-2, BDA-2, BHA-1 stack with LCD-3 non fazors. Everything connected to PS Audio power supply. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get much out of the combination at that time. I think the BHA-1 and/or the LCD-3 held me back.


----------



## Krutsch

zoom25 said:


> *Nice. How did it go with BDP-1? *In the past I also tried a BDP-2, BDA-2, BHA-1 stack with LCD-3 non fazors. Everything connected to PS Audio power supply. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get much out of the combination at that time. I think the BHA-1 and/or the LCD-3 held me back.


 
  
 I've personally never heard anything like it and I'm done with using a Mac as a source. It was game changing for me. YMMV.


----------



## bixby

krutsch said:


> I've personally never heard anything like it and I'm done with using a Mac as a source. It was game changing for me. YMMV.


 
 WOW, just curious, did you do all the mega tweaking to the mac mini?  
  
 You are not the first person who says they like the BDP-1.  I wish I could hear it.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

zoom25 said:


> [...]
> 
> The results so far have been confusing and beautiful. I would've laughed reading this post a few years back. More (scientific) experimentation remains to be done.


 
 Looking forward to hearing your results!


----------



## Krutsch

bixby said:


> WOW, just curious, *did you do all the mega tweaking to the mac mini?  *
> 
> You are not the first person who says they like the BDP-1.  I wish I could hear it.


 
  
 I did... as much as I could (i.e. disabling Spotlight, Time Machine, extra processes, blah, blah, blah).
  
 Don't get me wrong; I still use an upgraded 2009 Mac Mini on my 2-channel system on the living room, and it sounds good. I use it to run RoonServer and control playback with an iPad Mini 2.
  
 I experimented a bit with different DACs, USB isolators and connections, finally settling on the optical out into a Wyred4Sound Remedy re-clocker, then into an NAD MDC DAC. Music is on a Firewire 800 G-drive, bus-powered.
  
 TOSLINK seems to isolate the playback chain from electrical noise and the Remedy takes care of any jitter issues. Honestly, the Remedy is amazing - the imaging with speakers surpasses anything I was able to hear with a USB connection, even using Schiit Wyred or an iFi iUSBPower. Granted with a higher-end DAC, this may be less of an issue.
  
 But, for my desk/Head-Fi system, it's all via the BDP-1 or the SACD player (I still like to spin optical plastic). Just no comparison, IMO.


----------



## Zoom25

*Day 3 Results:*
  
 - Comparing FLAC (compressed) vs. AIFF vs. WAV
 - All listening via Audirvana Plus with all system optimizer settings on max. No EQ, DSP, or Audio Units engaged - just like in the past
 - I ditched the HD 800 and my DAC/headphone amp (Dangerous Source) and played music straight out of my built in Macbook Pro speakers and with KRK KNS 8400 speakers plugged out of the headphone jack of my Macbook Pro Retina.
 - Have yet to try my Mackie monitors via Emotiva DC-1
 - My preferences still held up in favour of WAV > AIFF > FLAC (compressed)
 - In fact, the differences were easier to pick up on both the Mac speakers and the KRK KNS 8400 over HD 800 via Dangerous Source.
  
 - Another interesting fact I should mention is that the sound benefits and changes in sound as a result of Amarra SQ (without EQ) is much easier to perceive without my DAC. When outputting to DAC straight from the System Preferences audio selection vs. having Amarra SQ send it to DAC, the difference in sound is much closer.
 - However, when my headphones are plugged into the headphone jack of Macbook Pro, the effects of Amarra SQ vs. without Amarra SQ processing becomes much more easier to perceive. It's a day and night difference. With the DAC in place, the difference drops.
 - I noticed something similar with Audirvana Plus as well with respect to difference in WAV vs FLAC vs. AIFF. Not sure why this is the case. I'll let others take a crack. Perhaps the DAC in my Dangerous Source is good at compensating, whereas the built in DAC on my Macbook Pro doesn't care much.
  
*Sound impressions*
  
*FLAC* - When I compared FLAC to AIFF and WAV, it sounded like I went from using Audirvana Plus to Roon or using Foobar2000 on my old Windows machine. The sound seemed further apart and less involving. It's a more passive experience for me. It's dynamically flatter and the vocals are somewhat strident. Vocals sound inherently choppy, as if there is a grain. Imagine a pure river being contaminated with very fine grain of sand that is not visible to the eyes. So when you drink it, even though you cannot see the grains, but you can still taste it. You know it's there, but can't prove it from simply looking (It's the best I could think of on the spot). That's how I feel about FLAC. It's still lossless with all the details, but just not as pure and SMOOTH.
  
*AIFF* - Vocals are smoother and vocals are practically clean, however, the sound is still dynamically flat. The soundstage is more involving than FLAC. The vocals are cleaner and you can hear everything cleanly, but they still sound flat. It's still not involving for me. Better than FLAC for sure, but IMO not worth it considering the gain in SQ isn't that drastic and WAV is right there at the same size with tagging available.
  
*WAV* - Fiji crack glacier water. This is where music sounds like proper music, rather than just hearing all the intricate details. This is where I get musically involved each time. Dynamics, micro detail, lack of grain, clean vocals, proper sustains and reverbs - it's all there. Soundstage is also more diffused and places you in the room where you can be active. WAV breathes life into the track and vocals. The resolution in vocals is enhanced to the point where you can see what shape the vocalist's mouth and lips are making when singing. This is especially true (and kinda hilarious) when listening to hip hop and rap because I can now guess the artists' faces in the studio while singing the song, by comparing it to how they sound in music videos, interviews, live performances etc. Really! It's finally gone to that point for me on a computer setup.
  
Summary:
 - WAV is king in every sound aspect. Every track is more enjoyable and lifelike. It's impossible to not physically react. I have already started converting everything to WAV. I'm getting all the tagging and cover art like before with FLAC. Only drawback is hard drive space, which is not an issue in 2015. Mad props to Damien for taking Audirvana Plus this far.
 - After becoming more familiar with all the formats and knowing what to look for, it's very easy to hear the differences between all the formats. The differences are very real for me! Also, the change in sound and presentation is very consistent in every track. This has become a regular pattern and impossible to ignore. Apparently, many others on Computer Audiophile have experienced the same with WAV vs. FLAC or AIFF over the past 5-6 years.
 - Why WAV? -* DYNAMICS. RESOLUTION. RHYTHM.*
  
 My next experiment should be to see if I can replicate the same results through a player other than Audirvana Plus.


----------



## Zoom25

krutsch said:


> I've personally never heard anything like it and I'm done with using a Mac as a source. It was game changing for me. YMMV.


 

 Nice. My next purchase will also be a dedicated server/player/streamer. I have a few in mind ranging from the new Cambridge lineup (CXN, 851N) to Auralic Aries. In the past I had considered the BDP-2 and NAD M50. I still might consider BDP-2. I really want to audition a bunch of these streamers with my setup.


----------



## SincerelyAural

Zoom25: It's interesting that you can hear an audible difference between compressed and uncompressed lossless formats. I'm lacking in knowledge about the technical specifics; could you explain how the differences came to be?


----------



## Zoom25

sincerelyaural said:


> Zoom25: It's interesting that you can hear an audible difference between compressed and uncompressed lossless formats. I'm lacking in knowledge about the technical specifics; could you explain how the differences came to be?


 

 Not sure myself either. I'm also roaming for answers. Computer Audiophile so far has the most relevant discussions. Little endian and big endian come up a lot. Most people there already reached the same conclusion as me. They understand that all these players and formats are bit perfect. I have also acknowledged and moved beyond the whole limited "bitperfect means it sounds the same" debate. No one is arguing that. In fact, the discussion has shifted to how the information is encoded/packeted and what that means in realtime playback.
  
 At the moment, I am still not sure why the encoding should matter in Audirvana Plus though, as it's supposed to load tracks in memory. Even though the FLAC and WAV tracks are loaded into memory, the resultant audiostream is still differing somehow. It might be timing or efficiency which leads to reduced computer noise. I personally think it's less to do with computer noise and decoding of compressed lossless formats and more about how the audio stream is packeted. The strongest evidence so far has been the difference in sound between WAV vs. AIFF as they are both uncompressed, yet still sound different. So we can eliminate any decoding noise.
  
 I have just begun to immerse myself in the technicalities and computer science. It's actually really fun learning. Nonetheless, at the end of the day I'm thoroughly satisfied with the sound coming out of my setup.


----------



## Zoom25

In addition to WAV. vs. FLAC vs. AIFF differences, there is another variable to consider: Audirvana Plus. I'm not sure how the audiostream of these formats is being handled. I'm not sure how other players handle the audiostream. It's definitely not black and white!


----------



## Lohb

Was there any way you could blind rotate the same track in different formats with a 3rd party flipping between the formats ? I just scanned through your experiment quickly, so apologies if you did blind testing to avoid expectation biases. I know this is into ABX debate territory, but this is a pretty co-operative friendly thread.


----------



## bgentry

The description of your results is very confusing. You're talking about two different players, three different formats, and at least 4 combinations of different speakers, headphones, and DACs.

If there are audible differences, you should be able to pick them out in a blind test and consistently choose the one that's "better". That's not too much to ask based on your claims is it? Isolate everything but the formats. Then try it blind.

Brian.


----------



## Zoom25

Just to be clear, the only software I did this experiment on was Audirvana Plus. Also, in the following combinations, I had the same results when comparing the three formats. So in each setup, I would listen to the same track in 3 formats.
  
 *Audirvana Plus -> Dangerous Source -> Sennheiser HD 800
  
 *Audirvana Plus -> Dangerous Source -> KRK KNS 8400
  
 +Audirvana Plus -> Macbook Pro built in DA -> KRK KNS 8400
  
 +Audirvana Plus -> Built in Macbook pro speakers
 ________________
  
 **For these experiments, I had help from my sister.   
 ++ This was done for fun at the end. Result still held up. Not blind or experimental in any way.
 ________________
  
 My setup was to have me look completely away from the computer in another direction. I kept my eyes closed throughout. I didn't have any randomized selection assigned by a computer program. I basically told my sister to open up Textedit and make 30 fields. 10 would be for AIFF, 10 for WAV, 10 for FLAC. I told her to mix it up and put them in any order, as long as each one got 10. Of course, a computer randomized entry would've been preferred, but I was doing this just for my curiosity and not for science publication. So it was good enough and I just wanted to do this on the fly and real quick.
  
 About my sister. She has no interest in audio and has no biases about either formats. I didn't share any of my views about what i was trying to find, not that she would care about it either way. I asked her not to say anything during the experiment that would give any indication as to what format is being played.
  
 The TextEdit document looked something like:
 1) WAV - Y/N
 2) WAV - 
 3) FLAC -
 4) AIFF -
 .
 .
 .
  
 My sister made up the order and I didn't look at it whatsoever.
  
 I opened up Audirvana Plus and made a new album and put the same track into it in 3 formats (WAV, FLAC, AIFF) so it was really easy to select. I also made sure to check that each track loaded in the same time upon clicking. If I knew that one format took longer to play after clicking on it, it would give me a way to cheat by focusing on those lag times. The good news was that all three tracks loaded blazingly fast. It was impossible for me to tell.
  
 The volume on Audirvana Plus was maxed throughout. The volume knob on my Dangerous Source never changed either. Didn't bother measuring SPL levels or what not. Just picked a volume level that was comfortable to my ears. Again, experiment for my curiosity only.
  
 For each 30 fields, she would play 30 seconds of that same track from the start to 30 seconds, in whichever format that was listed on TextEdit. I told her to type either "Y" or "N" for whether I guessed it right or not. Made sure to keep both responses to one letter each, otherwise hearing three letters typing for "Yes" or two letters for "No" would mess with me.
  
 The break time between each trail was roughly ten seconds, as my sister would have to pause and then write Y or N into TextEdit and then select next track. Nothing planned here, unfortunately.
  
 _________________
  
  
*My strategy during the trials: *During my previous sessions alone, I had characterized FLAC where the vocals and soundstage are in front of me and the vocals are also distant and somewhat strident. For AIFF, it was the most transparent while being flat. With WAV, I tried to look out for clean peaks and dynamics. Most importantly with WAV, I knew that vocals would have the most changes in pitch and be really sensitive.
  
 _________________
  
*Results*: I had gotten 8 right for WAV. FLAC and AIFF were down to 7 or 6 each. The one thing I did notice however was that the majority of the  trials I got wrong were in the latter portion of the test (Trials 22-30). This actually mirrored how I was feeling during the test in my mind. After hearing the same damn thing for 30 seconds for over 20 trials, I started to get really dull. The sheer volume of repetition can be mind numbing. So listener's fatigue is another thing to consider. During these trials, I was focused so much to the point that it after awhile it became mind numbing. This is one pitfall for certain psychoacoustics experimentation.
  
 On the contrary, when I listen to full tracks back to back to back in 3 formats, I don't pay attention to it. I'll be casually browsing the net with Audirvana running in the background. I'm very passive with the focus and try not to exert any energy or focus really hard. Despite the passiveness, I can still tell when WAV comes on, because of how much more energetic it sounds. Then I go to check, and sure enough it's WAV.
  
 __________________
  
*My conclusion and scientific opinion*:
  
 The reason why I was rather successful with guessing WAV correctly was due to the vocals. The mids are the region where human auditory system has evolved to be the most sensitive. The entire cochlea structurally demonstrates that. Human speech falls in that region. There are excellent biological and evolutionary reasons for the why the highest sensitivity of human hearing spectrum falls with human speech. It is an adaptation to be able to not only hear the human speech and words, but also decipher the encoded emotions. By being able to focus on very sensitive changes in tone, a person is able to obtain meaning and context of those words. This would've been significant for mating, resource gathering, anger display, fear or flight responses, maintaining community cooperation, emotions (empathy, sadness, anger, happiness) - these are ALL adaptive traits and help your chance of reproduction. Thus, this would've been selected for over many generations.
  
 All of these slight changes within this limited frequency human speech range are able to communicate nearly infinite amount of information and subtle changes in information and meaning. By hearing those very subtle changes and composition, for the most part, we are able to correctly identify the specific meaning of that speech within that particular context.
  
 This is animal behaviour 101.
 __________________
  
  This was just something I came up with to satisfy my own curiosity late at night. Am I going to setup a proper double blind in a clinical setting where all variables are controlled and selectively manipulated - maybe - probably not - maybe - most probably not. We'll see.


----------



## bixby

krutsch said:


> I did... as much as I could (i.e. disabling Spotlight, Time Machine, extra processes, blah, blah, blah).
> 
> Don't get me wrong; I still use an upgraded 2009 Mac Mini on my 2-channel system on the living room, and it sounds good. I use it to run RoonServer and control playback with an iPad Mini 2.
> 
> ...


 
 Please don't take this the wrong way, but that bus powered drive may be holding back the best sound quality.  And if wireless or bluetooth is on, high frequencies can get compressed. If you have not run repair permissions on your system disk and home folders (Onyx or cocktail will do it, Mac utility will not do home folder), give it a try.  I have no idea why it sounds better afterwards but it usually does if it hasn't been run in a month or so.
  
 Glad you are liking the Bryston, I have it on my radar to listen, hopefully someone nearby will bring one to a meet.


----------



## bgentry

bixby said:


> And if wireless or bluetooth is on, high frequencies can get compressed. If you have not run repair permissions on your system disk and home folders (Onyx or cocktail will do it, Mac utility will not do home folder), give it a try.  I have no idea why it sounds better afterwards but it usually does if it hasn't been run in a month or so.




Where *do* you guys get this stuff? Bluetooth being on doesn't affect the audio. Unless you are feeding sound to the computer via bluetooth. Wifi makes no difference; again, it's not part of the audio signal chain.

I keep seeing these claims. Where is the proof?

Brian.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

Zoom25, thank you. And your sister, too!


----------



## Krutsch

bgentry said:


> Where *do* you guys get this stuff? Bluetooth being on doesn't affect the audio. Unless you are feeding sound to the computer via bluetooth. Wifi makes no difference; again, it's not part of the audio signal chain.
> 
> I keep seeing these claims. Where is the proof?
> 
> Brian.


 
  
 Not as crazy as you might think, if you recognize that the Bluetooth radios usually interface with the computer via USB. On my Mac Mini, it has a dedicated buss for Bluetooth, but most computers are not as well equipped, So, the USB port that is managing data transmission to a DAC may be interrupted for use by other devices.
  
 I usually advise people to take the time to learn (read, trial and error) what devices are being seviced by which USB ports. As much as possible, isolate the DAC connection to the port that is not shared with other, active devices. This can lead to clicks/pops. I've experienced this first hand with the Mac Mini.
  
 Here's a link that I found useful that covers this is some detail for the 2009 Mac Mini: http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/10/mac-mini-diamond-rough/


----------



## Amictus

zoom25 said:


> I will also add in AIFF and FLAC uncompressed to the comparison to WAV. I'm done comparing WAV to compressed FLAC for now. Results were fairly consistent over different tracks. I don't think this experiment would've been as useful if I didn't utilize Audirvana Plus. It removes veil upon veil.
> 
> EDIT: End of Day 1 Results
> 
> ...


 
 You've done a lot of work! I hope that you don't get the sort of brickbats that some poor folk get on head-fi...
  
 Anyway, I just wanted to report that I have recently acquired three different formats of the same recording of Schumann's Third Symphony from HDtracks: FLAC, AIFF and WAV. I compared them using a Naim NDX (using the USB key input) through my main system. It was interesting that my findings corroborated yours: FLAC disappointing, AIFF and WAV close, but WAV revealing itself to have the edge in micro-details, transient information, and soundstage. There was something artificial about the way that AIFF locked onto the main musical lines and presented them in comparison with WAV. The violins did not sound at their best in any format, a feeling that was confirmed by listening to a German edition of the vinyl (real string sound, rolled-off treble and bass). Now, I know that Naim prefer WAV and that their machines rip to that format, so that may a factor, but listening to the same files using JRIver on an iMac with Meridian Explorer and PS500 showed a similar picture, with the one difference that FLAC sounded rather better than it did on the Naim while remaining a distant third. This is very IMHO, but I shall be ripping to WAV, and buying WAV where possible from now on.
  
 Thanks for your posts.


----------



## Zoom25

birdmanofct said:


> Zoom25, thank you. And your sister, too!


 

 Thanks, I'll let her know!


----------



## Zoom25

amictus said:


> You've done a lot of work! I hope that you don't get the sort of brickbats that some poor folk get on head-fi...
> 
> Anyway, I just wanted to report that I have recently acquired three different formats of the same recording of Schumann's Third Symphony from HDtracks: FLAC, AIFF and WAV. I compared them using a Naim NDX (using the USB key input) through my main system. It was interesting that my findings corroborated yours: FLAC disappointing, AIFF and WAV close, but WAV revealing itself to have the edge in micro-details, transient information, and soundstage. There was something artificial about the way that AIFF locked onto the main musical lines and presented them in comparison with WAV. The violins did not sound at their best in any format, a feeling that was confirmed by listening to a German edition of the vinyl (real string sound, rolled-off treble and bass). Now, I know that Naim prefer WAV and that their machines rip to that format, so that may a factor, but listening to the same files using JRIver on an iMac with Meridian Explorer and PS500 showed a similar picture, with the one difference that FLAC sounded rather better than it did on the Naim while remaining a distant third. This is very IMHO, but I shall be ripping to WAV, and buying WAV where possible from now on.
> 
> Thanks for your posts.


 

 I'm glad it's working out for you as well on both your NDX and computer.


----------



## bixby

You guys are going to make me do a format comparison again.  Last time I did it was with aiff and wav.  In addition to 2TB of aiff files, I now have everything archived in flac and use that to load my portable device.  There, flac works well, but I have not done a portable device format comparison in 10 years or so.  
  
 Last time I did the wav to aiff on my main system, I did not think I could honestly tell one from the other reliably so stuck with aiff since that is what I started with on the Mac.  Now that I use a different player, I will load up some Aarvo Part and other artists to hear what I can hear.


----------



## Krutsch

bixby said:


> You guys are going to make me do a format comparison again.  Last time I did it was with aiff and wav.  In addition to 2TB of aiff files, I now have everything archived in flac and use that to load my portable device.  There, flac works well, but I have not done a portable device format comparison in 10 years or so.
> 
> Last time I did the* wav to aiff on my main system, I did not think I could honestly tell one from the other reliably so stuck with aiff *since that is what I started with on the Mac.  Now that I use a different player, I will load up some Aarvo Part and other artists to hear what I can hear.


 
  
 I promise you that *no one can tell the difference between WAV and AIFF*, short of some serious software issue.
  
 AIFF is basically WAV, but with provisions for meta data and is typically big endian, where WAV is little endian. So on an Intel/AMD system, that means a simple byte swap, which computers can do really, really, really efficiently. The CPU utilization difference on a modern computer would be immeasurable, as a practical matter.
  
 Apple has a little endian version of AIFF, if you convert/rip with iTunes; in that case there isn't even the byte-swap, so it's nothing-ball.
  
 People who hear more "air between the instruments", when comparing AIFF and WAV and smoking something.


----------



## auee

krutsch said:


> I promise you that *no one can tell the difference between WAV and AIFF*, short of some serious software issue.
> 
> AIFF is basically WAV, but with provisions for meta data and is typically big endian, where WAV is little endian. So on an Intel/AMD system, that means a simple byte swap, which computers can do really, really, really efficiently. The CPU utilization difference on a modern computer would be immeasurable, as a practical matter.
> 
> ...


 

 I appreciate the technical information you present and have no opinion on whether objectively WAV files and AIFF files created and listened with identical hardware and software can sound differently. However, since this a hobby that is meant to provide us with pleasure, etc. if people believe one format is better for them than the other then good for them.


----------



## Krutsch

auee said:


> I appreciate the technical information you present and have no opinion on whether objectively WAV files and AIFF files created and listened with identical hardware and software can sound differently. However, *since this a hobby that is meant to provide us with pleasure, etc. if people believe one format is better for them than the other then good for them*.


 
  
 Of course; apologies. Have fun.


----------



## auee

krutsch said:


> Of course; apologies. Have fun.


 

 No need; but a very nice gesture and kindness should always be appreciated.


----------



## kakao

I tried "vox", "Amarra" and "JRiver".
 I did not hesitate for one second about which one to use: JRiver makes me happy!
 I recommend...


----------



## joeexp

Audirvana v2.2.1 update  is online now. Even better "improved" SQ according to the makers….


----------



## BirdManOfCT

joeexp said:


> Audirvana v2.2.1 update  is online now. Even better "improved" SQ according to the makers….


 

 Thanks for the update!


----------



## groovyd

i'm selling these special stones that if you place them on top of your amp you get better sound. pm me for paypal details


----------



## JamesBr

joeexp said:


> Audirvana v2.2.1 update  is online now. Even better "improved" SQ according to the makers….


 
 Thanks


----------



## Zoom25

Did the same comparison as before with Audirvana Plus, but with different DAC/pre-amp and monitors. Only WAV and FLAC (compressed) though.
  
*Setup*: Audirvana Plus -> Emotiva Stealth DC-1 -> Mackie HR 824 Mk1
  
 DIsclaimer: Not a blind test as before. Just my own listening and switching back and forth (sister not available this time)
  
 Results held up, FWIW. YMMV.


----------



## Krutsch

zoom25 said:


> DIsclaimer: Not a blind test as before. Just my own listening and switching back and forth (sister not available this time)


 
  
 Unsub'd.


----------



## mikesale

joeexp said:


> Audirvana v2.2.1 update  is online now. Even better "improved" SQ according to the makers….


 

 Maybe I'm missing something, but this release, according to the notes, is all about library no SQ, no mention of SQ I can find, where are you seeing it?


----------



## joeexp

On twitter @audirvana 
  
#Audirvana Plus 2.2.1 released with Date Added, Playlists Import/Export, 10.11 compatibility, ...
 "... and further sound quality improvement!" …..


----------



## auee

joeexp said:


> On twitter @audirvana
> 
> #Audirvana Plus 2.2.1 released with Date Added, Playlists Import/Export, 10.11 compatibility, ...
> "... and further sound quality improvement!" …..


 
  
 The sound quality is wonderful, but is great to read that the developer is continuing to work to improve it.


----------



## Lohb

I don't like the new embedded number of albums, total play time in days/hours/minutes below the volume slider.
 Useless information that clutters the top bar.


----------



## sheldaze

joeexp said:


> Audirvana v2.2.1 update  is online now. Even better "improved" SQ according to the makers….


 
 Must have been something wrong. Version 2.2.2 was released.


----------



## sheldaze

Dang - 2.2.2 broke something for me. My desktop Mac, running the latest and greatest, complains that it can no longer see my iPhone, and then there's no audio 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I'm trying various options, but 2.2.1 worked perfectly on my old and new Mac computers.
  
 EDIT: It somehow muted the audio, though I'm using a Schiit DAC, which has no volume controls. By switching OS X to default to my external DAC, only then did I see that the audio was muted. But I've still never seen the iPhone error prior to the update.


----------



## Lohb

I've been getting random audio drop out from maybe 2.2 onwards just for a second, and not maxed out under 1.7Ghz i5 CPU or 4GB RAM.
 Just now-and-again, but it was not there on previous releases.


----------



## bpcans

I updated my Audirvana 2.2.2 this evening and haven't noticed any sound dropouts or glitches.


----------



## DSNORD

I need help with an Schiit Yggy USB problem that surfaced last night. The Setup:

Mac Mini late 2012 2.6 GHz i7 Quad core 16G RAM OS X Mavericks 10.9.5 pointing at iTunes library on a WD 2T USB 3 drive. Mini outputs via a Multi-Output Device consisting of Yggy (USB 3 Port 2) and Audioquest Dragonfly (USB 3 Port 1). Remaining 3 USB 3 Ports cover my cd drive, a NEC monitor, and a USB 3 10 Port switch.

Main System: Mini>Wyrd>Yggy>Ragnarok>KEF LS50 over Straightwire USB cables.
Backup System: Mini>Dragonfly>Bose Companion 3 over Straightwire USB cables.
Music Players: Roon/Pure Music integer/direct modes or basic iTunes. Native sample rates.
Yggy is on separate non-switched power and runs 24/7 (per Mike Moffat!). Wyrd/Rag are controlled by separate switch and are turned on only for use.

Everything has been fine until last night when I was auditioning the Trial version of Audirvana 2.2.1 in Hog/SysOptimized mode to see if was the better player.

It wouldn’t run because it said something was hogging the output in spite of Roon/Pure Music not running at the same time although they had been used earlier that night. I opened Midi Audio Devices, deselected the Multi-Output Device, selected only the Schiit Audio Gen 3 Device, restarted the Wyrd/Rag to resynch, then Audirvanna played fine over both sound systems.

I then went to A-B the sound by switching back to the other players, but nothing played over the Yggy using Roon/PM/iTunes but each played fine over the Dragonfly. Restarting Wyrd/Rag and switching between the various audio drivers was fruitless.

Thinking that Audirvana somehow now was hogging everything, I proceeded to delete every trace of it by trashing the application itself and all library preference files and caches I could discover after a fairly exhaustive Google search.

Still a NO GO. For some reason, the Mini’s USB Ports 1 and 2 are now corrupted in the following fashion: 

iTunes/Pure Music/Roon play out ALL USB Ports through Audioquest Dragonfly>Bose Setup. ALL other devices work okay in ALL ports. Rag digital optical input from a Sonos works fine, so Rag digital is okay.

iTunes/Pure Music/Roon WILL NOT play out USB Port 1 and 2 through Yggy>Ragnarok Setup but WILL play out USB Port 3-5.

This does not change no matter how many times I have tried to repair disk permissions, rebooted the Mini, reset PRAM and the SMC/PMU, switched the Yggy and Wyrd/Rag on/off, and I even left the Yggy unplugged overnight to see if that would help, but nothing works.

I’ve run USB from my MacBook Pro over the same Straightwire in Port 2 used to feed Yggy, and it works fine. So cabling is okay.

When I switch Sample Rates in MIDI Audio Device , the Yggy clicks appropriately and switches lights letting me know that it is seeing that rate change request appropriately, but still no music plays out of Yggy on Port 1 or 2 but does on Port 3-5.

So in short, the Rag, Dragonfly/Bose, and all connected peripherals work fine on ALL ports. Yggy works on Ports 3-5 but no longer works on Ports 1 and 2. And this all developed after running Audirvana in best quality mode. Deleting every piece of Audirvana I could locate made no difference.

Schiit support recommended booting into Mavericks from an external clean install drive to see if that corrected the problem. I tried it and successfully recovered Ports 1-2 to feed Yggy. However rebooting back into the Mini confirmed that these 2 ports still have the same problem, and neither feed the Yggy but again work with everything else. 

So this implies the Mini's software has become corrupted somehow by the Audirvana install.

It’s as if the ghost of Audirvana is somehow not releasing those 2 ports that it was originally connected to, but then why only to Yggy but not Dragonfly? Does this make any sense? Is there still a piece of Audirvana somewhere I’ve missed?

I’m hoping you can help me out beyond “Well, if it’s all working okay now, don’t F with it!!!” I REALLY don't want to go through the hassle of a clean installation at this time and hope to obtain a fairly simple fix if possible. Let me know if you need any more info for consideration.

Thanks, DSNORD


----------



## tjw321

dsnord said:


> Spoiler: More detail
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I had something vaguely similar happen (inaccessible device) which a "recovery install" fixed. I don't know enough about what a recovery install does to recommend it, but it's something you could consider. AFAIK it just recopies over the system files from the hidden recovery partition so it ought to be safe but, TBH, I don't really know the detail.
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT201314


----------



## joeexp

I don't recommend a "recovery install" in this situation. This is not Windows '98! lol 
 With OSX, a very stable unix based operating system, in most cases a reset in the "Audio MIDI Setup" settings is all that is needed. Sometimes a system reboot is helpful.
  
 The only other option is that for some reason the USB interface the other end has crashed. So that would mean rebooting the Yggy in your case. 
  
 Audirvana doesn't and cannot "destroy" a working OSX system.


----------



## DSNORD

As above, rebooting EVERYTHING DOES NOT WORK. Unplugging everything does not work either. Resetting everything in Audio Midi does not work. The only thing that corrects this is booting from a clean install of Mavericks from a separate hard drive. Booting back to the Mini just starts the problem over again. Posts on CA show others are getting weird dropouts from Audirvana, possibly similar to mine. Great if it works for you all, but it's a nonstarter for me. 

DSNORD


----------



## haywood

joeexp said:


> I don't recommend a "recovery install" in this situation. This is not Windows '98! lol
> With OSX, a very stable unix based operating system, in most cases a reset in the "Audio MIDI Setup" settings is all that is needed. Sometimes a system reboot is helpful.
> 
> The only other option is that for some reason the USB interface the other end has crashed. So that would mean rebooting the Yggy in your case.
> ...



That depends on what the SysOptimizer that he mentioned does. I'd reinstall the Audirvana trial and turn off that setting and see if it'll undo what it did. If you scoured the hard drive clearing out any app detritus you may need to enable it again first. You could also contact Audirvana support and see if they'd fill you in on what changes are made for that setting and if you can manually reverse them.

In this kind of situation it's sometimes a good idea to create a new, temporary user account and see if the problems persist. If not then you know it's a setting specific to your user directory. I'd do the reinstall and disabling thing first and if that doesn't work the new user to isolate where the fault is.


----------



## DSNORD

Well, figured out the Audirvana 2.2.2 Port 1-2 issue I mentioned above when I was testing it to see if it was better sounding than Pure Music/Roon which are my 2 standing OSX players. 

Audirvana was setting my Yggy (DAC) to MUTE for some reason when I switched out of it on Ports1-2 but was leaving the Dragonfly alone. Dope-o boy here failed to notice the frickin' little check mark in the mute box for the Master Channel all the way over on the right side of the Shiit Audio Gen 3 box in Audio Devices under Audio Midi Setup. Duh.

Unchecked it, and Ports 1-2 now output to Yggy appropriately. Why it affected only those 2 ports and not the other 3 for Yggy and yet leave the Dragonfly untouched on all 5 is still a mystery. 

Others on CA are noticing the same Mute issue. Seems like a bug in the latest release since people report no such issue from earlier releases. Buyer beware. 

Now that I've got it figured out, maybe I'll give it another shot. Big waste of about 5 hours though ripping my hair out trying to solve the problem only to find it to be something so simple yet unexpected and therefore overlooked. Left a really bad taste in my mouth especially since Pure Music and Roon both work flawlessly for me. The enemy of "GOOD" is definitely "BETTER."

 LIVE AND LEARN. 

DSNORD


----------



## sheldaze

dsnord said:


> Audirvana was setting my Yggy (DAC) to MUTE for some reason when I switched out of it on Ports1-2 but was leaving the Dragonfly alone. Dope-o boy here failed to notice the frickin' little check mark in the mute box for the Master Channel all the way over on the right side of the Shiit Audio Gen 3 box in Audio Devices under Audio Midi Setup. Duh.


 
 Same issue as my post #3091 above. I am using a Schiit Gungnir Multibit. I would not think to look for Mute because there's no volume control.


----------



## joeexp

I'm in contact with the developer and he is working on a fix for this issue.


----------



## hellbent

So I've been in need of a new music player for a while now, i have audiovarna and its great. I need an alternative to iTunes that is as well organized for large libraries if not better. I like to be able to browse first through genre, then artist, then album, then song. Also I'm planning on switching from an iPhone to a sony soon so the ability to sync would be huge as well. Sound quality is important too but honestly takes second place to organization and syncing.


----------



## bgentry

hellbent said:


> So I've been in need of a new music player for a while now, i have audiovarna and its great. I need an alternative to iTunes that is as well organized for large libraries if not better. I like to be able to browse first through genre, then artist, then album, then song. Also I'm planning on switching from an iPhone to a sony soon so the ability to sync would be huge as well. Sound quality is important too but honestly takes second place to organization and syncing.




JRiver does all of this pretty much as delivered. Setting up Syncing to Handheld devices can take some effort, but it's very flexible and even includes transcoding if necessary. The default Genres view drills down from Genre, to Artist, to Album. In the Albums view, there's a pane below that shows the songs from the album you are clicked on. Jriver's Views can be modified in many ways and you can also add your own with any number of categories. Several display types are available including Panes. JRMC works with extremely large libraries; it's been tested with something like 500,000 tracks and performs well with that number.

JRMC isn't the easiest player to use the first time you touch it. But it's the most flexible and the most powerful as far as I can tell. The "new" version, MC21, now includes Image support, and Video support, so you can catalog and display your photos and videos also. It's pretty impressive.

Brian.


----------



## DSNORD

Pure Music sits on top of iTunes and works well for me with that interface. Have Roon which is awesome and sounds just a bit better to me than PM in my system. Got A+ 2.2 working best mode last night. No better than Roon, and not as detailed on some very familiar piano music in my collection during the 2 hours I compared them. I like Roon's interface better for my collection and way I listen/browse. Any of the 3 sound way better than straight iTunes to me. 

DSNORD


----------



## Lohb

A+ 2.2.4 and El Capitan, so far no problems.
 Never saw any El Capitan mention in the release notes for 2.2.4 anyway.
  
 LOL ,scratch that !
 When playing through MB Air speakers just before plugging into my desktop speaker set on 3.5" (I have no DAC/AMP right now...running off Cirrus internal DAC 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)  the pitch slows down 50%. Like sliding a Technics deck right down to the slowest BPM.
  
 OK, who is going to say they can hear 'more air between instruments' on El Capitan vs Yosemite ?
 (How was that possible before, users reporting that the OS affected sound when A+ is like a separate OS on top of OSX ?)


----------



## Zoom25

Another experiment coming up tonight. Will get to see just how far Audirvana Plus on my MacBook Pro has come in comparison to Bryston on the same system.


----------



## Zoom25

I'm listening to the BDP-1 right now, will listen to it exclusively tonight and then compare it tomorrow to Audirvana Plus. I'll max out everything I potentially can on the Macbook Pro to have it playing at its best. I don't disable wi-fi typically and all that other stuff. But tomorrow I will disable EVERYTHING. It honestly needs every advantage it can get.
  
 The Macbook Pro needs Damien to release Audirvana 3.0 overnight!!!


----------



## Zoom25

Quick day one initial impressions:
  
 BDP-1 is better in every area sonically:
 - Imaging in another league
 - Soundstage has more depth (width is same)
 - Blacker background
 - Bass is a lot tighter and goes deeper
 - Vocals and sound is more smoother and relaxed - it's more easier on the ears
 - Dynamics are a bit better on the BDP-1
 - The improvement in clarity is very easy to hear
  
  
 Subjectively, there are things that I still like about Audirvana Plus. The mids were a tiny bit warmer. The bass was a bit thicker.
  
 Right now using coaxial to AES to go from BDP-1 to Dangerous Source, instead of AES to AES. I feel like I have to turn up the volume a little bit in current BDP-1 configuration vs. Macbook Pro w/Audirvana Plus using USB input. Not sure if it's because I can turn up the BDP-1 because it's so clean and I don't notice distortion, or if there's actually a difference in signal strength. More to come later.


----------



## bgentry

If you're not level matched, all the way to the DAC output for both sources, your comparison is likely to be flawed.

If you're not doing any kind of blind comparison, your results are likely to be flawed.

I believe in differences in DACs. I believe in differences in anything I can hear really. I have a hard time believing the types of claims I keep reading here about digital sources that use the exact same DACs sounding different. UNLESS there is equalization, or level changing going on.

How sure are you? How sure are you that you are level matched? How sure are you that you're not just expecting a difference and hearing one because of expectation bias?

I'm asking questions in a very straight way, not intended to be inflammatory. But certainly intended to question the audibility of the claims being made.

Brian.


----------



## Zoom25

bgentry said:


> If you're not level matched, all the way to the DAC output for both sources, your comparison is likely to be flawed.
> 
> If you're not doing any kind of blind comparison, your results are likely to be flawed.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hi Brian,
  
 No eq, Audirvana Plus USB volume on max. The BDP-1 is max by default. I'll volume match as well in the coming future. Today was just getting a feel for it.
  
 I've already posted before saying I've tested PS Audio power stations everything -> BDP-2 -> BDA->2 -> LCD-3....walked away disappointed. I got the BDP-1 for mostly convenience sakes. Sound quality is a benefit. I don't go in expecting to hear a difference or anything specifically. I just press play on the system and go about doing other things. I let it come passively over the hours. I find this approach to yield more consistent results. The best example of this is that I ended up with Sennheiser HD 800. I avoided these for so many years because people kept saying they were bright as hell and had no bass....then I heard them and changed my opinion. Majority of the stuff that I do with experiments is just to satisfy my curiosity.
  
*Regarding blind testing*: I've done blind testing before with file formats a few posts back. I even listed my methods and results - even then few ppl get really upset about these things - typically its ppl who already have made up their minds not to accept any answer besides the null hypothesis. For them, there's no point in me doing any further experiments.
  
 Regarding blind testing - I'll see if its worth it with the BDP-1 this time. Regardless, for my own curiosity, I WILL match the levels between all the devices.
  
 Just a thought: A lot of people here notice differences between players like Amarra and Audirvana Plus running on the same computer. The Bryston BDP-1 is not only software, but also hardware. This thing is heavy!
  
 I will say that the differences between file formats or going from Amarra to Audirvana is still far less than going from any computer setup to the BDP-1. 
  
 Audiocircle is a great place to find info on this stuff in general. James Tanner and other Bryston engineers hang around and actually answer these exact type of questions from their customers or those who are simply curious.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

bgentry said:


> If you're not level matched, all the way to the DAC output for both sources, your comparison is likely to be flawed.
> [...]


 
 Level matched at which frequency?


----------



## bgentry

birdmanofct said:


> Level matched at which frequency?




DACs should have exceptionally flat frequency response. Even 1 dB of variation would be considered a "large difference" from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. So choose your frequency and go for it. I'd personally probably use 60 Hz since most multi-meters that read AC Volts are designed for accurate readings at this frequency. In practice it probably doesn't matter. You could probably level match at 1kHz and get the same results.

Brian.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

bgentry said:


> DACs should have exceptionally flat frequency response. Even 1 dB of variation would be considered a "large difference" from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. So choose your frequency and go for it. I'd personally probably use 60 Hz since most multi-meters that read AC Volts are designed for accurate readings at this frequency. In practice it probably doesn't matter. You could probably level match at 1kHz and get the same results.
> 
> Brian.


 

 I was half-being facetious, so I could have used a wink emoticon, but didn't know how to make a half-wink emoticon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 For some equipment, it's a valid consideration, but I agree that for (most!) DACs, it should be a non-issue.


----------



## Lohb

zoom25 said:


> Quick day one initial impressions:
> 
> BDP-1 is better in every area sonically:
> - Imaging in another league
> ...


 

 Well, if A+ improved sonically using the Bryston as a baseline if they are level matched, it would be a worthwhile A|B. But the price chasm between them and hardware vs software and doubting the designer is going to fetch a Bryston to improve the software engine..then I just don't see the point except to show off some hardware bling bling....(and it is nice bling bling BTW


----------



## Zoom25

lohb said:


> Well, if A+ improved sonically using the Bryston as a baseline if they are level matched, it would be a worthwhile A|B. But the price chasm between them and hardware vs software and doubting the designer is going to fetch a Bryston to improve the software engine..then I just don't see the point except to show off some hardware bling bling....(and it is nice bling bling BTW


 

 Bryston is Linux based, whereas Audirvana is Mac based, so unfortunately cannot do that particular comparison. LOL the first thing I thought was if Damien could improve the sound of BDP-1 as well. It is indeed an apples to orange comparison because of software and hardware differences.
  
 The reason why I posted this comparison was because I myself have been wanting to hear updated comparisons of streamers like BDP-1/2, Cambridge Audio CXN/851N, Auralic Aries, Moon 180 Mind, NAD M50 etc. to the newest Audirvana Plus and Amarra, as of October 10, 2015. I didn't find much on this, so I thought maybe i'll do it for others in the same boat.


----------



## Zoom25

*Day 2 Impressions:*
  
_(Last night when I brought the BDP-1, it was really cold from being outside, but I decided to play it anyway and just listen to it. Today, I had my entire chain running the whole time. I additionally stacked the gear on top of each other as pictured before. Before, they were positioned beside each other - some distance apart. As a resulting of the stacking, I went to a much smaller coaxial to AES cable. Both digital cables were Mogami 2964 made by Pro Audio LA - so only length changed. Thought I'd mention this to get as much info out as possible FWIW. Moving on..._)
  
 On day 1, I mentioned having to turn the volume a lot. Today, I'm back to the same volume as I was with the USB on Audirvana setup. The experience in terms of volume feels identical to Audirvana with USB today. Not sure if my brain's finally gotten adapted to the sound, or if the cold really did affect the BDP-1. I'm staying at 11 o clock on the Dangerous Source for both inputs. I can quickly toggle between the USB and AES inputs, or have them both playing at the same time.
  
 I'm enjoying the sound more than day 1. On day 1, I thought the bass body and warmth on BDP-1 was slightly lacking. Today, I'm not finding this - especially about the bass body.
  
  
 The highlight moment was when I got to listen to a compilation album with tracks that I have heard at least 100 times over the past decade. Same files as well the whole time, just different setups. On one track with the BDP-1, I heard this background sound effect that was panned to the side. To this day, I haven't heard that particular detail at all - even on the Audirvana system.
  
 So this wasn't a "bass improved, mid-range opened up, treble shimmered blah blah blah" kind of thing. It was as entirely different "Wait, What was that crap!?" moment. Immediately had to rewind the track and hear it a few times to confirm it.
  
 I also question myself at times about "Hmmm, did the bass really go deeper or am I just imagining it?" For these things, it's obviously good to do proper testing. However, when you hear entirely new things out of the blue on tracks that you've heard a hundred times - it becomes really hard to remain a skeptic. 
  
 _____________
  
 BTW, If someone is considering getting a non-PC setup for playback *AND* wants as many features as possible for the least price *AND* doesn't really buy what I'm saying about sound improvement - then I'd highly suggest considering the Cambridge Audio CXN. It looks gorgeous, and is loaded with features. Excellent pricing. Sound is really good as well based off initial reports (if you delve in this kind of thing).


----------



## Wilderness

I am using Audirvana with iTunes, an Audioquest Dragonfly v1.2 DAC, and wired Harman Kardon Soundsticks III speakers.  Even with these cheap speakers, the sound is pretty good.  The Dragonfly DAC cleans up the bass so that it isn't boomy.  I turned down my subwoofer to about 40 percent, but it still has plenty of bass.
  
 Audirvana and the Dragonfly squeeze out the best sound possible from my cheap speakers, and I am pleasantly surprised that at 50 percent volume in Audirvana I have plenty of volume that sounds acceptable for now.  I am shopping for better speakers, though, and am thinking about getting the PSB 2.1 speakers with subwoofer.
  
 I had a blast listening to music today.


----------



## Lohb

wilderness said:


> I am using Audirvana with iTunes, an Audioquest Dragonfly v1.2 DAC, and wired Harman Kardon Soundsticks III speakers.  Even with these cheap speakers, the sound is pretty good.  The Dragonfly DAC cleans up the bass so that it isn't boomy.  I turned down my subwoofer to about 40 percent, but it still has plenty of bass.
> 
> Audirvana and the Dragonfly squeeze out the best sound possible from my cheap speakers, and I am pleasantly surprised that at 50 percent volume in Audirvana I have plenty of volume that sounds acceptable for now.  I am shopping for better speakers, though, and am thinking about getting the PSB 2.1 speakers with subwoofer.
> 
> I had a blast listening to music today.


 

 A+ and HRT microStreamer is another killer entry-level combo.


----------



## joeexp

Audirvana Plus with Qobuz integration now available in public beta:
 
https://audirvana.com/?page_id=3450
 
 
Just be careful - It crashes quite a bit......


----------



## isquirrel

joeexp said:


> Audirvana Plus with Qobuz integration now available in public beta:
> 
> https://audirvana.com/?page_id=3450


 

 Great, thanks for that


----------



## mthaynes

Very interesting thread.  Thank you to all the contributors 
  
 I am currently looking at the Bryston BDP-2.  My preamp is a Bryston SP3 and to get the most out of the capabilities of the SP3, Bryston has advised an AES interconnect over the USB (the USB in the SP3 is 1.1 usb and can not render more than 44/24.  The AES will allow for 192/24 which is the limit of the SP3 per Bryston).  
  
 Previously i was taking my Macbook pro and using  HDMI to talk with the SP3 (HDMI is supported at 192/24 per Bryston) but i was getting a little sick of hooking everything up and taking it apart every time I wanted to listen to PC music.  
  
 Sooooooo 3k for the BDP-2 player, another $xxx for an AES and I am good to go.  NOTE i have a 1 gigabit NAS drive on a 1gigabit network already for PC / MAC backup.
  
 Now before I took the plunge I started to think (obvious downfall) what if I added a MAC Mini (max price is 1k) and bought a really good player like Audirvana.
  
Audirvana + the remote app will give me the same control as the BDP-2 so usability is the same.  Price for Audirvana is about $70, don't know how much the remote is + 1k for the MAC mini and i am up and running  Add keyboard and mouse and well i now have a dedicated computer in my system.  so I can do a lot now including video, web surfing (not sure i really would ever do this) and whatever.  it is also at the end of the day 2k cheaper. Audirvana also appears to support more file formats over the BDP-2
  
​but will the BDP render a better sound?
  
 processor wise I think the MAC will win at 2.8gig, but its also swinging video, more complex GUI, and heavy operating system so maybe the computer side is closer than i think to the BDP.  HDMI vs AES?  both max the Bryston's limits of 192/24 so I hope this is mute. 
  
 The only difference appears to be MAC vs Linux.  
  
What are peoples thoughts?


----------



## joeexp

I think you should calculate a better power supply of the Mac as well ….


----------



## mthaynes

joeexp said:


> I think you should calculate a better power supply of the Mac as well ….


 

 is the Bryston power supply shaky?


----------



## Zoom25

If you do go with Audirvana Plus on a computer and have a large library, make sure it's setup with a decent amount of RAM and have a decent processor. I still use Audirvana Plus on my iMac from time to time. I keep the FLAC library on the iMac for Audirvana Plus. I have the same library converted to WAV on an external drive that I use with the Bryston BDP-1. They are both great sounding. Ultimately, I prefer the BDP-1 for listening to music, because I get far less distracted. It's the same experience I had with CD players - just the music.
  
 Sound wise - Identical sound signature between Audirvana Plus on iMac/Macbook Pro and the Bryston BDP-1. Although, I do find the BDP-1 better for long term listening. The pacing of music is where the BDP-1 wins. The vocals also appear more smoother and continuous. With Audirvana Plus, I sometimes find the vocals to have micro gaps - as if something's missing. Bass is slightly tighter on the BDP-1. Not that noticeable on the HD 800, but on my HR824's which can be bass monsters - the difference really does show.
  
 Honestly, if you change back and forth between Bryston and Audirvana Plus at 10-20 second intervals, you sometimes can or cannot notice a difference - it really varies depending on the tracks. They are both quite good. I think because of the slight differences, it's better to listen an album at a time in long listening sessions and see what you think.
  
 Bryson's power supply is fine. I'm running stock power cables on all my gear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the power supply on the Bryston.
  
 I recommend getting...BOTH


----------



## Zoom25

Also, don't forget the Cambridge Audio CXN and 851N (flagship model). They look really promising. Features wise, they are king! Sound wise - really good reviews so far. Haven't heard them yet. I got the BDP-1 because I got an excellent deal on it - good first step. I still might consider the Cambridge units for another setup down the road. Seriously, do not sleep on those two units! They might fit your needs a lot better than the Bryston.
  
 Ideally, I would have preferred to go with a Naim streamer, but those get expensive.


----------



## mthaynes

Zoom thanks for the Advice.  Still not sure what i am going to do.  I started building the MAC and it got expensive quick.  at the end of the day my initial thought of 1k became 2k and change for the MAC.  I think the MAC will be more future friendly, but I am limited at what the SP3 can render at the end of the day.  I think I have to go and listen to the Bryston


----------



## Zoom25

Yeah, building a decent mac can get really expensive. Make sure to get a decent built in hard drive or SSD. When I use Audirvana Plus and have an external drive connected to it, it's somewhat slow in responding in comparison to when the same drive is hooked up to the Bryston. Audirvana Plus 2.X has really improved, although with a big library, at times there are still problems I encounter from time to time - especially when adding lot of albums at once.
  
 See if you can take your specific rig and try it with the Bryston. Most dealers typically stack all the Byrston's together (BDA-2, BHA-1, BDP-2, BUC-1, etc.). Might also be worthwhile to mix and match the Bryston with other rigs. The BDP has a high ceiling that makes a difference when using stuff better or different than BDA-2. I liked combining Bryston's BHA-1 and BDP-2 with Arcam D33, NAD M51, and especially Naim DACs.
  
 Definitely audition it in person - and for at least an hour! It takes awhile to get used to it.


----------



## Zoom25

Regarding the power supply, I just noticed something with my BDP-1. As previously mentioned, I've been using the stock power cord. I remember my BDP-1 sounding really good the first two days I got it on my headphone setup. After that I also tried it with my monitors on another floor and it sounded fine. Then I plugged it back on the headphone setup and it didn't sound as good as before. I thought it was perhaps just the honeymoon phase or other bias.
  
 Today, as I was connected other equipment under the desk, I noticed that the BDP-1 was connected to a relatively cheap Noma power surge bar that I got from Canadian Tire. I remembered that during the first two days, I had connected the BDP-1 directly to the power outlet. So I thought, why the hell not, let's connect the BDP-1 directly to the wall...really glad I did that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Strangely enough, I've done this with my previous amps and DACs (Emotiva Mini-x-a-100, Marantz PM6004, O2, Fiio E10, Marantz CD5004, Emotiva DC-1, and Dangerous Source) - absolutely no difference between the power wall and other power surge outlets. Still using basic power stock cables on all of those components.
  
 EDIT: I think this is the one I have: http://www.canadiantire.ca/en/pdp/noma-power-bar-8-outlet-0527209p.html#.VjvAqLTvN94
  
 I need the surge protection feature, but the direct sound from the wall though...anyone got suggestions?


----------



## bgentry

mthaynes said:


> I started building the MAC and it got expensive quick.  at the end of the day my initial thought of 1k became 2k and change for the MAC.




I'm assuming that you're trying to totally max out the top end model with the biggest CPU, most RAM, and the largest SSD drive? The model for $699 (middle) has 1TB of regular disk. If you really want 16GB of RAM, you can add that for $200, which still puts you under $1000. If this is just a music server, 8 GB is totally fine. I would personally prefer an SSD in a modern Mac. If I was going to do it, I'd probably buy one from OWC and install it myself. (Under $500). But the installation looks very involved. You'd have to be willing to do some work.

Then again, if it were me, I wouldn't buy a current Mac mini. The older ones are faster (quad core i7), easier to work on, and should have an older OSX, which I personally like better. To me, the jury is out on El Cap, and Yosemite isn't something I'd use.

As much as I love my Macs, if I was doing this project, I'd probably go another way and use an Intel NUC running Linux and MC. Or maybe just buy a JRiver ID (which is an Intel NUC running Linux and MC!).

Brian.


----------



## mthaynes

Thanks Brian,  yes I was looking to "Max the Mini".  I was also thinking about video.........I don't do this today, but who knows what I could do with this since it is a PC and this is in a Home theater system.
  
The system is a Bryston, SP3, Bryston 9BSST, Transparent music wave supper biwire cable, and Revel Studio 2's with matching center and surrounds.
  
 I did purchase Audirvana.  I do like the iTunes integration.  actually makes the iTunes radio i run in my office sound better........sure thats just adding color since the quality is junk to begin with but i do like the output which is all that maters at the end of the day.
  
 One item I have noticed.
  
 I store all my HD music in a dedicated HD library. I also use iTunes for ripped CD's and other.  iTunes has it own library that includes the HD library down converted to play on iPod's and in my car.  when i synced these directories in Audirvana it of course doubled all titles that were in both the HD library and the iTunes library.  Looks like i will have to mange these similarly to the how I mange my Ak240.


----------



## georgelai57

I just deleted ALL the libraries from my Audirvana+ as I have just too much music and I only listen to one album at a time anyway. The playlist is so bland tough to look at. If only they will bring back that "amplifier" screenshot


----------



## joeexp

New #Audirvana Plus 2.3beta (2.2.9.10) now with new local library albums UI and improvements for Qobuz... fb.me/1StJgnCpw


----------



## Norabati

I am about to buy a Macbook Air 11" for the sole purpose of sending FLAC and higher resolution music files to a Chord MOJO DAC/Amplifier using Audirvana.
 The proposed spec is :-
 1.6GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5
 4GB 1600MHz LPDDR3 SDRAM
 128gb SSD
 External 500gb SSD to house the music
 Can any Mac users confirm that the spec will be fine or if anything needs upgraded?
 Cheers


----------



## joeexp

Depends on how big your music collection is - 128GB is getting full pretty quickly.  Particularly considering how big HiRes Music Files are ….


----------



## Norabati

Thanks for that Joeexp.
 All the music will be stored on a 500gb external solid state drive. I'm pretty sure that the setup will work but it would be a disaster to buy the Macbook and find that it cannot cope with pulling large audio files from an external drive rather than its own internal storage. So I just wondered if anyone had a similar setup and could give their opinion.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ I can't answer for the Macbook but FWIW...I use a 1TB, fire-wire connected external SS drive with my 2010 Mac Mini.
Absolutely no problem playing audio files. Or video for that matter.

Depends what you mean by "large audio files" I guess. I don't use DSD. Mostly WAV (Redbook rips), Apple lossless and some hi-res (usually 96k24).


----------



## Zoom25

norabati said:


> I am about to buy a Macbook Air 11" for the sole purpose of sending FLAC and higher resolution music files to a Chord MOJO DAC/Amplifier using Audirvana.
> The proposed spec is :-
> 1.6GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5
> 4GB 1600MHz LPDDR3 SDRAM
> ...


 

 I'd go with a better processor and higher memory (at least 8GB - Both Audirvana and Amarra developers recommend this). Keeping music on external hard drive with Audirvana gives you a lag when you skip tracks or albums, but fine if you just play the album and leave it untouched. Although, when the music is stored on my built in SSD, it works flawlessly with Audirvana Plus. Definitely go with big on board SSD for Audirvana Plus.
  
 Might be easier to go with a dedicated music player/rendered, with added benefits of better sound. With my BDP-1, I use a hard drive and it's speed is just as good as SSD on macbook pro with audirvana.


----------



## Lohb

norabati said:


> I am about to buy a Macbook Air 11" for the sole purpose of sending FLAC and higher resolution music files to a Chord MOJO DAC/Amplifier using Audirvana.
> The proposed spec is :-
> 1.6GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5
> 4GB 1600MHz LPDDR3 SDRAM
> ...


 
 Have a similar spec, and as Zoom says, it can pause sometimes if you are jumping around. Maybe compare OWC (Other World Computing) SSDs vs buying a bigger 256GB+ SSD from Apple. They give you a wedge SSD case with some SSD purchase options.That can let you sell on the brand new Apple SSD, if you have someone who can exchange them both in and out of the Air.
  


zoom25 said:


> Keeping music on external hard drive with Audirvana gives you a lag when you skip tracks or albums, but fine if you just play the album and leave it untouched. Although, when the music is stored on my built in SSD, it works flawlessly with Audirvana Plus. Definitely go with big on board SSD for Audirvana Plus.


----------



## Norabati

Thanks to Argo Duck, Lohb and Zoom25. I have upped the spec to 2.2Ghz and 8gb ram. Your feedback is much appreciated. .
 The setup is to be used whilst I am travelling. It is not a home set up so I can put up with the odd delay or drop out but will be surprised if it happens. I will post again if it is a disaster so that others do not make the same mistake!


----------



## Zoom25

With Audirvana Plus, I wouldn't recommend using external hard drive at all. Either go with the biggest SSD you can get. If you cannot afford that, then go with a Fusion Drive. I haven't looked at how Thunderbolt external drives compare though (especially SSD Thunderbolt). Also, running the latest OS and being able to keep running the new OS for years to come, a decent processor will be crucial. At this point, you'd probably want Apple Care and that'll drive the price up as well.
  
 Therefore, my suggestion is to instead get a streamer/player like Cambridge Audio CXN/851N, Bryston BDP-1/2, Naim, Aurender, Sonos, or Bluesound etc. It will cost around the same but will give you less headaches and better performance for music playback.


----------



## bgentry

^ No offense, but that's nonsense. The required bandwidth to read audio files, in real time, from a hard disk is tiny compared to the bandwidth available on just about any mainstream spinning drive connected via USB3. Even USB2 should have no problems.

People regularly watch HD movies from external drives. ...and of course, it's common practice to listen to music on external drives as well.

I'm not sure why you're so focused on third party "music server" devices. It's certainly your prerogative to like anything you want to like. But to suggest that modern spinning drives aren't enough to handle audio in a modern computer doesn't make sense.

Brian.


----------



## Zoom25

> But to suggest that modern spinning drives aren't enough to handle audio in a modern computer doesn't make sense.


 
  
 Nooo...you missed my point. External hard drives for music playback* via Audirvana Plus* isn't the best. As Lohb has also mentioned, there is a tendency for it to lag and freeze when changing around albums and tracks that are not queued up.
  
 I still put movies and music on hard drives to use with my Smart TVs and computer (VLC). Those work perfectly fine. I have never ran into any problems with hard drive use with those apps, especially with my TV. My Bryston hasn't crashed either in the last 2 months and I've hooked up 4 hard drives to them all at once. Most dedicated streamers I've tried out have also worked perfectly 100% of the time. No software crashes, lags or anything like that. They work like a DVD player - plug and play.
  
 ...can't say the same about *Audirvana* and *Amarra*. I have 3 different mac machines, 2 of them are actually quite decent. This is the one I'm currently using with a  500 GB SSD:
  

  
  
 I have another one similar, but with 16 GB (not that it needs it), and guess what - those software still crash, and very rarely even the mac OS.
  
 My suggestion to recommend a purpose built device is because they avoid these kinds of nonsensical problems. They just work. I'm not a dealer or affiliated with any brands, no agenda. Just sharing my experience that I'm sure a **** ton of other people have also had. YMMV.


----------



## georgelai57

@zoom25 - I agree with you and since I prefer to listen to an album at a time (and not look at album art), I removed all my 3 HDDs from my Audirvana+ and JRiver libraries. I just add an album at a time to the former's playlist.


----------



## bgentry

zoom25 said:


> External hard drives for music playback *via Audirvana Plus* isn't the best. As Lohb has also mentioned, there is a tendency for it to lag and freeze when changing around albums and tracks that are not queued up.




That isn't what you would expect. Something is amiss. Some external hard drives spin down when not in use. On most this can be disabled. On some, you can't. I own a drive like this. I have a periodic job that touches a zero byte file on the drive to keep it awake, so it never spins down when I need it.

If it's not a drive issue, and this really is a 'freeze', then that software is broken. Why would internal versus external make any difference? See above about drives spinning down.



> I have another one similar, but with 16 GB (not that it needs it), and guess what - those software still crash, and very rarely even the mac OS.




Media player software shouldn't just crash for no reason. I have the occasional lock up with JRMC, but it's generally when I'm editing tags or doing something complex. I guess thinking back on it, I've had JRMC pause for a bit when just listening to music. So it's not immune. But this is on a machine that I use for EVERYTHING. I use it heavily for other tasks while I'm listening to music. I would expect a more dedicated machine to have no real lockups or freezes.

If your mac crashes more than once in a blue moon, it's got a problem. I've been running Macs exclusively for something like 6 years now. I can count on one hand the number of true OS crashes.

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion. You just make it sound like a computer can't reliably play music and that's simply not true.

Brian.


----------



## Zoom25

bgentry said:


> That isn't what you would expect. Something is amiss. Some external hard drives spin down when not in use. On most this can be disabled. On some, you can't. I own a drive like this. I have a periodic job that touches a zero byte file on the drive to keep it awake, so it never spins down when I need it.
> 
> If it's not a drive issue, and this really is a 'freeze', then that software is broken. Why would internal versus external make any difference? See above about drives spinning down.
> Media player software shouldn't just crash for no reason. I have the occasional lock up with JRMC, but it's generally when I'm editing tags or doing something complex. I guess thinking back on it, I've had JRMC pause for a bit when just listening to music. So it's not immune. But this is on a machine that I use for EVERYTHING. I use it heavily for other tasks while I'm listening to music. I would expect a more dedicated machine to have no real lockups or freezes.
> ...


 
 Again, that's not what I am saying. It's just Audirvana Plus and Amarra that aren't as good for music library and playback. Hell, I can open up Logic/Ableton and insert a WAV file and have it work perfectly each time. So would VLC.
  
 Also, those streamers that I am talking about are actually computers. Most of them are Linux based as the developers do not have to pay fees. The software and hardware is just really optimized for music playback, but they're still computers.
  
 As you mentioned, when editing metadata or syncing large databases constantly, Audirvana takes forever and can crash. This should not happen considering how much more powerful my Mac is compared to the Linux in the Bryston BDP-1.
  
 I've already looked into the hard drive issue and can enable/disable whether they stay on at all time. For some reason, the problem is still present with Audirvana, but really noticeable with Amarra. The drives work fine with more demanding video, photo apps. 
 _________
  
 Just to sum up my argument on why I suggested the previous user an external player over a Mac:
  
 I personally find Audirvana Plus to sound better than Amarra or VLC when sending audio out to a DAC (as do many other people). Audirvana Plus wins over VLC and Amarra because you can build a library. You can do this with iTunes but the sound won't be there. So if you get used to the best sound of Audirvana Plus, it becomes hard to step down and use other programs, even if they are more stable. So a better option for someone who hasn't invested in any hardware (audio player or computer) is to get a device that sounds really good and works 100% of the time. IMO only external players fulfill both of these conditions.


----------



## bgentry

In that vein, why not try JRiver Media Center? Arguably the most powerful library interface of any of them. Fantastic remote control via ipad, iphone, or android. Generally lauded for it's sound quality and 64 bit internal processing.

Brian.


----------



## Zoom25

In the past I have tried it, and didn't think it could compete with Amarra or Audirvana Plus in terms of SQ. Maybe I'll give it a shot again if it's improved.


----------



## Oink1

Hi fellas,
 Long time no post. Being diagnosed with end stage kidney failure, cancer in 2013 kinda sucked all my zest for life.As such my Naim system hasn't been powered up for 10+ years and the Head-Fi went out the window too. My life has been sleep and dialysis for the longest time. My listening used to be PC-1Tb ext drive-FLAC-Foobar-ASIO-Ext USB DAC-Gilmore Lite-Denon D200. I've Just become a fully paid up Apple whore and purchased myself a Macbook Air. As such I have no idea where to go now. Currently listening Macbook-iTunes-3.5 to phono-Gilmore light-D200. Where do i go now? Music player? The SSD isn't massive, use my USB2 drive or buy a USB3? Reinstate the DAC? Im kinda lost! Any help would be much appreciated. I missed my music 
 Paul.


----------



## Currawong

oink1 said:


> Hi fellas,
> Long time no post. Being diagnosed with end stage kidney failure, cancer in 2013 kinda sucked all my zest for life.As such my Naim system hasn't been powered up for 10+ years and the Head-Fi went out the window too. My life has been sleep and dialysis for the longest time. My listening used to be PC-1Tb ext drive-FLAC-Foobar-ASIO-Ext USB DAC-Gilmore Lite-Denon D200. I've Just become a fully paid up Apple whore and purchased myself a Macbook Air. As such I have no idea where to go now. Currently listening Macbook-iTunes-3.5 to phono-Gilmore light-D200. Where do i go now? Music player? The SSD isn't massive, use my USB2 drive or buy a USB3? Reinstate the DAC? Im kinda lost! Any help would be much appreciated. I missed my music
> Paul.


 

 A Chord Mojo IMO. You don't need better computer parts. 
  
 --
  
 On the topic above that, I recently needed a large Windows-formatted drive to use with a network streamer (Soundaware D100PRO, which I have here for review) so I grabbed the old and quite slow 750GB drive that had originally come out of my 2011 MacBook Pro. I filled it up with music and connected it to the D100PRO (which smokes my Mac as a transport, incidentally, but that's another discussion) and connected to that over wireless with an iPad. I found that while playing back music, I could get the music to skip while browsing from the iPad, so I assume the drive being slow was the culprit. 
  
 That won't be an issue with software that caches files in memory, as some of the players can be set to do, except in how long it takes for the file to load.


----------



## Zoom25

oink1 said:


> Hi fellas,
> Long time no post. Being diagnosed with end stage kidney failure, cancer in 2013 kinda sucked all my zest for life.As such my Naim system hasn't been powered up for 10+ years and the Head-Fi went out the window too. My life has been sleep and dialysis for the longest time. My listening used to be PC-1Tb ext drive-FLAC-Foobar-ASIO-Ext USB DAC-Gilmore Lite-Denon D200. I've Just become a fully paid up Apple whore and purchased myself a Macbook Air. As such I have no idea where to go now. Currently listening Macbook-iTunes-3.5 to phono-Gilmore light-D200. Where do i go now? Music player? The SSD isn't massive, use my USB2 drive or buy a USB3? Reinstate the DAC? Im kinda lost! Any help would be much appreciated. I missed my music
> Paul.


 
  
 Hey Paul,
  
 Glad to have you back! It really depends on your preference. If you stick with computer, look into streaming (Spotify, Tidal, Qobuz). Combine either of those with the Amarra SQ application. Really great sound. This way you don't have to worry about downloading music and running out of space. I have a massive library (~1.5 TB) although I go through stretches of days where I just use streaming services.
  
 If you want the best media libraries for Mac, there's iTunes, Audirvana Plus, Jriver and others that I'm surely someone will mention. My preference lies with Audirvana Plus. Give the 30 days trial a shot. You will instantly hear the difference.
  
 IMO you should absolutely do the following two things as they're the best upgrades and free (for the trial period) that you can make in an instant:
  
 1) Audirvana Plus (for your music stored on a drive): http://audirvana.com/?page_id=3397 
  
 2) Amarra SQ (for improving the sound of Netlix, Youtube, Spotify, and just about anything): http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra_sq
  
 For DAC upgrade, I'd definitely check out the Emotiva Stealth DC-1. It's sound keeps up with top gear stuff (BDA-2, NAD M51, Dangerous Source). It has all kinds of inputs, outputs - both balanced and unbalanced. There's nothing close to even twice it's price that comes close in features and sound. Also, the headphone amp works nicely with the Denon AH-D2000.
  
 (Seriously give streaming services a shot if you haven't already!)


----------



## elnero

currawong said:


> A Chord Mojo IMO.


 
  
 I'll second this recommendation. Amazing little device.


----------



## joeexp

Hi Paul - Since you are using an Apple laptop and you don't need the mobility of the mojo - I'd recommend a LH Labs Geek Out V2.
 It only costs half the price of the Chord Mojo, sounds better  IMHO, is incredibly small and has a balanced output!
 It was driving my Audeze LCD2 with ease and great control.
  
 And one more cool thing is that you can control the Volume via the Player Software/Laptop keys!
 Downside - Its casing is 3d printed and can't compete with the polished Aluminium Casing of the Mojo looks-wise.


----------



## Oink1

Hi Guys, Thanks for the input so far. I feel I should clarify - I don't stream music or download it (If at all possible) I like to have the original in my mitts and hate the thought of paying Apple almost the same for a 256 download as the physical CD. I am surprised no one has mentioned my current amp and DAC. I don't expect the DAC is the best but I thought the Gilmore was a great bit of kit. I like the way it sounds anyhow and have all the parts in my back bedroom to build a +/-15v regulated PSU for it instead of the awful wallwart. My iPhone handles any need I have for mobile music needs (not too often). As such this is only for desk based listening (the Mojo does look a beautiful piece of kit though), I feel it would be wasted as it's never going to leave the house. Any suggestions on a DAC to pair with the Gilmore? Preferably small form factor? Thanks guys, been out of the loop too long!
 Paul


----------



## Zoom25

oink1 said:


> Hi Guys, Thanks for the input so far. I feel I should clarify - I don't stream music or download it (If at all possible) I like to have the original in my mitts and hate the thought of paying Apple almost the same for a 256 download as the physical CD. I am surprised no one has mentioned my current amp and DAC. I don't expect the DAC is the best but I thought the Gilmore was a great bit of kit. I like the way it sounds anyhow and have all the parts in my back bedroom to build a +/-15v regulated PSU for it instead of the awful wallwart. My iPhone handles any need I have for mobile music needs (not too often). As such this is only for desk based listening (the Mojo does look a beautiful piece of kit though), I feel it would be wasted as it's never going to leave the house. *Any suggestions on a DAC to pair with the Gilmore? Preferably small form factor?* Thanks guys, been out of the loop too long!
> Paul


 
 As mentioned before, you should really consider the Emotiva Stealth DC-1: https://emotiva.com/products/dacs/electronics/dacs/stealth-dc-1
  
 Small form factor, every kind of input/output you can think of. Price is excellent and so is the sound. It also comes with a display panel and a remote for increasing/decreasing the volume, changing inputs, turning off the unit and dimming the panel.


----------



## Oink1

zoom25 said:


> As mentioned before, you should really consider the Emotiva Stealth DC-1: https://emotiva.com/products/dacs/electronics/dacs/stealth-dc-1
> 
> Small form factor, every kind of input/output you can think of. Price is excellent and so is the sound. It also comes with a display panel and a remote for increasing/decreasing the volume, changing inputs, turning off the unit and dimming the panel.
> 
> Hmmm - Just been for a look. Liked what I saw! Filled out the order form so just waiting on someone to call me with a quote now. Also ordered a pair of angled pads from Lawson Audio today for the D2000's. This doesn't bode well for my bank balance! DAC for sale soon!


----------



## minutes

I'll give my vote to Amarra 3.0 which I've been using for over a year now. No complains whatsoever and the customer service is spot on for any issues along the way.


----------



## elnero

oink1 said:


> Hi Guys, Thanks for the input so far. I feel I should clarify - I don't stream music or download it (If at all possible) I like to have the original in my mitts and hate the thought of paying Apple almost the same for a 256 download as the physical CD. I am surprised no one has mentioned my current amp and DAC. I don't expect the DAC is the best but I thought the Gilmore was a great bit of kit. I like the way it sounds anyhow and have all the parts in my back bedroom to build a +/-15v regulated PSU for it instead of the awful wallwart. My iPhone handles any need I have for mobile music needs (not too often). As such this is only for desk based listening (the Mojo does look a beautiful piece of kit though), I feel it would be wasted as it's never going to leave the house. Any suggestions on a DAC to pair with the Gilmore? Preferably small form factor? Thanks guys, been out of the loop too long!
> Paul


 
  
 While the Chord Mojo is aimed at the portable market, by simply holding down the two volume controls on power up to put it in Line Level Mode, it can just as easily be used as DAC only out to an amp. Don't let it's size fool you, in my opinion, if you're looking for high performance from a small form factor it doesn't get much better.


----------



## Oink1

Well, Emotiva Stealth paid for. Just got to wait & see wether customs lube up first or do me dry! :eek:


----------



## Zoom25

oink1 said:


> Well, Emotiva Stealth paid for. Just got to wait & see wether customs lube up first or do me dry! :eek:




Congrats, you'll love it. They should be giving you the absolute final price for the unit including shipping, taxes, and customs. There should be no further collect-on-delivery charges.


----------



## miceblue

So after using A+ 2.0 for 5 months now, I decided to get JRiver Media Center 21 [master license so I can use it in Windows too]...holy smokes the user interface has gotten better in OS X since the last time I browsed it (MC19 I think).

There's no way I'm going back to A+ now...actually there is, but only to A/B DACs since I wrote an Apple Script to do that.

A+ 2.0's UI is just so terrible for me, and I still don't know how to use it efficiently. I've been mostly doing drag-n-drop to listen to files because the music "library" doesn't organise my music at all.
Seriously. I ripped this CD in 1 try using XLD and I properly tagged it and all. Why the flipping heck does A+ 2.0 not read all of the tracks???


It can't possibly be that difficult to read. JRMC can read it perfectly fine like any other decently built media player.



I'm at a loss for words for A+ 2.0.


----------



## joeexp

Horses for courses! - I just can't look at the Jriver interface; Looks just like the old Windows XP media player … .


----------



## miceblue

Supposedly you can customise the user interface. I think 9/10 people at Seattle Head-Fi meets use JRMC so I'm used to its stock, yes, ugly, interface.

However, function > form for me at this point. A+ 1.5 was superb for both and then A+ 2.0 came along and I decided to give it a shot.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14[/video]

Library management, and playback controls are way too complicated in A+ 2.0 in my opinion. I still can't wrap my head around it.


----------



## bgentry

joeexp said:


> Horses for courses! - I just can't look at the Jriver interface; Looks just like the old Windows XP media player … .




As you are saying: To each his own. But your comparison is inaccurate and rather unfair. There are a lot of skins that make JRMC look very different. Try some of these for instance:

Fusion X3
Metro X
Purity
Black on Black

The way the screen is laid out can be configured in many different ways. You can show album art or not. You can show album details, or not. The side bar is optional. It has tabs. It has split screens (horizontal or vertical). It has browsing history (like a web browser). The interface is far more advanced than any other media player I've seen.

Brian.


----------



## Oink1

zoom25 said:


> Congrats, you'll love it. They should be giving you the absolute final price for the unit including shipping, taxes, and customs. There should be no further collect-on-delivery charges.




I sincerely hope so! The $479.59 was enough thanks. I'm expecting (hoping for) great things


----------



## miceblue

bgentry said:


> Fusion X3



Woah, now that's a nice skin, and it fits right in with other OS X apps. : D
Thanks for pointing that one out!


----------



## erik701

Audirvana Plus is the best.


----------



## Lohb

I wish A+ could come to Android in some form.
  
 Nothing comes close.
  
 Nightmare GUIs that force 48k rate ( Neutron).
 UAPP just lacks that 'zing' that A+ (2.2.5) has.


----------



## Amictus

I have just obtained Audirvana, having acquired a couple of Macs, but I prefer the sound of JRiver so far... maybe I need to learn to do some tweaking...


----------



## Lohb

amictus said:


> I have just obtained Audirvana, having acquired a couple of Macs, but I prefer the sound of JRiver so far... maybe I need to learn to do some tweaking...


 

 What would you say the immediate difference was to what you liked in JRiver ?


----------



## Amictus

lohb said:


> What would you say the immediate difference was to what you liked in JRiver ?


 

 Well, I haven't done much detailed listening... but, immediately, I noticed a thinner sound on Audirvana, less timbral richness, less bass, less music. It was a more clinical experience. That was on a recent iMac, to a Gungnir MB, and then to either a Lyr or a Lehmann SE. I think that I was using the HD800 at the time. Music was, unusually for me, Miles Davis "Kind of Blue", remastered by pristineclassical.com. It was a .flac file. There was also more soundstage on JRiver, both sideways and depth.
  
 Still, just one recording, one evening, and no effort at under-the-hood tweeking...
  
 EDIT: I tried Sysoptimizer (?) in Audirvana, this time turning it to 'extreme'. It seemed to improve the sound quite a bit, especially as regards soundstage. JRiver still seems to bring a warmer sound, but, perhaps, a little less precision. It's Sibelius 4th Symphony, movement 1, VPO/Maazel (remastered) ripped to NAS this evening. Audirvana is more controlling, JRiver more liberating. I'm still on iMac - GungnirMB - Lyr (Bugle Boys) - HD800. Perhaps I need to change headphones and amp...


----------



## Lohb

Also, try direct mode and integer mode...
 (Integer mode 1 is supposed to be more 'neutral/analytic' than integer mode 2, which is supposed to be 'fuller/warmer' slightly if I remember).
  
 Direct and integer bypass OSX file coloring/audio codec processing.


----------



## amf123

My set-up was iMac running Fidelia 1.65 - Naim Dac-V1 - Denon D7000.  I'd gotten a bit used to it all and sort of got a touch of upgrade-itis and was seriously considering swopping out my D7000's for a set of Fostex TH900.  I thought they may give the music a bit of a spark I seemed to be missing.  Anyway, for whatever reason, one day I decided to install Audirvana + instead.  Oh my, what a revelation!  My music came back to life.  Checked Fidelia again and couldn't believe how flat and lifeless it sounded in comparison.  And I'd been just living with it for however long.  The moral of the story is a quick and cheap change in software has saved me £1k in new cans.  Very happy.


----------



## Oink1

Emo has arrived. £88.00 frigging customs charges! Grrr!


----------



## joeexp

oink1 said:


> Emo has arrived. £88.00 frigging customs charges! Grrr!


 

 Wrong Thread man!


----------



## chipbutty

I found the opposite! Really nothing in it after trialling both and eventually paying for Fidelia. I just found Fidelia to have a slight edge over Audirvana. Which converter were you running on Fidelia? I use Goodhertz. 
  
 Quote:


amf123 said:


> My set-up was iMac running Fidelia 1.65 - Naim Dac-V1 - Denon D7000.  I'd gotten a bit used to it all and sort of got a touch of upgrade-itis and was seriously considering swopping out my D7000's for a set of Fostex TH900.  I thought they may give the music a bit of a spark I seemed to be missing.  Anyway, for whatever reason, one day I decided to install Audirvana + instead.  Oh my, what a revelation!  My music came back to life.  Checked Fidelia again and couldn't believe how flat and lifeless it sounded in comparison.  And I'd been just living with it for however long.  The moral of the story is a quick and cheap change in software has saved me £1k in new cans.  Very happy.


----------



## Oink1

joeexp said:


> Wrong Thread man!




Kind of relevant 'man' as I'd previously asked about equipment upgrade in my current computer system AS WELL as Mac software... Whatever though.


----------



## Wilderness

amictus said:


> Well, I haven't done much detailed listening... but, immediately, I noticed a thinner sound on Audirvana, less timbral richness, less bass, less music. It was a more clinical experience. That was on a recent iMac, to a Gungnir MB, and then to either a Lyr or a Lehmann SE. I think that I was using the HD800 at the time. Music was, unusually for me, Miles Davis "Kind of Blue", remastered by pristineclassical.com. It was a .flac file. There was also more soundstage on JRiver, both sideways and depth.
> 
> Still, just one recording, one evening, and no effort at under-the-hood tweeking...
> 
> EDIT: I tried Sysoptimizer (?) in Audirvana, this time turning it to 'extreme'. It seemed to improve the sound quite a bit, especially as regards soundstage. JRiver still seems to bring a warmer sound, but, perhaps, a little less precision. It's Sibelius 4th Symphony, movement 1, VPO/Maazel (remastered) ripped to NAS this evening. Audirvana is more controlling, JRiver more liberating. I'm still on iMac - GungnirMB - Lyr (Bugle Boys) - HD800. Perhaps I need to change headphones and amp...


 

 I agree that JRiver sounds better, and that is why I am using the free Pono music software on my iMac, which is JRiver with a skin and the store.  The Pono version of JRiver looks like it has one of the attractive skins available for JRiver.  It is a richer sound with no noticeable loss in detail compared to Audirvana.
  
 I use iTunes for playlist management and syncing, and I copy and paste my playlist into the Pono software on my iMac.  I adjusted the settings in the Pono software on my iMac to get the best sound.  I just got some new speakers and a sub, and I am enjoying listening to music at home more than ever.
  
 Pono's software is also handy for converting formats so that everything is compatible on all of my devices, too.


----------



## joeexp

I gave JRIVER another go - but have to say that the MicroDetail retrieval and 3d Imaging is best with Audirvana on my system. YMMV. Perhaps Gear Pairing is important in the whole Scenario. HD 800s might be sounding a bit harsh in some circumstances but that's not Audirvana's fault.
 Fidelia isn't even in the same league on my system. … Too sugarcoated and a lack of a lot of things. Again  YMMV.


----------



## iamoneagain

Well I'm finally using HQPlayer.  I bought it about a week ago in anticipation of the Roon integration.  I held off buying before because it seems it's the only player that doesn't play ALAC files.  Before the Roon integration, I had to convert my tracks to AIFF and manually drop them in.  Kind of a pain in the butt but the sound quality was the best I've heard in my AT L3000/DHA3000 headphone setup.  
  
 Roon just got updated a few days ago and I can finally play all my ALAC files and Tidal library with the pcm output going thru HQPlayer.  There are still a few minor disconnect bugs to be worked out but, wow, this combo is amazing.  The price is pretty expensive for both but it's like getting a new piece of hardware in terms of sound quality and Roon is one of the best interfaces I've used.
  
 As far as the other players, I could never get Audirvana + to sound just right.  It would always sound amazing at first but had a tiring sound.  Never enough warmth no matter what settings.  Amarra had a nice analog type sound but without integer mode and exclusive modes, it never seemed as dynamic or black of background as the others.  HQPlayer just sounds right in my system.  Has the best focus and placement of instruments of all the players.  It's just as dynamic as Audirvana + but somehow more musical.  Never get tired of the sound.  It's a little confusing on what the filters are supposed to be but a quick google search helped.  The interface itself kind of sucks, but paired with Roon, it's amazing since it just runs in the background.


----------



## joeexp

HQPlayer retails for *GBP 114.35 * - a bit hefty for an amateurish looking product. 
 But I will give it a go and see what it sounds like. It has a trial mode.


----------



## iamoneagain

joeexp said:


> HQPlayer retails for *GBP 114.35 * - a bit hefty for an amateurish looking product.
> But I will give it a go and see what it sounds like. It has a trial mode.


 

 I have a contact from the Roon community that got me a discount.  I can give info if interested.
  
 This thread should help get understanding of filters, especially Miska's 2nd post:
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/hqplayer-resampling-filter-setup-guide-ordinary-person-13298/
  
  Miska's recommendation: 
 Quote:


> Generally, I recommend choosing between "poly-sinc-*" filters and using highest possible sampling rate. Dither or noise-shaper chosen based on above description, "NS9" for 192 kHz output, "NS5" for 384 kHz output and "TPDF" or "Gauss1" for any lower rates...


 
  
 My DAC is only 96/24, so I'm using:
  
 poly-sinc short
 Gauss1
 960000


----------



## Zoom25

iamoneagain said:


> As far as the other players, I could never get *Audirvana +* to sound just right.  It would always sound amazing at first but had a tiring sound. * Never enough warmth no matter what settings.*  Amarra had a nice analog type sound but without integer mode and exclusive modes, it never seemed as dynamic or black of background as the others.  HQPlayer just sounds right in my system.  Has the best focus and placement of instruments of all the players.  It's just as dynamic as Audirvana + but somehow more musical.  Never get tired of the sound.  It's a little confusing on what the filters are supposed to be but a quick google search helped.  The interface itself kind of sucks, but paired with Roon, it's amazing since it just runs in the background.


 
  
 Interesting! If anything, I always found Audirvana Plus to be on the warm side. The 1.5.X were especially warm sounding. Even my recessed D2000's mids started to sound warm


----------



## iDesign

The UI updates in Audirivana version 2.3 are really problematic in non-iTunes integrated mode. The default column and window sizes are not optimized and it causes the window to resize and jump. I would not recommend upgrading to version 2.3. It is nice to see that in version 2.3 they completed the Qobuz integration and they can move on from that disaster. They should have prioritized TIDAL first and hopefully native TIDAL integration will come in version 2.3.5. I also hope they will fix all the UI issues they just created in 2.3. Its quite a mess now.
  
  
Edit 1: Trashing the Audirvanna plist file to was necessary to get version 2.3 to behave properly. I do not recommend this upgrade. 
Edit 2: Audirvanna released 2.3.1 less than 24 hours later.


----------



## Wilderness

joeexp said:


> I gave JRIVER another go - but have to say that the MicroDetail retrieval and 3d Imaging is best with Audirvana on my system. YMMV. Perhaps Gear Pairing is important in the whole Scenario. HD 800s might be sounding a bit harsh in some circumstances but that's not Audirvana's fault.
> Fidelia isn't even in the same league on my system. … Too sugarcoated and a lack of a lot of things. Again  YMMV.


 

 With Pono's JRiver, there are lots of settings to adjust the sound.  Playing from RAM, etc.  I just compared Pono's JRiver to Audirvana's iTunes app again, and I still find Pono to be superior.  I tried switching to Integer Mode 2 for the warmer option in Audirvana, but for my new speakers and sub I find it lacking compared to Pono's JRiver.
  
 Pono just pushed its update today.  I am not sure what the update brings, but I am having a blast listening with Pono's JRiver (Pono MusicWorld) on my iMac.


----------



## Amictus

lohb said:


> Also, try direct mode and integer mode...
> (Integer mode 1 is supposed to be more 'neutral/analytic' than integer mode 2, which is supposed to be 'fuller/warmer' slightly if I remember).
> 
> Direct and integer bypass OSX file coloring/audio codec processing.


 

 Thank you so much for this. It's now Boxing Day and I have time to play. Direct mode seems to be giving me the best results so far through HD800 and IE800 (the latter given by Santa). I haven't compared again with JRiver, but I will.


----------



## johnjen

My 2¢
I have used/tried these players;
iTunes 
Decibel
Audirvana
Amarra 
Pure Music
Media Center

On my system Media Center has the edge, but initially it also allowed me to use ethernet as the digital stream path to feed my dac, which was a big SQ boost until I managed to get USB up to par.

And yes JRiver is very PC like, (which is it's roots) in that it is a powerful database with a really good sounding music player.
It also has a WHOLE bunch of 'extra' features, most of which I don't use, and probably never will, like extensive network functionality, playing movies, streaming, etc.

BUT, there are a few that are VERY helpful, such as the built in DSP functionality.
Also built into the DSP function is an FFT display (Analyzer) that is also customizeable as well.
The Analyzer is, or can be, quite insightful when you are tweaking the system.
DSP also has a very 'flexible' range of added signal processing built in such as parametric EQ, sample rate conversion, variable headphone crossfeed, even tempo and pitch controls.

Also the various screens can be 'customized' to display the info that you find pertinent concerning the music you are looking for.

Yeah it can be a bit of PIA to set up and configure, especially if you're not familiar with knowing the what's and how's etc.
And the 'instructions' on setup and use are woefully inadequate, again rather PC like in that you need to know how to understand the techno-jargon, right from the start…
But once setup it allows a fair amount of control and an ease of finding the album or track you are looking for with minimal hassle.
This can become a 'big' issue as the size of your music library grows.

JJ


----------



## bgentry

Everyone by now knows I'm a JRiver Media Center fan boy. 

Jonjen is pretty much correct about setup. For simple configurations, it's simple. Just a few settings and you're off and running. For more complex setups (particularly with DSD and/or network based DACs) it gets harder. But it's all doable. I've helped a lot of people configure JRiver in some pretty interesting and exciting ways.

The thing is, you can configure the way you browse, sort, and search in ways that are more customizable than any other player I've seen. Sure, it requires some time and knowledge. But you can do things that are pretty neat. Ever wanted to browse your Jazz collection by Year range, then performer (like drummer for example) and then by Album? Set up a view and it's done (as long as you have performers tagged in your files). ..and by the way this can be completely specific to JUST your Jazz collection. These Media Views are unlimited. So, all in the same library, you can have a special Classical View, a Jazz View (or two or three), and your everyday views that show everything. Or everything except for Jazz and Classical. The point is that these Media Views can be tailored to exactly how you want to experience your collection.

This gives me a visibility into my collection that I've never had before. That helps me get more out of my music. ...and that's pretty much the point of all of this right? To enjoy the music. 

Brian.


----------



## johnjen

bgentry said:


> Everyone by now knows I'm a JRiver Media Center fan boy.
> snip
> The point is that these Media Views can be tailored to exactly how you want to experience your collection.
> 
> ...


A database that is flexible and well implemented can be a joy to use…
IF
You know how.
And this ability to search for just what you are looking for can be learned fairly quickly.

Media Center has HUGE flexibility, but that also insures a degree of complexity that must be dealt with, one way or another (ignored and overlooked or configured to suit).

And this database engine allows for being able to zero in on that one track or album you seek fairly easily, regardless of how big the collection is.
But it's coupled with a very effective audio engine with all kinds of bells and whistles, of which few will use even half of what is available.

But for me anyway the kicker is the SQ that MC brings to the table.
And when the tricks and abilities of DSP are added into the mix, well, the results can be quite satisfying.

JJ


----------



## Wilderness

I have changed my mind about Pono's JRiver being better than Audirvana.  I found that while JRiver has better timbral quality and a fuller sound, Audirvana resolves better.  The clincher is that with my speakers, the PBS PS1s and sub, JRiver is scratchy on a few songs.  Audirvana might be a bit dry and clinical, but it never exhibits that scratchiness.  I am done with JRiver until an updated version eliminates this problem, or until I can figure out how to adjust the settings to smooth it out.
  
 Does the newest version of Audirvana still offer the option of playing in integated mode with iTunes, or is it only a standalone player?  I like playing Audirvana in the integrated with iTunes mode, and I have an older version of it.  I am pleased with that older version, 1.5.12, and am hesitant to update.  How much does the updated version cost for owners of older versions? 
  
 I am having a blast listening to the several hundred new songs I bought the last few weeks.


----------



## bgentry

wilderness said:


> The clincher is that with my speakers, the PBS PS1s and sub, JRiver is scratchy on a few songs.  Audirvana might be a bit dry and clinical, but it never exhibits that scratchiness.  I am done with JRiver until an updated version eliminates this problem, or until I can figure out how to adjust the settings to smooth it out.




Are you describing an easy to hear "static" type sound? Anything that's easy to hear that's "wrong" should never happen with JRMC unless it's clipping due to DSP filters or something like that. Are you using DSP settings?

Or are you describing something subtle?

Brian.


----------



## Wilderness

Bgentry,
  
 You are correct:  The problem with scratchiness on a few of my songs in JRiver was caused by my DSP settings.  I unchecked the DSP settings and now the scratchiness is gone.  Nice!
  
 I do like JRiver the best now that the problem is gone.
  
 I can't thank you enough for helping me.  Thank you, and have a great day!
  
 Headfi is such a great public service, bringing together people to get the most enjoyment from music.


----------



## GradoSound

wilderness said:


> Bgentry,
> 
> You are correct:  The problem with scratchiness on a few of my songs in JRiver was caused by my DSP settings.  I unchecked the DSP settings and now the scratchiness is gone.  Nice!
> 
> ...


 
  
 I also suggest enabling (if you have not already done so) "Adaptive Volume - Peak Level Normalise" under Options --> Audio --> Settings --> DSP&Audio Format
  
 This option will level your volume (and prevent clipping) without changing the track's dynamic range.


----------



## joeexp

gradosound said:


> I also suggest enabling (if you have not already done so) "Adaptive Volume - Peak Level Normalise" under Options --> Audio --> Settings --> DSP&Audio Format
> 
> This option will level your volume (and prevent clipping) without changing the track's dynamic range.


 

 I would not suggest enabling this.
 a) the amount of processing power wasted
 b) prevent clipping? - why would clipping be occurring in the first place ..


----------



## bgentry

The processing power required for Adaptive Volume > Peak Level Normalize is trivial. It's a fixed volume adjustment that is calculated based on the loudness level of the song and that value is pre-calculated when the song is analyzed before-hand. All volume leveling requires analysis of each song, before they are played. This is a one time thing that you have to do with any software that will do volume leveling.

All that said, the way JRiver MC does volume leveling is primarily through DSP Studio > Volume Leveling . Turn that setting on and it will enable the volume leveling function. However, turning this on, generally reduces the overall volume level by 8 to 10 dB. To bring back some of that volume, Adaptive Volume > Peak level normalize can be used in addition. They work together.

The combination of these two settings produces very good volume leveling, while retaining a reasonable overall volume level. Neither of these tools affect clipping one way or the other. I recommend both of these tools if you play mixed playlists. Note that these necessarily change the volume level (duh) so enabling these options is not "bit perfect". I find the effect to be worth using and it does not impact sound quality in a way that I have noticed.

Brian.


----------



## GradoSound

bgentry said:


> The processing power required for Adaptive Volume > Peak Level Normalize is trivial. It's a fixed volume adjustment that is calculated based on the loudness level of the song and that value is pre-calculated when the song is analyzed before-hand. All volume leveling requires analysis of each song, before they are played. This is a one time thing that you have to do with any software that will do volume leveling.
> 
> All that said, the way JRiver MC does volume leveling is primarily through DSP Studio > Volume Leveling . Turn that setting on and it will enable the volume leveling function. However, turning this on, generally reduces the overall volume level by 8 to 10 dB. To bring back some of that volume, Adaptive Volume > Peak level normalize can be used in addition. They work together.
> 
> ...


 
  
 In my case the CPU used is around 2-3% (by JRiver for everything) so no CPU impact, and it's a very old laptop.
  
 I probably picked the wrong word with "clipping". The reason I used the word due to decreased (or in some rare cases increased) overall volume on average by 2-3 dB. I was under the impression that some parts of the track exceeds the acceptable peak volume levels running into clipping limit (again, I might be wrong). Otherwise why do you bother changing the volume?
  
 The option I suggested does not affect bit perfect. You can check that by the colour of the "Tools" icon located near the top right hand corner when playing a track; if blue, it's bit perfect.
  
 Hope this helps.


----------



## bgentry

gradosound said:


> I was under the impression that some parts of the track exceeds the acceptable peak volume levels running into clipping limit (again, I might be wrong). Otherwise why do you bother changing the volume?




Volume Leveling and Adaptive Volume can not cause clipping, nor are they designed to protect against it. In DSP Studio, at the lower left corner, you'll see a box labeled "clip protection". That's where MC allows you to guard against clipping, or just let it happen. 

Why do we change volume with Volume Leveling and Adaptive Volume? In order to have all tracks have a similar average volume. So that songs from different albums don't have drastically different levels which are jarring to the listener. These two features (when used together in Peak Level Normalize mode) are designed exactly for this purpose. So that a playlist will have similar volume for all songs in the playlist.

Note that both of these tools are smart enough to NOT engage on songs from the same album that play one after the other. These tools are designed to preserve the volume differences between songs on the same album, because the artist probably recorded each song at a particular volume level for a reason. This is important on concept albums or albums that tell a story like Pink Floyd's "The Wall".



> The option I suggested does not affect bit perfect. You can check that by the colour of the "Tools" icon located near the top right hand corner when playing a track; if blue, it's bit perfect.




I can see why you would think that. You're definitely correct that the "blue light" stays blue when you change volume using the above two tools or MC's manual volume control. I'm actually not sure why they designed MC this way because the bit stream going to the DAC is *definitely* being altered in order to change the volume of the tracks. Unless there's something going on with computer to DAC communication that I'm not aware of. I think I'll ask on the JRiver forums actually. 

Brian.


----------



## GradoSound

bgentry said:


> Why do we change volume with Volume Leveling and Adaptive Volume? In order to have all tracks have a similar average volume. So that songs from different albums don't have drastically different levels which are jarring to the listener. These two features (when used together in Peak Level Normalize mode) are designed exactly for this purpose. So that a playlist will have similar volume for all songs in the playlist.
> 
> Brian.


 
  
 OK, it makes sense. I just use Adaptive Volume anyway as I was not sure what "Volume Levelling" does to the dynamic range.
  
 Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## bgentry

gradosound said:


> OK, it makes sense. I just use Adaptive Volume anyway as I was not sure what "Volume Levelling" does to the dynamic range.




You'll see a much more "correct" volume leveling effect if you enable Volume Leveling too. It will NOT change the dynamic range at all. It's a fixed boost or cut for each track.

The only two settings I know of that change dynamic range are:

Adaptive Volume > Night mode
Adaptive Volume > small speaker mode

You can tell that both change the DR. If you look at the audio path (Player > Audio path) (or hover over the blue light) you'll see the boost and cut changing as the song plays. This is a dead giveaway that the DR is being altered.

Brian.


----------



## GradoSound

Thanks. I will try it out next time.


----------



## Wilderness

Thanks, BGentry and GradoSound. 
  
 I enabled Volume Leveling and Adaptive Volume.  The Clip Protection mode, too.  These settings help and do not cause perceptible harm.  I have not noticed a volume drop with these settings enabled.  Just nice sound all through my playlist.  The first song on my playlist is exquisite.  Some of the quieter albums are a bit louder now, much to my delight.
  
 I have had some time off from work lately, and so I have been purchasing a lot of song downloads.  I listened for several hours today with everything quiet in my house.  An Audioquest Dragonfly v 1.2 DAC, PSB speakers and sub, IsoAcoustics stands, and your recommended settings in JRiver have combined to yield some sweet sounds.  This isn't high end gear but I am very pleased.


----------



## Krutsch

I've been away from this thread for a while... going crazy trying various software combinations, out of curiosity.
  
 Lately, I've been experimenting with Roon and HQ Player. So far, I am running Roon Server on a Mac Mini (2012) with Roon (remote) running on a MacBook Retina (2013).
  
 The MB is connected to an UpTone Audio Regen, using Curious USB cables, and then into a USB-S/PDIF (bel canto) converter and into my DAC. Significant results: I finally have a Mac-based playback chain that can compete with my Bryston BDP-1.
  
 But when I added Signalyst's HQ Player into the software chain, driven by Roon's user interface and up-sampling everything as 192/24 using HQP's poly-sinc filters, it really took things to a new level.
  
 I don't have a DSD compatible DAC, but the threads on Roon and CA are lit-up with user impressions that are making me want a new DAC.
  
 If you have some free time and spare cash, I encourage you to try the Roon + HQ Player combination... the sound is that good.


----------



## iamoneagain

krutsch said:


> I've been away from this thread for a while... going crazy trying various software combinations, out of curiosity.
> 
> Lately, I've been experimenting with Roon and HQ Player. So far, I am running Roon Server on a Mac Mini (2012) with Roon (remote) running on a MacBook Retina (2013).
> 
> ...


 

 Yeah, I'm shocked not a lot of talk about HQPlayer on these forums.  Admittedly on its own, the interface is so minimal, you wouldn't want to use it.  But with Roon as the front end, it's amazing.  And for me, I only have 96/24bit DAC and just use 88K settings and get much better sound than Roon alone. My DAC is a matching digital headphone amp for my AT L3000, so I"m not so eager to upgrade to the latest DSD dacs just yet.


----------



## Zoom25

krutsch said:


> I've been away from this thread for a while... going crazy trying various software combinations, out of curiosity.
> 
> Lately, I've been experimenting with Roon and HQ Player. So far, I am running Roon Server on a Mac Mini (2012) with Roon (remote) running on a MacBook Retina (2013).
> 
> ...


 

 Have you tried Bryston's own BUC-1 USB to AES converter?
  
 I've been pushing the BDP-1 to its max (isolation, mass loading/dampening). Feel like its very close to being maxed out. Unfortunately, my Mac's fallen behind in the meantime. I want to try and improve it as well. Will look at some of the stuff you mentioned.


----------



## rsbrsvp

I was wondering if anyone knows if it is possible to use itunes for playback from memmory?
  
 I actually like itunes sound the better than amarra. A plus, fidelia,  vox, and pure music.  I want to see if playing music using itunes from memmory would help even more?
  
 Please advise if this is possible.


----------



## Krutsch

rsbrsvp said:


> I was wondering if anyone knows if it is possible to use itunes for playback from memmory?
> 
> I actually like itunes sound the better than amarra. A plus, fidelia,  vox, and pure music.  I want to see if playing music using itunes from memmory would help even more?
> 
> Please advise if this is possible.


 
  
 If you are on a Mac, get Bitperfect from the app store. I think it's $9.99 US. Works great and will playback your files from memory.


----------



## Krutsch

zoom25 said:


> Have you tried Bryston's own BUC-1 USB to AES converter?
> 
> I've been pushing the BDP-1 to its max (isolation, mass loading/dampening). Feel like its very close to being maxed out. Unfortunately, my Mac's fallen behind in the meantime. I want to try and improve it as well. Will look at some of the stuff you mentioned.


 

 I would love to try a BUC-1, but it's expensive ($799). For my USB-to-SP/DIF converter, I have an UpTone Regen in front of it, powered by a high quality, 6v, regulated, linear power supply (Welborne Labs). The Bel Canto seems to do a great job, if you feed it a clean signal.
  
 How are you isolating/mass loading your BDP-1? Post some pics


----------



## Zoom25

krutsch said:


> I would love to try a BUC-1, but it's expensive ($799). For my USB-to-SP/DIF converter, I have an UpTone Regen in front of it, powered by a high quality, 6v, regulated, linear power supply (Welborne Labs). The Bel Canto seems to do a great job, if you feed it a clean signal.
> 
> How are you isolating/mass loading your BDP-1? Post some pics


 

  
  
 It looks really ghetto atm, but I have been moving all my furniture around the room to make a better acoustic environment for my incoming monitors. So currently, I have the BDP-1 on top of these custom speaker stands I had made in the past for monitors. They work surprisingly well and are dead. For other speakers in the house, I've used Primacoustic and Isoacoustics as well as good old heavy stands filled with sand and lead ---- these custom stands work just as well. Don't let the looks fool you.
  
 The Teradak underneath is a LPSU for my DAC (Dangerous Source, and it does wonders). I'm getting no interference from the LPS to mess with Bryston. I've even stacked the Teradak on BDP-1 in the past and it did nothing. They are both built like tanks. As for the weight on top of BDP-1, I've tried granite, marble, heavy books, and tiles leftover from when the house was being built. None of them really did anything. The tiles did however rob the bass impact and made the mids pronounced. It was a win/loss situation.
  
 So I figured, might use some extra weight/plates that I have laying around the house. Those three plates are each 7.5 pounds for a total of 22.5 pounds. I have the cloth underneath because the weights are rusting. I do have some newer plates as well as other material, but these plates in particular are very, very dead sounding. I've also been monitoring for heat from the weight and cloth and it seems to be fine.
  
 As for power, I am not using any fancy power cables. However, I am using a Tripp Lite power distribution unit that was being used with high end servers at my dad's place. I've preferred plugging BDP-1 straight into the wall rather than cheap surge protectors like Noma here in Canada (Canadian Tire/Walmart). Generic stuff basically, and they kill dynamics. The Tripp Lite essentially gives me a bunch of wall outlet performance from just one unit (perhaps even better). It works really well. Better than a lot of surge or power conditioners that rob power and dynamics. This thing just gets out the way. It's very passive. No switch either.
  
 Visually, it looks like crap, but acoustically it works nicely. Once my setup and location is more finalized, I'll do more like look into spikes for the Bryston, but honestly, that speaker stand is already very dead.
  
 EDIT1: Oh, and also getting Mogami 3173 to replace all my digital and analog runs. Mogami and dealers have apparently been suggesting this cable for both analog and digital for high end studios ($200k+)
  
 EDIT2: Also, I've been using longer digital cables to feed my DAC from Bryston BDP-1. Apparently, you can get reflectance and ghosting with short cables on some setups. Sure enough, I moved on to longer cables and it sounded better. Full discussion and explanation can be seen here for better context: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=140155.0


----------



## bgentry

Are you saying that putting weights on top of a digital player, with no moving parts, improves the sound? And also that different types of weights change the sound in different ways?

Brian?


----------



## sheldaze

Has anyone switched from USB back to S/PDIF output from their Mac, and then thought the original sound was pretty good?
  
 I've been using Amarra, Audirvana Plus, and JRiver - happily for a year. Only recently I acquired a Bifrost with the original USB ver 1 input, which is not to the standard I was used to - USB ver 2 and USB ver 3. So I connected the audio straight to the Toslink input on the DAC via the optical digital-out port on my Mac. And I continued to use Audirvana Plus, in iTunes Integrated Mode. But something seemed a little off. Going back to plain iTunes, it sounds quite good.
  
 I am still using Audirvana Plus in standalone mode to play my high resolution audio. But then I am not using it when using regular iTunes.
  
 TL;DR is I disliked iTunes via USB since the day I purchased my first USB DAC/AMP, but my DAC sounds fine to me via the optical digital-out port on my Mac. Has anyone observed the same?


----------



## b0bb

sheldaze said:


> Has anyone switched from USB back to S/PDIF output from their Mac, and then thought the original sound was pretty good?
> 
> I've been using Amarra, Audirvana Plus, and JRiver - happily for a year. Only recently I acquired a Bifrost with the original USB ver 1 input, which is not to the standard I was used to - USB ver 2 and USB ver 3. So I connected the audio straight to the Toslink input on the DAC via the optical digital-out port on my Mac. And I continued to use Audirvana Plus, in iTunes Integrated Mode. But something seemed a little off. Going back to plain iTunes, it sounds quite good.
> 
> ...


 

 The Mac's optical output is quite good, I use a Glass ADAT Cable from Apogee to my various DACs, works very well with older DACs that do not handle more than 96kHz sampling rate.
  
 I find USB on the Mac a bit of a hit and miss affair, the newer ones with USB3 can be noisy, although it cleans up nicely with a filter, I use then iFi iUSB Power brick.
 For best results the power for the DAC should not come from the Mac's USB port. If powered independently the results can be quite good, and is another reason I bought the iFi brick, there are quite a few vendors doing the same now as I have had the iFi for quite awhile now.
  
 Audirvana has a custom exclusive mode USB driver, try it and see if you like it any better than the default Core Audio Driver.
  
 I finally settled on a 2011 Sandybridge MacMini with USB2 after trying the more recent USB3 Haswell Minis and iMacs.


----------



## Zoom25

bgentry said:


> Are you saying that putting weights on top of a digital player, with no moving parts, improves the sound? And also that different types of weights change the sound in different ways?
> 
> Brian?


 

 Absolutely not! That would be just pure crazy!


----------



## sheldaze

b0bb said:


> The Mac's optical output is quite good, I use a Glass ADAT Cable from Apogee to my various DACs, works very well with older DACs that do not handle more than 96kHz sampling rate.
> 
> I find USB on the Mac a bit of a hit and miss affair, the newer ones with USB3 can be noisy, although it cleans up nicely with a filter, I use then iFi iUSB Power brick.
> For best results the power for the DAC should not come from the Mac's USB port. If powered independently the results can be quite good, and is another reason I bought the iFi brick, there are quite a few vendors doing the same now as I have had the iFi for quite awhile now.
> ...


 
 Glad to hear!
  
 I had even thought there may be some form of optimization occurring for the digital output versus the USB, which is not "advertised" as for music use. In my dedicated 2-channel rig I use a Mac mini, perhaps the one you quoted. I truly like the way it sounds via USB. And it is interesting that you did not like the newer Mac computers. I had thought to use a CEntrance DACport HD as my litmus test to take to the Apple store to try out newer computers - the DACport HD sounds quite good once you connect up a USB cleanup device. My preference is REGEN - cleans it up quite nicely!
  
 And I do use all the optimizations built-in Audirvana, for exclusion and such.
  
 Thanks for your reply!


----------



## Krutsch

I wanted to share my on-going experience with Roon and HQPlayer.
  
 I purchased a Cubox-i4Pro from solid-run.com and imaged a micro SD card with the HQPlayer Network Audio Adapter (NAA) build for that device (Signalyst.com has images for Raspberry Pi, Cubox, et al.), free to download. I literally downloaded, imaged the micro SD card and booted the device - no configuration, at all.
  
 End result:
  
 Mac Mini 2012, running RoonServer + HQPlayer > Wi-Fi > HQPlayer NAA on Cubox-i4Pro > USB > Schiit Wyrd > iPurifier 2 > Modi 2 Uber > Stereo...
  
 I am impressed that this all works, over Wi-Fi, up-sampling everything to 192/24 with the poly-sinc filter. I threw in an iFi Audio iPower 5v for clean power to the Cubox-i.
  
 Sounds incredible and for me is end-game as a streamer, at any price (well, a better DAC would be nice... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )
  
 Here's a pic (the USB thumb drive is a left-over from when I was running Volumio; it's been removed):


----------



## grokit

b0bb said:


> I finally settled on a 2011 Sandybridge MacMini with USB2 after trying the more recent USB3 Haswell Minis and iMacs.


 
  
 Me too, glad that was the good one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I've been getting dropouts in my system, with my optically-connected MBP as well. I changed to a firewire drive on the Mac Mini.
 Starting to suspect it's Amarra Hifi 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
_edit:_ I think I only notice dropouts with the MBP system when it's USB not optical (I use it both ways), so I'll try the Mac Mini with optical and see if that helps.


----------



## juanitox

> End result:
> 
> Mac Mini 2012, running RoonServer + HQPlayer > Wi-Fi > HQPlayer NAA on Cubox-i4Pro > USB > Schiit Wyrd > iPurifier 2 > Modi 2 Uber > Stereo...


 
  





  i 'm 47 , so i may be outdated to understand but can you tell me why you need all this thing to have a good sound ?   
  
 can your mac mini running  iTunes or audirvana etc..    bluetooth  to a Wyred4sound  BLInk  to your dac will not sound as good ?   ( or a USB regen to a usb dac)
 all this boxes and streaming process seems not necessary for me ?
  
 but i may be wrong 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 i '


----------



## iamoneagain

juanitox said:


> :eek:   i 'm 47 , so i may be outdated to understand but can you tell me why you need all this thing to have a good sound ?
> 
> can your mac mini running  iTunes or audirvana etc..    bluetooth  to a Wyred4sound  BLInk  to your dac will not sound as good ?   ( or a USB regen to a usb dac)
> all this boxes and streaming process seems not necessary for me ?
> ...




I'm about the same age, so that shouldn't play into this. I can answer a few things. 

Roon - more about the front end interface. Great way to combine Tidal and personal library. Has many discovery tools and unique ways to filter your library. 

HQPlayer - upsampling to higher PCM or conversion to DSD. This allows the player to use better filters and noise shaping than most hardware does in the Dac. Should result in better sound quality. 

The other stuff listed is a way to move the endpoint to remote location with no loss. Also to clean up power and signal if needed. 

I personally just use Roon with HQPlayer. Both have free trials. Not a big fan of iTunes anymore and sound quality easily beat by HQPlayer, Audirvana+, Amarra and others. Roon has on of the best front ends but not best sound so adding HQPlayer makes it amazing.


----------



## Krutsch

^^ Thanks, @iamoneagain , I couldn't have said it better


----------



## juanitox

> HQPlayer - upsampling to higher PCM or conversion to DSD. This allows the player to use better filters and noise shaping than most hardware does in the Dac. Should result in better sound quality.


 
  
 so the best gap in sound is to use HQplayer  in place of iTunes or other player  and make upsampling with it .   
 thanks for the info i will make a a try


----------



## iamoneagain

juanitox said:


> so the best gap in sound is to use HQplayer  in place of iTunes or other player  and make upsampling with it .
> thanks for the info i will make a a try :wink_face:




Just a note about HQPlayer. I feel it has the best sound on a Mac but it has some drawbacks. The interface is not great and it doesn't support ALAC files. 

This is where Roon comes in. It has a great interface and can play ALAC files which it converts to PCm and can send to HQPlayer. So it's the combination of the two. Roon is quite expensive so almost have to think of it as a hardware upgrade.


----------



## fuego

BitPerfect from app store is what I use


----------



## georgelai57

I see that Audirvana+ has a 2.4 version now. For those who have updated, please advise if the Play Queue feature is still there. It is the one feature that makes me not use my JRiver. Thanks.


----------



## bgentry

georgelai57 said:


> I see that Audirvana+ has a 2.4 version now. For those who have updated, please advise if the Play Queue feature is still there. It is the one feature that makes me not use my JRiver. Thanks.




Huh? JRiver's play queue is perhaps the most powerful, best implemented play queue I've ever seen. I'm talking about "Playing Now", the list of songs that are playing and will play. Is "play queue" something different in audirvana?

Brian.


----------



## georgelai57

bgentry said:


> Huh? JRiver's play queue is perhaps the most powerful, best implemented play queue I've ever seen. I'm talking about "Playing Now", the list of songs that are playing and will play. Is "play queue" something different in audirvana?
> 
> Brian.


 
 Thank, Brian but I just don't like JRiver. It just doesn't sit well in my eyes at least, sound notwithstanding.


----------



## johnjen

I also use JRiver and I know that it is a PC program port to Mac and unix etc.
 And what this means.
 It still has many pc attributes that haven't been fully addressed, and may never be.
  
 But if your comment about "sit well in my eyes" is based upon how it looks, it does have the ability to change the 'skin' and its color scheme.
  
 This can at least partially 'disguise' it's pc origins, just a touch anyway.
  
 JJ
 ps and in my tests it sounded 'best', and in defense of it's pc origins, once it is fully set up it can be very efficient and capable in terms of actual use.
 And granted it has WAY more functionality than I will ever want/need/use, which can make using it more cumbersome, but it still sounds better, (when it doesn't occasionally hiccup), than any of 6 other players I compared it to.


----------



## sheldaze

georgelai57 said:


> I see that Audirvana+ has a 2.4 version now. For those who have updated, please advise if the Play Queue feature is still there. It is the one feature that makes me not use my JRiver. Thanks.


 
 I thought it was strange I did not see this update on my laptop - this update seems to be for newer OSes. My Mac mini has the latest MacOS - my MacBook is running 10.7.5 and is no longer compatible the newest version of Audirvana+.
  
 I did not notice any UI differences on my desktop (2.4) versus laptop (2.2.5), so I believe the Play Queue is still there. I'll post back if when I next look it is missing.


----------



## georgelai57

sheldaze said:


> I thought it was strange I did not see this update on my laptop - this update seems to be for newer OSes. My Mac mini has the latest MacOS - my MacBook is running 10.7.5 and is no longer compatible the newest version of Audirvana+.
> 
> I did not notice any UI differences on my desktop (2.4) versus laptop (2.2.5), so I believe the Play Queue is still there. I'll post back if when I next look it is missing.



Hi, 

It's okay the Play Queue is still there. Thanks anyway.


----------



## mikesale

georgelai57 said:


> I see that Audirvana+ has a 2.4 version now. For those who have updated, please advise if the Play Queue feature is still there. It is the one feature that makes me not use my JRiver. Thanks.


 

 Play queue is still there.


----------



## bgentry

johnjen said:


> I also use JRiver and I know that it is a PC program port to Mac and unix etc.




Just a point of clarity. This is actually important. MC for Mac (and Linux) is not a "port". A port is when you take software from one platform and you rewrite it for another, trying to keep it as similar as possible. After the port is done, updates to the original won't appear in the port until someone updates the port. In fact, the updates might not ever happen at all.

JRiver Media Center is developed in a different way. Several years ago the JRiver team abstracted out all of the OS specific code and wrote their own display libraries, audio libraries, etc. Then they wrote "adapters" for their libraries for Windows, Mac, etc. The current version of Media Center is about 95% the same across all platforms. Updates happen to Mac and Windows almost at the same time. Because the code changes are only made once: In the master copy of the code. All they really have to do is compile each version (for Windows and Mac) and then release it to the public.

This is pretty amazing actually and means that MC21 for Mac behaves very very much like MC21 for Windows. There are some differences, but like I said, they are largely the same.



> It still has many pc attributes that haven't been fully addressed, and may never be.




Yes, this is definitely true. MC21 for Mac doesn't exactly look like a Mac application. I was initially put off by this. But the longer I used it, the more used to it I got, and more importantly, the more ADDICTED I got to it's features and interface.

Brian.


----------



## mikesale

bgentry said:


> Just a point of clarity. This is actually important. MC for Mac (and Linux) is not a "port". A port is when you take software from one platform and you rewrite it for another, trying to keep it as similar as possible. After the port is done, updates to the original won't appear in the port until someone updates the port. In fact, the updates might not ever happen at all.
> 
> JRiver Media Center is developed in a different way. Several years ago the JRiver team abstracted out all of the OS specific code and wrote their own display libraries, audio libraries, etc. Then they wrote "adapters" for their libraries for Windows, Mac, etc. The current version of Media Center is about 95% the same across all platforms. Updates happen to Mac and Windows almost at the same time. Because the code changes are only made once: In the master copy of the code. All they really have to do is compile each version (for Windows and Mac) and then release it to the public.
> 
> ...


 

 I completely understand both what they did and why they did it, unfortunately writing your own OS code puts you in the world of creating a "port" and that is exactly why the behavior is very close between ports (I say this having worked on porting code for highly complex software that makes MC21 look like child's play). The complaint is that it is TOO close to the PC version because of its heritage and nothing has gone the other way (i.e. there are influences from Mac OS X into Jriver OS replacement libraries as there are from Windows).
  
  It is for this very reason that this port _does not behave like other apps_ that follow the use of specific libraries that comply with not just the LaF but also the core behavior. For this reason, JRMC on the mac is isolated from integration with apps like TextExpander and Keyboard Maestro as well as standard OS behavior for shortcut keys, menus, etc.. 
  
 I can give you a specific behavioral pet peeve: shortcut keys for moving to the next song in the queue are long occupied by OS level keyboard shortcuts and it is a PITA to change them. There are plenty of quirks like this completely outside of the LaF issues (e.g. wasn't until very recently that the mac port got retina compatible fonts... even now, things are clearly a partial solution). 
  
 There are things I love about JRiver for organizing and displaying libraries, but it is undeniably quirky and unintuitive it is on the mac, let's not pretend otherwise. 
  
 It is, IMHO why JRiver's mac install base will always be susceptible to jumping ship when something new comes along that accomplishes that small gap that has kept people on JRMC. Audirvana isn't quite there (library organization through views is a game changer in JRMC) but is slowly getting there and in some ways passing JRMC beyond sonics. 
  
 Ultimately though, I think embedded Roon will be the dominant player/library manager for the current JRMC sweet spot users. The ELAC Streamer demo at RMAF made that very clear to me.


----------



## bgentry

mikesale said:


> It is for this very reason that this port _does not behave like other apps_ that follow the use of specific libraries that comply with not just the LaF but also the core behavior. For this reason, JRMC on the mac is isolated from integration with apps like TextExpander and Keyboard Maestro as well as standard OS behavior for shortcut keys, menus, etc..




Yep. I wasn't trying to imply otherwise.



> I can give you a specific behavioral pet peeve: shortcut keys for moving to the next song in the queue are long occupied by OS level keyboard shortcuts and it is a PITA to change them.




The default keyboard mappings are a little strange for sure. I changed them a long time ago to use keys that make sense to me *and* to mostly use keys that are just like other Mac apps. I can share my keyboard mappings file if anyone is interested.



> It is, IMHO why JRiver's mac install base will always be susceptible to jumping ship when something new comes along that accomplishes that small gap that has kept people on JRMC.




Now this I will disagree with. If look and feel are what you care about over functionality, then I guess that might be true. But the core functionality of MC... it's power... are completely unmatched by other software. In my opinion of course. As you said, the Views system alone is a really big deal. Add in the remotes (like JRemote), the expression language, and it's library handling, the Play Queue... and really there's nothing else even close. IMHO. If of course respect your opinion if you think other things are more important for you.

Brian.


----------



## mikesale

bgentry said:


> The default keyboard mappings are a little strange for sure. I changed them a long time ago to use keys that make sense to me *and* to mostly use keys that are just like other Mac apps. I can share my keyboard mappings file if anyone is interested.


 
 I am *very* interested in your Key mapping file!! My meager attempts at trying to get one to work have been false starts, so having a working one that make sense would be great.
  


bgentry said:


> Now this I will disagree with. If look and feel are what you care about over functionality, then I guess that might be true. But the core functionality of MC... it's power... are completely unmatched by other software. In my opinion of course. As you said, the Views system alone is a really big deal. Add in the remotes (like JRemote), the expression language, and it's library handling, the Play Queue... and really there's nothing else even close. IMHO. If of course respect your opinion if you think other things are more important for you.


 
 The most common complaint from people trying JRMC is its complexity. JRMC has become "power users only" over the years, and I'm quite happy with that, but most people would gladly trade complexity for simplicity and just a few things more then iTunes.
  
 You need to understand where I come from, my 6TB library with ½ classical music, much of it vinyl rip, is far from the norm. JRMC suites my extreme outlier needs. When I show other classical users what it can do with views, they love it, but when trying to actually teach them how to do it themselves, they tune out *fast*. They don't quite get the ROI, but that may be because for them, the return isn't worth that much to them. On the other hand, if you're a tinkerer/tweaker/maker, then JRMC is for you, no question about it.


----------



## mikesale

bgentry said:


> Just a point of clarity. This is actually important. MC for Mac (and Linux) is not a "port". A port is when you take software from one platform and you rewrite it for another, trying to keep it as similar as possible.


 
 Actually, this is called a fork, a port is when you create an OS Dependent (OSD) layer to abstract out the interaction of the app with the OS for each "port", but keep the essential functionality above that OSD layer. JRiver has moved much of what is OS UI library functionality into the core of JRiver. That's a choice that makes porting lower cost and allows customization of that OS library experience, but sacrifices the benefits of using OS libraries including interaction with other utilities (like TextExpander and Keyboard Maestro), but enables other "power" functionality without having to create more OSD code.


----------



## bgentry

mikesale said:


> I am *very* interested in your Key mapping file!! My meager attempts at trying to get one to work have been false starts, so having a working one that make sense would be great.




Here's the relevant portion of my Resource.xml file:


```

```

Put this in your Resource.xml file at:

~/Library/Application Support/J River/Media Center 21/Data/Custom Resources

That ~ above means "your user directory". I think you should have a Resource.xml file already. Just put the above lines in between the 
	
	



```
and
```
 tags.

NOTE: Every place in that file where it says "Ctrl", it really means the Command key on the Mac keyboard! Very important detail. So my shortcut for next song, which says "Ctrl;Right" really means Command-Right Arrow .



> When I show other classical users what it can do with views, they love it, but when trying to actually teach them how to do it themselves, they tune out *fast*. They don't quite get the ROI, but that may be because for them, the return isn't worth that much to them. On the other hand, if you're a tinkerer/tweaker/maker, then JRMC is for you, no question about it.




Ah, I get your perspective. The TAGGING of all of your classical collection is where all the effort is. Because classical doesn't have a well agreed upon standard for tagging. This is probably also why you mentioned Roon. Because it's leveraging a database of classical tags that are more sophisticated than most anything else out there.

It's interesting because JRiver has ALL the power you need to do really cool views and customize things the way you want it. Once you know how, it's not all that hard to do it either. But tagging your files properly... now THAT takes time! 

Hell, even getting nice cover art for every album takes up a lot of time. So I think I see where you are coming from.

If you have trouble with the Resource.xml key mappings, let me know and I'll try to help.

Brian.


----------



## mikesale

bgentry said:


> NOTE: Every place in that file where it says "Ctrl", it really means the Command key on the Mac keyboard! Very important detail. So my shortcut for next song, which says "Ctrl;Right" really means Command-Right Arrow .


 
 Is there a way to use the Mac Ctrl Key in shortcuts? (Looks like not?)
  
  


bgentry said:


> It's interesting because JRiver has ALL the power you need to do really cool views and customize things the way you want it. Once you know how, it's not all that hard to do it either. But tagging your files properly... now THAT takes time!
> 
> Hell, even getting nice cover art for every album takes up a lot of time. So I think I see where you are coming from.


 
 I've actually standardized tagging, scripted transformations in Yate, and created keyboard expansions for new or completely screwed up tags, so tagging a new takes about 30 seconds more then a well known and simple pop album. 
  
 I use the Jriver expression language to make mass updates (e.g. I recently replaced the "No." in work numbers with "№" to help with mobile viewing and created a regex to remove the key of work from the title to shorten things up substantially)
  
 I have a dead all-in-one printer that I use for scanning in booklets from CDs and album covers and THAT takes a long time, but JRiver cannot connect them with the album like both iTunes and Audirvana do quite easily. (Yes I know they're imported, but cannot be added to a Music media view from what I can tell, set me straight if you can!) As part of that process I have my cover art if Google doesn't.


----------



## johnjen

I'm not sure but KeyCue might be able to perform those Cntrl Key shortcuts and be re-assignable as well.
  
 But then again maybe not inside Media Center.
  
 And Media Center has, since its inception on Mac, ALWAYS behaved oddly.
 Occasional crashes, sometimes working just fine but then require fussing to get it to perform the function requested.
  
 And I am a tweaker and have fully 'customized' MC, which is nice and all, but some of the programs behavior is 'quirky' to put it lightly.
 For me, if it weren't for the superior SQ from MC vs the other players I have used, I'd have abandoned it, but SQ is primary on my list and I'm willing to 'put up with' its quirks.
  
 Still, I use it because I am accustom to how it operates, but it is decidedly NOT Mac like and not just because it's not intuitive.
 This is the 'standard' PC orientation, the user must 'learn' how to use the app, vs the Mac intuitive approach, that being, it's easy to learn and figure out, without having to use instructions.
  
 It kinda reminds me of iTunes in that it tries to be THE 'one stop app' that does it all…
 This coupled with the lack of 'fixing' the deep core functionality issues make MC a 'stop gap app'.
 Somebody will come along with a player that is tailored more closely to what I need, and will have the SQ etc, but without the added complication that I have turned off.
  
 JJ


----------



## Krutsch

johnjen said:


> ...
> 
> It kinda reminds me of iTunes in that it tries to be THE 'one stop app' that does it all…
> This coupled with the lack of 'fixing' the deep core functionality issues make MC a 'stop gap app'.
> *Somebody will come along with a player that is tailored more closely to what I need*, and will have the SQ etc, but without the added complication that I have turned off.


 
  
 For library management, I have stayed with iTunes + DougScripts.com. These two together really give me everything I can imagine, with respect to automating tasks in my library.
  
 For playback, I have recently re-vistited Audirvana+. The newest version, with the newest remote app for iPad, is quite a step up and the sound quality is reportedly TOTL (I personally believe that they all sound the same, but that's me).
  
 Food for thought...


----------



## AppleheadMay

krutsch said:


> For library management, I have stayed with iTunes + DougScripts.com. These two together really give me everything I can imagine, with respect to automating tasks in my library.
> 
> For playback, I have recently re-vistited Audirvana+. The newest version, with the newest remote app for iPad, is quite a step up and the sound quality is reportedly TOTL (I personally believe that they all sound the same, but that's me).
> 
> Food for thought...




I think they all sound the same as well that's why I use iTunes in classic view together with BitPerfect. Suits me fine.
I do have Audirvana as well though.

Those scripts look interesting. Can you give me some examples of what you use and why?


----------



## johnjen

krutsch said:


> For library management, I have stayed with iTunes + DougScripts.com. These two together really give me everything I can imagine, with respect to automating tasks in my library.
> 
> For playback, I have recently re-vistited Audirvana+. The newest version, with the newest remote app for iPad, is quite a step up and the sound quality is reportedly TOTL (I personally believe that they all sound the same, but that's me).
> 
> Food for thought...


 
 Yeah I have heard from a few independent sources that audirvana is improved.
  
 I'll download a trial and see.
 It's expensive, and I HAVE to have DSP with a panoply of functions.
  
 But I just ripped several hundred CD's and I tried to use MC for all of them…
 Alas iTunes worked where MC failed.
 Sigh.
  
 JJ


----------



## Krutsch

appleheadmay said:


> I think they all sound the same as well that's why I use* iTunes in classic view together with BitPerfect.* Suits me fine.
> I do have Audirvana as well though.
> 
> Those scripts look interesting. *Can you give me some examples of what you use and why?*


 
  
 I was an early fan of Bitperfect, but have moved away because of lack of AudioUnit support - I use Voxengo's HarmoniEQ and ACON Digital's Verberate Surround (for ambience up-matrixing in my surround system with 2-channel music - turns my small room into something that sounds quite large). Also, I have a Rega DAC which takes about 1/2 second to switch sample rates and A+ allows for a configurable sample rate switching delay.
  
 For the scripts: I have quite a collection, but mainly use these scripts to prep files for use with my Sony Walkman (NWZ-A17) and for creating MP3 CDs for my car. For example, re-embedding art work (instead of relying on the iTunes library files), scaling art work, exporting and converting to album folders to burn to CD, batch re-naming of files, auto-build playlists using ID3 tags, etc.
  
 Check out the site - there's a lot there: http://dougscripts.com/itunes/index.php
  
 I'm sure JRMC does many of these things, as well, but I prefer to stay within iTunes.


----------



## omasciarotte

norabati said:


> “All the music will be stored on a 500gb external solid state drive. I'm pretty sure that the setup will work but it would be a disaster to buy the Macbook and find that it cannot cope with pulling large audio files from an external drive rather than its own internal storage. So I just wondered if anyone had a similar setup and could give their opinion.”


 
  
  
 Hey Norabati,
  
 An i5 is fine, it’s the 4 GB I’d worry about. Get yourself a DRAM upgrade kit to 8 GB. I like macsales.com for stuff like that.
  
 Another factor: what are you going to do when that 500 GB drive goes down. It’s just a question of when…Invest US$100/yr in cloud backup from ElephantDrive, Dropbox or CrashPlan. As to Google Drive, they’re in the advertising business and, considering their prior data loss episodes, should not be trusted with irreplaceable information.


----------



## AppleheadMay

krutsch said:


> I was an early fan of Bitperfect, but have moved away because of lack of AudioUnit support - I use Voxengo's HarmoniEQ and ACON Digital's Verberate Surround (for ambience up-matrixing in my surround system with 2-channel music - turns my small room into something that sounds quite large). Also, I have a Rega DAC which takes about 1/2 second to switch sample rates and A+ allows for a configurable sample rate switching delay.
> 
> For the scripts: I have quite a collection, but mainly use these scripts to prep files for use with my Sony Walkman (NWZ-A17) and for creating MP3 CDs for my car. For example, re-embedding art work (instead of relying on the iTunes library files), scaling art work, exporting and converting to album folders to burn to CD, batch re-naming of files, auto-build playlists using ID3 tags, etc.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for the tips on the scripts, I'll look into it over the weekend!


----------



## bgentry

mikesale said:


> Is there a way to use the Mac Ctrl Key in shortcuts? (Looks like not?)




Not that I'm aware of. On the other hand, the control key is rather small and in a bad place for rapid key combinations, so it's not big deal. If I want another key, other than Command, to use as a modifier, alt is available.

Brian.


----------



## bgentry

johnjen said:


> I
> And Media Center has, since its inception on Mac, ALWAYS behaved oddly.
> Occasional crashes, sometimes working just fine but then require fussing to get it to perform the function requested.
> 
> And I am a tweaker and have fully 'customized' MC, which is nice and all, but some of the programs behavior is 'quirky' to put it lightly.




I totally understand if you don't like MC. Your other comments indicated that pretty well. But the above suggests that MC crashes all the time, doesn't work correctly, and that type of thing.

I've had occasional crashes. Not many, but they've happened. I tracked some of these down to a DLNA problem: I was using a network renderer (WD TV) that had a very unreliable wireless connection (too far away) and this caused MC to crash sometimes. Now that it's on a reliable connection I haven't had this happen again.

MC certainly requires some getting used to. If you want to tweak it, it definitely requires some work. Like the keyboard shortcuts file referenced above. It's not super duper easy, but it's doable.

But you make it sound entirely broken. Which is not my experience at all. I use MC just about every day for hours at a time.

Brian.


----------



## Lohb

Anyone else having this minor issue on 2.4 ?
 I tried my earphones out of my Macbook Air Cirrus 3.5" port and when I pulled them out when the music was playing before it would jump to internal speakers but now the track freezes with no sound.... it does not pause or release the track but locks up.


----------



## johnjen

bgentry said:


> I totally understand if you don't like MC. Your other comments indicated that pretty well. But the above suggests that MC crashes all the time, doesn't work correctly, and that type of thing.
> 
> I've had occasional crashes. Not many, but they've happened. I tracked some of these down to a DLNA problem: I was using a network renderer (WD TV) that had a very unreliable wireless connection (too far away) and this caused MC to crash sometimes. Now that it's on a reliable connection I haven't had this happen again.
> 
> ...


 
 I listen for 4-8hrs /day every day (with very few exceptions).
  
 And while these days it will crash ≈ every other day, while I was ripping it crashed twice.
  
 It also has numerous other 'quirks'.
 But I still do use it 24/7 and just restart in once a day which seems to reduce the amount of idiosyncratic behavior by quite a bit.
 Like I said I use it because it has the best SQ of all of the players I tested.
  
 But I do understand the reasons why Jriver operates as they do.
 I just wish they paid more attention to core functionality as well as adding features.
  
 And my crashes are not DLNA related as I turned it off (and left it off for months) and it made no difference to the behavior of the program.
  
 And while there are some aspects I do enjoy with MC such as the database functionality, even that has quirks, such as NOT finding albums that DO exist within the existing database.
  
 Like I said it has numerous quirks, which I have learned to live with…
  
 JJ


----------



## bgentry

johnjen said:


> I listen for 4-8hrs /day every day (with very few exceptions).
> 
> And while these days it will crash ≈ every other day, while I was ripping it crashed twice.




What version are you using? You should post a log of the crash so someone can try to figure out why it crashes so much for you.



> And while there are some aspects I do enjoy with MC such as the database functionality, even that has quirks, such as NOT finding albums that DO exist within the existing database.




That's not normal at all. The database is rock solid. What happens when MC "can't find an album" ?

Brian.


----------



## johnjen

bgentry said:


> What version are you using? You should post a log of the crash so someone can try to figure out why it crashes so much for you.
> That's not normal at all. The database is rock solid. What happens when MC "can't find an album" ?
> 
> Brian.


 
 I'm using the latest version of 21 (21.0.66)
 And previously I was on the last version of 20.
  
 Mac OS automatically sends in a crash report every time it crashes.
 And I prefer to keep my crash 'log' out of the forum, as it becomes a source of consternation after a while.
 I used to try to report such behavior, but other than very early in the dev. process it hasn't really made much difference.
 And in thinking about it a bit more, now the crash frequency is probably more like once to twice a week, and not every other day (all the while restarting at least once a day).
  
 When I use either the wizard or click on the arrow to the left of the album name or artist, often times it comes back with nothing listed.
 I see this as a result of a 'strict' search protocol (misspelled or incomplete spelling result in nothing being returned)
 Which I can understand due to the nature of the search parameters, but it means I have to be exact (there is no 'wiggle' room), and even then sometimes it can't find the album that I know is listed in the database.
  
 And as I stated early on, I do understand the difficulty in taking an existing version and port it over to different platforms.  It can take lots of time and fussing to resolve some of the more esoteric issues such as the close/minimize/resize buttons not being in the 'correct' position above the title bar etc.
 And I also realize the financial investment they have made in 'branching out' from the PC platform to Mac and Unix platforms, and the need to 'recoup' those resources.
  
 Still the core issues remain, more or less a secondary issue in terms of 'fixing' them, other than cleaning up the new features that are added.
 And it isn't to difficult for me to induce a crash, so I have learned to be deliberate and careful when using the program, and restart when I seethe behavior start to stutter.
 And I'm probably an exception in terms of their 'usual' customer in that I run MC 24/7 in a continual loop with 8-12hrs of music loaded in the cue at any point in time…
  
 Lastly I do appreciate your concern and willingness to help resolve any of this, but after this much time has passed It seems unlikely they will change their priorities in terms of dealing with issues such as these, and probably not just on my account.
  
 And to be fair most folks will probably never see this degree of crashing and 'quirky' behavior, especially if they aren't running 24/7.
 So it's only when used in 'extreme' conditions where these issues seem to arise.
 And it probably is my expectation for the app to better act or conform to the Mac standard, which, is also unlikely due to it's pc origins, which isn't altogether a bad thing, but it doesn't quite 'measure up' either.
 So it may just be my biases, but crashes and quirky behavior tells me core s/w issues remain in the code and I see them all the time.
  
 JJ


----------



## bgentry

I don't think you're being exactly fair about this.

1. You say it won't find mis-spelled entries if you look for the correct spelling. (using the links next to album or artist names). Ok, this is true. It's not a feature. Meaning that JRMC doesn't have fuzzy search built in to these shortcut keys. This doesn't work on any version of MC, including the Windows version.
2. You're not willing to do any troubleshooting on your crashes. If you don't want to post a log here, that actually makes sense. Post a log over at the JRiver forums instead. That's where they belong anyway.
3. Your conclusion is that the code has "core issues".

I'm not trying to be harsh or anything, but that just makes no sense to me.

If #2 is still true, I have one suggestion for you that's easy to test: Turn off auto import and see what happens.

I really do wish you good luck with this and I'm willing to try to help, over at the jriver forums, if you ever change your mind.

Happy listening.

Brian.


----------



## johnjen

I know that MC doesn't have 'fuzzy search', but not finding albums that are spelled correctly is also part of the 'problem', or what I would term a 'core issue'.
  
 And you're correct I'm not willing to put any more time into the crashes, for 2 reasons.
 #1 If I'm the only one who is experiencing them to this degree then the motivation to fix them is 'slight' as has been the case all along, since they are still a common enough occurrence.
 #2 If they are much more common and others are reporting them (and there has been evidence of this all along) they should, given enough time, have dealt with many of these 'core issues' already, only I don't see any real change in this regard.
  
 But really the crashes are just one of the 'core issues', albeit one of the more time consuming ones.
  
 And to give you an idea of a relatively minor 'core issue'…
 Every time I start MC, within a minute after the main screen comes up, a drop down tool bar will 'pop' up on screen and then as soon as I click elsewhere it goes away.
 This is related to when the DLNA services have completed their startup routine.
 It was one of the reasons I turned off the DLNA services, which I recently turned back on and was reminded of why I turned it off in the first place.
 I have reported this in the past, but this particular 'core issue' remains.
 There are numerous other 'quirks' as well.
  
 And auto import has never been on.
  
 And I do appreciate your willingness to help, but at this point It seems clear to me that the course Jriver is on isn't going to change, nor do I expect it to.
 They will do what they deem necessary in order to continue to develop their products. 
 They are a work in progress after all…
 And all of this may be due to the s/w development tools they are using to generate the code and search for 'bugs', in which case there really isn't much they can do, except wait for the bugs to be removed, before they can do so as well.
  
 And I'd rather have this player to use, instead of not.
 And I still do use it as my player of choice, and I will continue to find work arounds for the 'quirks', because as I stated it has the best SQ and for that I'm willing to deal with the 'quirks'.
  
 JJ


----------



## bgentry

johnjen said:


> I know that MC doesn't have 'fuzzy search', but not finding albums that are spelled correctly is also part of the 'problem', or what I would term a 'core issue'.




Can you describe this? It's not clear what you are trying to do and what the results are. Or how you "find" these albums that MC fails to find under some conditions.

I won't try to troubleshoot the rest of your issues as you've made it clear that you're not interested.

Brian.


----------



## johnjen

When I was re-ripping the very same albums back into the library, I would click on the circled arrow to the left of either the album name or the artist and more often than not nothing would be returned in the search window.
  
 My immediate thought was how is this even possible?
 I mean it's the same album that I have been listening to all along, yet the search engine doesn't find it.
 But when I 'manually' search for that specific album, there it is.
  
 JJ


----------



## bgentry

^ You almost certainly have a metadata mismatch between your older albums and the new ones. It could be as simple as something like "The Black Crowes" versus "Black Crowes, The" . Those look like two different artists. Yet a search for "the black crowes" will bring up both.

The link arrows you are describing do an *exact* search. So order of names matter. The general search isn't exact and it goes across many fields at the same time: Album, artist, comments, file name, etc. The general search is very powerful in that way.

I'm rather confident that you have a mismatch somewhere that is making you think things are broken, when in fact it's your metadata. Examine the tags carefully, and I'll bet you'll find the difference. One powerful way of doing this, is to find two things that should "match" but do not. Highlight them both. Open the Tagging Window. Now look through the fields that should be the same: Artist, Album, etc. Any that say "varies" have at least 2 different values.

Brian.


----------



## johnjen

Yeah you're probably right about that.
  
 Which I suppose would only be a problem under limited conditions, such as re-ripping already existing tracks.
  
 Thanks for the analysis.
  
 JJ


----------



## Currawong

I've added HQPlayer to the first post and made a few updates to the descriptions. Are their any other players I should add?


----------



## Krutsch

currawong said:


> I've added HQPlayer to the first post and made a few updates to the descriptions. Are their any other players I should add?


 
  
 Roon? I would consider a Roon an iTunes alternative.
  
 Otherwise, I am not aware of any and thanks for the thread.
  
 I will add this: I was very surprised by the elegant simplicity of Vox and even use it to curate M3u8 playlists for my MPD-based streamers.


----------



## Lohb

Had issues loading 16/44 tracks on 2.5 out to Chord Mojo after the upgrade to OSX 10.11.5.
 Now after upgrading to A+ 2.5.1.3 I'm getting this below, whereas before, direct mode was no problem out to external DACs....anyone else having this problem ?
  
 DOWNER ! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  
 EDIT : It is the latest OSX update that has messed with direct mode on A+.
 A+ reply from Damien the designer.....
  
 "Apple has unfortunately introduced a regression with 10.11.5 update that breaks Direct Mode.
 Until they fix it, you have to disable Direct Mode (option in Audio System page of preferences) to get playback to start.
If you want to get it back, you can replace the faulty kernel extension of 10.11.5, IOAudioFamily.kext, located in /System/Library/Extensions, by one from a former El Capitan version, if you have a backup.
 You may need to disable SIP to make this operation.
 And iTunes 12.4 is breaking compatibility with previous versions. I’ve added support for it in the 2.5.1.1 you can upgrade to."
  
 After trying the kext replacement, I had no sound devices at all. I just had to roll back to 10.11.4.


----------



## Krutsch

lohb said:


> ...
> 
> After trying the kext replacement, I had no sound devices at all. I just had to roll back to 10.11.4.


 
  
 A lot of problems with 10.11.5, like SMB/CIFS access to NAS drives. Apple will be pushing a fix, I expect.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Didn't have a problem with Audirvana since 10.11.5. Audirvana relased a couple of updtes the last few days I saw so maybe thet'll solve it?

What I did notice is that Apple succeeded in making iTunes more cumbersome to navigate instead of the opposite claims they make. Why don't they keep their paws of such a fine music library system?


----------



## Krutsch

appleheadmay said:


> ...
> 
> What I did notice is that *Apple succeeded in making iTunes more cumbersome* to navigate instead of the opposite claims they make. Why don't they keep their paws of such a fine music library system?


 
  
 Agreed.


----------



## Lohb

appleheadmay said:


> Didn't have a problem with Audirvana since 10.11.5. Audirvana relased a couple of updtes the last few days I saw so maybe thet'll solve it?
> 
> What I did notice is that Apple succeeded in making iTunes more cumbersome to navigate instead of the opposite claims they make. Why don't they keep their paws of such a fine music library system?


 

 Do you use DIRECT mode ? Apart from that being disabled on my A+ and 10.11.5 build, everything functioned.


----------



## Lohb

If anyone can post when they get the bugs fixed that would be great. I've disabled updates in the meantime.


----------



## artur9

appleheadmay said:


> What I did notice is that Apple succeeded in *making iTunes more cumbersome to navigate* instead of the opposite claims they make. Why don't they keep their paws of such a fine music library system?


 
 I stopped using iTunes years ago because they f'd up how podcasts work when transferred to an iPod.  Now their most recent updates f's up podcasts even more.
  
 Of course, they also know the metadata your songs should have better than you do so they trash any changes you make whenever they feel like it.
  
 If I didn't have iPods I wouldn't use it at all.


----------



## bgentry

appleheadmay said:


> What I did notice is that Apple succeeded in making iTunes more cumbersome to navigate instead of the opposite claims they make. Why don't they keep their paws of such a fine music library system?




Apple has been breaking and changing the core functionality of ITunes forever. As early as 2006 or so I was frustrated by them "pulling the rug out from under me" with each new release. Oh look, cover flow! It's the best thing ever. A few years later: Bye Bye Cover Flow, you're old now and Apple says we can't use you. They constantly change how things work, where things are, and force you to relearn now to use features. This is the worst thing you could do to your user community.

I can't see myself ever using itunes again. It's almost a case study in how NOT to do interface design and evolution.

Brian.


----------



## AppleheadMay

lohb said:


> Do you use DIRECT mode ? Apart from that being disabled on my A+ and 10.11.5 build, everything functioned.


 
  
 Nope, but just tried it and works as well. I usually don't use Audirvana though, I prefer BitPerfect.
  


artur9 said:


> I stopped using iTunes years ago because they f'd up how podcasts work when transferred to an iPod.  Now their most recent updates f's up podcasts even more.
> 
> Of course, they also know the metadata your songs should have better than you do so they trash any changes you make whenever they feel like it.
> 
> If I didn't have iPods I wouldn't use it at all.


 
  
 I like the way I can organize my music in iTunes (the old column browser way) but I'd prefer they'd stop messing with it.
 Don't have problems with changing metadata though, it all remains just the way I put it, even covers, my own genres and lyrics.
 I completely diabled Apple Music though, I have no need for AAC crap.
  
  


bgentry said:


> Apple has been breaking and changing the core functionality of ITunes forever. As early as 2006 or so I was frustrated by them "pulling the rug out from under me" with each new release. Oh look, cover flow! It's the best thing ever. A few years later: Bye Bye Cover Flow, you're old now and Apple says we can't use you. They constantly change how things work, where things are, and force you to relearn now to use features. This is the worst thing you could do to your user community.
> 
> I can't see myself ever using itunes again. It's almost a case study in how NOT to do interface design and evolution.
> 
> Brian.


 
  
 Well, as I said, I use it my own way, old column browser style. Never used cover flow and don't use their album views or anything else they put in.
 If they manage to take out the column browser I'll have to look elsewhere as well.


----------



## gefski

Received A+ upgrade 2.5.1.4, says it will fix Direct Mode problem. Haven't loaded it yet because I haven't seen OS X upgrade 10.11.5 yet.


----------



## Krutsch

gefski said:


> Received A+ upgrade 2.5.1.4, says it will fix Direct Mode problem. Haven't loaded it yet because I haven't seen OS X upgrade 10.11.5 yet.


 

 Thank for the heads-up... Direct Mode works great now!


----------



## gefski

I'm fairly new to A+. Feel good about their response time addressing this issue.


----------



## brent75

Has anyone compared A+ to Roon, and if so is there a noticeable sound difference?

(as well as thoughts on UI and whatnot)


----------



## Krutsch

brent75 said:


> Has anyone compared A+ to Roon, and if so is there a noticeable sound difference?
> 
> (as well as thoughts on UI and whatnot)


 

 Lots of discussion on the Roon forum. As usual with this sort of thing, no real conclusions.


----------



## Zoom25

brent75 said:


> Has anyone compared A+ to Roon, and if so is there a noticeable sound difference?
> 
> (as well as thoughts on UI and whatnot)


 

 I did a few months back using my Macbook Pro. Found Audirvana to be better.


----------



## reiserFS

I kinda like the DSD upsampling introduced in the last version of Audirvana. A few crashes here and there, but otherwise quite stable for a experimental feature.


----------



## mikesale

The Roon UX is amazing. You'd think it was a Steve Jobs inspired project from Apple... Except for Classical music, or music that is not well published by the music industry.
  
 My head to head listening on *my* system and setup has very slight, but clearly noticeable sound differences with A+ coming out on top. 
  
 Just to give you a look into the poor support of classical I took a snapshot of the genre categorization from Roon. If you know classical you'll recognize most if not all these images are all taken from very well tagged classical music and frankly not that obscure either. It was so funny I just had to share!


----------



## artur9

mikesale said:


> Just to give you a look into the poor support of classical I took a snapshot of the genre categorization from Roon.


 
 Yeah, I was floored when Roon couldn't identify one of the most famous classical pieces from a Spanish composer that was played by Miles Davis - repeatedly.
  
 Then they stiffed me the hundred bucks.  Not going there.  Linn Kazoo gives me what I need for now.


----------



## Krutsch

mikesale said:


> The Roon UX is amazing. You'd think it was a Steve Jobs inspired project from Apple... *Except for Classical music, or music that is not well published by the music industry.*
> 
> My head to head listening on *my* system and setup has very slight,* but clearly noticeable sound differences with A+ coming out on top*.
> 
> Just to give you a look into the poor support of classical I took a snapshot of the genre categorization from Roon. If you know classical you'll recognize most if not all these images are all taken from very well tagged classical music and frankly not that obscure either. It was so funny I just had to share!


 
  
 Agreed on both points. I am not renewing my subscription. I am tired of "curating" my collection twice and I agree that A+ is a better sound experience.
  
 The final straw for me was the whole "paw masher" UI for adding tracks to the queue. A common playback scenario for me goes like this:
  
 1. Open an album
 2. Play track 3, then 5 then 12 and then maybe 3 again, because I like that one.
  
 Try doing that with Roon ... it's ridiculous how hard they made that simple, CD-player-like scenario.
  
 Just my $0.02...


----------



## AppleheadMay

mikesale said:


> The Roon UX is amazing. You'd think it was a Steve Jobs inspired project from Apple... Except for Classical music, or music that is not well published by the music industry.
> 
> My head to head listening on *my* system and setup has very slight, but clearly noticeable sound differences with A+ coming out on top.
> 
> Just to give you a look into the poor support of classical I took a snapshot of the genre categorization from Roon. If you know classical you'll recognize most if not all these images are all taken from very well tagged classical music and frankly not that obscure either. It was so funny I just had to share!




Now we know where Rap started!


----------



## Lohb

2.5.1.4 and 10.11.5 working with DIRECT MODE here...Yes that was a fast hit by Damien in fixing the OSX update headache.


----------



## Currawong

I must have missed the problem, as I updated Audirvana a few days before I updated OSX. 
  
 I'm trialling Roon at the moment. I have ZERO pretensions of trying to use it like I would iTunes or Audirvana Plus, but only for TIDAL or having it try and curate my library (ie: play random music I hadn't played before). I was using TIDAL the same way, with a "I'll take my chances on this playlist" method of listening based around genres. I find TIDAL is as hopeless at, say, selecting jazz as the Roon software is. Usefully for me at least, I can plug a bunch of DACs into various computers and have them play all at once for comparisons.


----------



## mikesale

currawong said:


> I'm trialling Roon at the moment. I have ZERO pretensions of trying to use it like I would iTunes or Audirvana Plus, but only for TIDAL or having it try and curate my library (ie: play random music I hadn't played before). I was using TIDAL the same way, with a "I'll take my chances on this playlist" method of listening based around genres. I find TIDAL is as hopeless at, say, selecting jazz as the Roon software is. Usefully for me at least, I can plug a bunch of DACs into various computers and have them play all at once for comparisons.


 
 I absolutely love how Roon allows you to explore popular (in terms of music industry, not "pop" per se) music in your collection and in Tidal's. I've had a great time reading the write ups on artists like Miles Davis and others. The UX experience of music related content integrated with the music is sensational. Something I would never want Audirvana to invest in though, this same content is easily available via google and I can pull up safari and I'm off to the races with Audirvana playing the music and being controlled by the IOS remote... just a different experience.
  
 Audirvana is great at playing what you know you want from what you have access to. Roon good at exploring Rock, Pop, etc. to "remember" & "discover" music I want to engage & remember, but definitely *not* worth my money given my musical tastes. I also agree that the HTML-based UX isn't the best for constructing a play queue/playlists. For example the "right click to multi select" is just not intuitive.


----------



## Krutsch

currawong said:


> *I must have missed the problem*, as I updated Audirvana a few days before I updated OSX.
> 
> *I'm trialling Roon at the moment.* I have ZERO pretensions of trying to use it like I would iTunes or Audirvana Plus, but only for TIDAL or having it try and curate my library (ie: play random music I hadn't played before). I was using TIDAL the same way, with a "I'll take my chances on this playlist" method of listening based around genres. I find TIDAL is as hopeless at, say, selecting jazz as the Roon software is. Usefully for me at least, I can plug a bunch of DACs into various computers and have them play all at once for comparisons.


 
  
 The Direct Mode issue was very quickly fixed.
  
@Currawong After you have some time with Roon, I would be curious to read your impressions on sound quality. There are some very active threads on the Roon forum on this topic, with many writing that the sound is flat and lifeless. Speaking technically, it seems that Roon should sound like every other player, but maybe not.
  
 An interesting read on the topic from Roon: https://kb.roonlabs.com/Sound_Quality


----------



## reiserFS

Did anyone else keep an eye on the memory usage for Audirvana Plus? It creeps up to 4GB while upsampling to DSD, which is just horrible.


----------



## Krutsch

A quick FYI, if you are interested in exchanging your PC with something inexpensive for Roon playback (i.e. as an endpoint).
  
https://community.roonlabs.com/t/setting-up-a-raspberry-pi2-with-roonbridge-step-by-step-osx-version/9915
  
 ...someone created a nice FAQ for installing your own Roon Bridge software in a Rasp. Pi or Cubox-i.
  
 I have the latter, for which I paid $139.00 from solid-run.com. Took me about 5 minutes to walk through the steps in FAQ and voila - a high quality Roon Ethernet-to-USB-to-DAC endpoint.
  
 I may renew my subscription after all, when it expires...


----------



## iamoneagain

krutsch said:


> The Direct Mode issue was very quickly fixed.
> 
> @Currawong After you have some time with Roon, I would be curious to read your impressions on sound quality. There are some very active threads on the Roon forum on this topic, with many writing that the sound is flat and lifeless. Speaking technically, it seems that Roon should sound like every other player, but maybe not.
> 
> An interesting read on the topic from Roon: https://kb.roonlabs.com/Sound_Quality


 

 If you really like Roon but not happy with the sound quality you can invest a little more and add HQPlayer to the mix.  It just runs in the background once setup and Roon is the front end.  It's a huge improvement with a DSD player (ifi micro dsd) but even with just PCM upsampling it's better.  I've compared the sound quality against the latest Audirvana + DSD beta and can't find any setting in Audivana that sound just as good.  Audivana sounds great but there's something just more natural and lifelike that I find with my current HQPlayer settings. 
  
 As far as the Roon interface, I just listen to mostly 80's alternative and new indie music, so it does a great job with that.  My only issue is there is sometimes a few days lag before a new Tidal release shows up but that claim they are fixing that.  I also find the metadata sometimes takes a few weeks to show up new releases.  Always look forward to what new updates they'll release.  My wishlist would be remote internet access to my home library from work pc or iPhone.


----------



## Krutsch

iamoneagain said:


> *If you really like Roon but not happy with the sound quality you can invest a little more and add HQPlayer to the mix*.
> 
> ...
> 
> As far as the Roon interface, I just listen to mostly 80's alternative and new indie music, so it does a great job with that.  My only issue is there is sometimes a few days lag before a new Tidal release shows up but that claim they are fixing that.  *I also find the metadata sometimes takes a few weeks to show up new releases. * Always look forward to what new updates they'll release.  My wishlist would be remote internet access to my home library from work pc or iPhone.


 
  
 Yes. I've done the HQ Player thing. The SQ improvement depends on our DAC. I've used both a Cubox-i4Pro NAA implementation (too many drop-outs) and a MacBook Retina front-end with CUDA off-load (that works well). Fun to play around with, no doubt.
  
 My biggest gripe with Roon is I am in the role of curating my library twice - once when I rip the CD or download the files (e.g. HDTracks) and again when something doesn't match up or isn't, yet, in the Roon database.
  
 I buy a lot of new music and that's been hit-or-miss. Still, I think it's worth it for the discovery portion, all on its own. Today, I am listening to Mark Murphy, a Jazz singer who's newer release I bought a few years ago, but didn't listen to much. Roon surfaced his bio and I looked at the albums available in TIDAL and am now listening to his debut release from 1956.
  
 I've had similar experiences from my much deeper classical collection. This is the magic of Roon.
  
 My second biggest gripe is the queue / playback model, but I've ranted about that already


----------



## Currawong

reiserfs said:


> Did anyone else keep an eye on the memory usage for Audirvana Plus? It creeps up to 4GB while upsampling to DSD, which is just horrible.


 
  
  


iamoneagain said:


> krutsch said:
> 
> 
> > The Direct Mode issue was very quickly fixed.
> ...


 
  
 I'd like to give this a go, but the Signalyst site has no explanation about how to set anything up. I haven't even worked out how to remove items from the playlist in HQPlayer! That it started up with the volume at zero, leading me to a massive run-around trying to work out why I didn't have sound doesn't encourage me.


----------



## iamoneagain

currawong said:


> I'd like to give this a go, but the Signalyst site has no explanation about how to set anything up. I haven't even worked out how to remove items from the playlist in HQPlayer! That it started up with the volume at zero, leading me to a massive run-around trying to work out why I didn't have sound doesn't encourage me.


 

 With Roon, you don't have to worry about playlist or anything else on HQPlayer.  Anything you play thru Roon goes thru HQPlayer.  Roon is the front end and HQPlayer the back end.  What you need to do is setup the filter settings to your liking.
  
 This should help you get setup.  Start with 2nd post by Miska. And then his 5th post for DSD setup.
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/hqplayer-resampling-filter-setup-guide-ordinary-person-13298/
  
 I personally like:
  
 Poly-Sinc-short since it sounds the most analog to my ears.  My setting is:
  
 poly-sinc-short
 ASDM5
 11.2896
  
 I have an ifi micro dsd so I also use: 
  
 SDM Pack: DoP  and on main screen, the 4th drop-down is SDM (DSD).  With these settings I get DSD256 upsampling. Also make sure volume is set to -3 for DSD.  He says to put -6 minimum number and 0 as max and set dial in-between. 
  
 I'll admit HQPlayer is very confusing but once you set it up and find the filters you like, you don't have to touch it again using Roon.  
  
 Forgot to add how to get Roon to work with HQPlayer.
  
 Go to Settings on Roon, Audio, Add Network Device, HQPlayer, and leave default localhost if installed on same machine.  If on different machine, you'd need to get the local IP address and enter in there and then on HQPlayer make sure the globe icon is selected.  Then choose HQPlayer as your output for Roon.  Depending on your settings it make take a few moments to first load up.


----------



## Krutsch

currawong said:


> I'd like to give this a go, but the Signalyst site has no explanation about how to set anything up. I haven't even worked out how to remove items from the playlist in HQPlayer! That it started up with the volume at zero, leading me to a massive run-around trying to work out why I didn't have sound doesn't encourage me.


 

 The post from @iamoneagain  is helpful. There is also this post on the Roon Community forum which walks you through setting up HQ Player with Roon:
  
https://community.roonlabs.com/t/how-do-i-use-roon-and-hqplayer-together/5866
  
 HQ Player's user experience is a horror-show, so I would recommend only using it with Roon. The link above shows how to set that up (it's pretty straight-forward).


----------



## reiserFS

I've switched back to no DSD upsampling for now. Audirvana now sits at a good 300mb, not what I would call efficient, but way better. Well, it sure is a experimental feature.


----------



## Slaphead

reiserfs said:


> I've switched back to no DSD upsampling for now. Audirvana now sits at a good 300mb, not what I would call efficient, but way better. Well, it sure is a experimental feature.




That's part of the way that Audivana works - it loads the entire current track and the following track into RAM. Not only that, but if you have upsampling enabled and/or any AU effects active then Audivana pre-processes that before loading it into RAM. So that 30mb FLAC file can explode into a 500MB monster by the time it hits RAM, depending on your settings.

Doing it this way does mean that Audivana does hog RAM, but it also means that when playing Audivana uses very little processor time, except for when the pre-processing happens.


----------



## Lohb

EDIT.Removed.
 Post sounds like DBT territory.
 Was meant as learning questions about up-sampling effects on sound quality in A+


----------



## Currawong

I figured out how to use the HQPlayer network demon. I started it in terminal and it showed up in Roon straight away. I'm not sure I'll bother with it though. Someone who, say, bought one of the new Audio-gd NOS DACs that take 768k input over USB might find benefit from it, as one could choose a filter to taste and run audio through it that way.


----------



## Krutsch

currawong said:


> I figured out how to use the HQPlayer network demon. I started it in terminal and it showed up in Roon straight away. I'm not sure I'll bother with it though. Someone who, say, bought one of the new Audio-gd NOS DACs that take 768k input over USB might find benefit from it, as one could choose a filter to taste and run audio through it that way.


 

 You might be surprised how well it helps less expensive DACs, like a Schiit Audio Modi 2 Uber, up-sampling PCM to 192/24 with various filters.


----------



## Currawong

krutsch said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I figured out how to use the HQPlayer network demon. I started it in terminal and it showed up in Roon straight away. I'm not sure I'll bother with it though. Someone who, say, bought one of the new Audio-gd NOS DACs that take 768k input over USB might find benefit from it, as one could choose a filter to taste and run audio through it that way.
> ...


 

 Not surprised at all. I've had a few Sabre-based DACs and numerous DAPs that all sounded better when, at least, iZotope up-sampling was used with them.  The stock DAC filters used in a lot of gear are clearly inferior to other options.


----------



## Currawong

I've added Eltima player and VLC. The former is interesting as it can be used to view Youtube videos, as well as save them if you buy the pro version.


----------



## Slaphead

I've just discovered VOX - it took a while, I know.

I just love it - it's exactly how I want a music player to be. I don't want library management, and that's what really put me off Audivana 2 - I tried the demo and found it frustrating to say the least as all I want to do is drag and drop what I want without any of the extra library management bull.

I was perfectly happy with Audivana 1.5x, but I've just had to update to 10.11 from 10.9 to be able to use the latest version of Logic X, and Audivana 1.5 started getting cranky - it would take several attempts to get a track to play.

The way you can reduce the size of VOX to just an efficient little miniplayer is great, and honestly I don't hear any difference between it Audivana.


----------



## aamefford

I finally purchased both Amarra and Amarra for Tidal at a show special price.  I think they sound better, maybe....  Main reason was to get a remote for Tidal.  They both seem painfully slow loading songs into the buffer to play, and I mean painfully, at least to me.  I'll admit to a slow-ish 1.6 GHz mid 2011 processor, but reasonable network speed for Amarra for Tidal, and USB 3 drive into a Thunderbolt hub for Amarra.  That said, I do otherwise like them.  Clunky, but they sound decent.
  
 Supposedly a new product coming that may have solutions for both library files and streaming in one program, and supposedly an upgrade path for existing owners, per the nice gentleman at the show.


----------



## rockwell

is there an itunes replacement with media management and the possibility to sync a dap like it's possible with itunes and an ipod? i want my music library in one place and i don't want to use apps like dapper/chronisar/syncmate to send my library to an external storage. any ideas?


----------



## tjw321

rockwell said:


> is there an itunes replacement with media management and the possibility to sync a dap like it's possible with itunes and an ipod? i want my music library in one place and i don't want to use apps like dapper/chronisar/syncmate to send my library to an external storage. any ideas?


 
 I haven't used it for many years, but IIRC DoubleTwist used to be able to do this. https://www.doubletwist.com/
 It's a really long time since I used it so you'll need to check whether or not it still will do what you want.


----------



## rockwell

tjw321 said:


> I haven't used it for many years, but IIRC DoubleTwist used to be able to do this. https://www.doubletwist.com/
> It's a really long time since I used it so you'll need to check whether or not it still will do what you want.


 

 thank you, i'll give it a try!


----------



## Krutsch

rockwell said:


> is there an itunes replacement with media management and the possibility to sync a dap like it's possible with itunes and an ipod? i want my music library in one place and i don't want to use apps like dapper/chronisar/syncmate to send my library to an external storage. any ideas?


 

 What I do with my Sony NWZ-A17 ... I have a Mac and use iTunes for library management with a Doug's Scripts app called M3Unify, which will let you directly export an iTunes playlist, the associated tracks, ensuring the art work is included, even convert on the fly to different formats and then export into a folder with a bunch of options.
  
 Then, I use an app called GoodSync to sync that folder with a microSD card on the Sony.


----------



## artur9

I am moving away from iTunes as much as possible.  
  
 Anyone now of a good podcast manager + DAP combination?  Particularly if the DAP will honor playlist ordering as specified in the manager?  iTunes stopped doing that years ago.


----------



## Wilderness

rockwell said:


> is there an itunes replacement with media management and the possibility to sync a dap like it's possible with itunes and an ipod? i want my music library in one place and i don't want to use apps like dapper/chronisar/syncmate to send my library to an external storage. any ideas?


 
  

 I use iTunes for playlist management.  I use the Export for iTunes app to export my playlist and music from iTunes to my Sony ZX2 DAP.  I works well and is very easy to use.  I have around 3,445 songs and it takes about 25 minutes to sync from my iMac to my Sony ZX2 DAP.
  
 I could not figure out how to use Dapper.


----------



## Currawong

For those of you who are going to update to MacOS Sierra, Audirvana Plus works, but Direct Mode needs to be switched off, as that doesn't.


----------



## Slaphead

currawong said:


> For those of you who are going to update to MacOS Sierra, Audirvana Plus works, but Direct Mode needs to be switched off, as that doesn't.




Ugh - so Apple have buggered around with core audio yet again. This means that my monitor controller, which isn't class compliant, probably won't work at all until Steinberg have updated the drivers - something they seem rather slow at doing.


----------



## AppleheadMay

I used to use iTunes with BitPerfect and it will remain on my system but I got a 2 months trial for Roon with 3 months Tidal recently and I must say the music discovery possibilities are endless. Loving it!
 I'll be updating to Sierra as soon as it's released as usual.


----------



## dbau

Does anybody use Vox with a DragonFly?
  
 I have a minor annoyance where Vox will not switch output to the DragonFly if I disconnect / reconnect it, even though my Mac's system audio does. It simply reverts to my Mac's built-in speakers, meaning I need to select the DragonFly within Vox's preferences again.
  
 Is there any way to set priorities for Vox's output devices and have it automatically switch to the DragonFly when plugged in?


----------



## Lohb

Any word on A+ 2.5.5 having Direct Mode enabled again... or is it no longer being offered as a feature ? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 If I remember, the designer got it active on El Capitan quite fast,  just after I tried to patch over a kext from an older disc image folder of previous OSX to El Cap. But it did not work for whatever reason.


----------



## damien78

Hi,
 I'm the developer of Audirvana Plus, and I'm happy to join this forum!
  
 The change made by Apple on El Capitan 10.11.5 was quite simple and so easy to workaround.
 In Sierra, Apple has decided to close the access to the lowest level of CoreAudio (the IOAudioFamily.kext kernel extension) to any application not written by Apple!
 So developing a workaround for this is not an easy task at all.
 Though you can replace the faulty kernel extension IOAudioFamily.kext by the one from El Capitan (10.11.6) to get back Direct Mode. But this is not a beginner task as it asks to copy it while preserving all the permissions, with SIP disabled during the operation.
  
 Damien


----------



## Lohb

damien78 said:


> Hi,
> I'm the developer of Audirvana Plus, and I'm happy to join this forum!
> 
> The change made by Apple on El Capitan 10.11.5 was quite simple and so easy to workaround.
> ...


 

 Hi Damien, thanks for all your hard work on an excellent app.
  
 I'd just like to put the request in for repeat button on 1 track vs only repeat on full album currently.


----------



## damien78

lohb said:


> Hi Damien, thanks for all your hard work on an excellent app.
> 
> I'd just like to put the request in for repeat button on 1 track vs only repeat on full album currently.


 

 Sure, though let me push it for after 2.6 I'm currently completing (remains only part of the undo/redo feature to implement).


----------



## Krutsch

damien78 said:


> I'm the developer of Audirvana Plus, and I'm happy to join this forum!
> 
> Damien


 
  
 Welcome to Head-Fi and sorry about your wallet.
  
 I've been an enthusiastic follower of your software for years on CA, but couldn't resist providing the standard Head-Fi greeting


----------



## Lohb

Not liking this new search function on A+, cannot seem to get back up to 'all albums' on latest update or previous one and it splits up same artists in the dropd-wn as you search depending on some factors I'm not sure off vs just giving me all of that artists instantly appearing in the album covers area.


----------



## TBMY

Hi
  
 Ad Audirvana+: I just received a new MacBook Pro Touch bar 15" with MacOS Sierra preinstalled. Anyone that can help me with the file IOAudioFamily.kext from OS X El Capitan (10.11.6)?
 I will take backup of original file, so I can roll back if needed. Need to have max fidelity 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Best,
 Tom


----------



## TBMY

Never mind, got it elsewhere
  
 Cheers


----------



## Lohb

Anyone else having an issue browsing back up to all albums on the latest A+ 2.6.1 build ?
 Before, you'd just hit the x button next to the artist/song top right of the GUI and all album covers would appear in a snap on A+....


----------



## damien78

What if you click on Library? If you have clicked on an artist name you've switched to the Browse view that show the artist albums. If you have clicked on a search result, you're in the Search view.


----------



## Lohb

damien78 said:


> What if you click on Library? If you have clicked on an artist name you've switched to the Browse view that show the artist albums. If you have clicked on a search result, you're in the Search view.


 

 cannot see library anywhere and I never use side-bar if that is what you are referring to.
 Before, I'd just hit the 'x' next to album I'd searched for to clear the search bar and all albums would appear....the x/close is no longer there in the search bar.


----------



## Lohb

damien78 said:


> What if you click on Library? If you have clicked on an artist name you've switched to the Browse view that show the artist albums. If you have clicked on a search result, you're in the Search view.


 

 Come on Damien, bring back the simple search removal by adding in the 'X" next to any search term. I have to run A+ with the library tree on the left side now to get back up to all albums whereas before I could have album art covering the screen fully from left to right. Unless I'm missing something this search method is a downgrade in using the A+ GUI. It was so simple before...search for artist, play artist, click close in search bar for the search term and ALL albums instantly snap into cover view purely using the search bar functions not side tree.


----------



## Naim.F.C

As part of my Sony MDR-Z1R impressions, I compared a range of music players too. Thought the findings and opinions might be pertinent to this thread too.
  
 ----
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/818846/the-official-sony-mdr-z1r-flagship-headphone-thread-live-from-ifa-2016/2925#post_13051802
  
 ----
  
*Comparing the Music players.*
  
 A brief breakdown of what I think might be the sonic differences between the music players based on some extensive comparisons pertaining only to use with the MDR-Z1R's, using the X-DAC/O2 and Fostex HP-A4BL. I try not to use the V200 for these sorts of tests, because I do believe the V200 is ever so slightly coloured, whilst my other equipment is not.
  
 To add to that, memory mode was used with each player, however upscaling was turned off. Realistically I don't want software approximating what I should or shouldn't be hearing, based on phantom algorithms.
  
  
*Amarra* - Miniscule sub(?) bass and upper mid extension. Isn't really a good fit for the Z1R's, as it make's things sound ever so slightly more congested, and vocals a minutia less realistic and more thin. When using Amarra, you can actually press a button to switch to vanilla iTunes instantaneously, and I actually prefer the sound of iTunes vanilla to Amarra mode with these headphones. With the T1's and HD800's, it's the polar opposite.
  
*Pure Music* - Sounds leaner and very slightly more detailed than the others. Not sure why. Maybe ever so slightly less bass? The bass does sound a touch more detailed or defined, and I do find it a little bit easier to separate instruments and sounds. The negative is that music can sound a tad less engaging and fun. On the plus side, vocals still remain honest sounding, if at times a micro bit more distant. Use this player for when a track sounds too dark with the Z1R's.
  
*Audivarna Plus 2* - This is a weird one, because the Integer 1 and 2 settings actually sound marginally different. Integer 1 sounds very slightly more detailed and spacious, but at the expense of engagement, and a teency bit less honest or accurate vocal tones. I believe Integer Mode 1 has a touch less bass, and thins things out just a bit. Integer 2 sounds the most accurate and honest of the bunch, but is a slightly bit warmer. Overall this is my preferred player for the majority of stuff with these cans. I switch to Pure Music when I want that teeny bit more flatness and neutrality, but otherwise I generally stick to Integer mode 2 (or 1) with Audivarna. Ironically this player and mode is actually the closest sounding to iTunes vanilla, but unless it's placebo, I do think Integer 2 Audivarna may still be a morsel less hot up top than iTunes vanilla, and a touch more dynamic too, but I haven't done enough comparing to know for sure. 
  
*iTunes* - As above, essentially sounds the same as Audivarna Plus 2 set to Integer 2, however I do find that highs can get a tiny bit more flustered with iTunes. Not sibilant necessarily, just not quite as smooth. To re-iterate though, I haven't done enough A/B'ing with iTunes and Audivarna to state this with any sort of conviction, though I have done a lot of A/B'ing comparing iTunes with Pure Music and Amarra.
  
  
 I also haven't done enough comparisons with the mobile music players yet, but unless I'm going crazy, I do again believe there _can_ be a sonic difference, depending on how you have PowerAmp set up. I think DVC with *PowerAmp* adds some sub bass presence or something. In the description it mentions that this mode "improves dynamic range", whatever that means. So maybe it really is adding a very slight colorisation. Suffice to say, I turned DVC off. In-fact I've turned everything off on PowerAmp. DVC, Tone, Limit and EQ. I'll do more comparisons between vanilla PowerAmp and *Samsung Music player*, but with everything on PowerAmp turned off or set to vanilla, I believe they sound pretty much identical, and based on preliminary comparisons, essentially also pretty much the same as Audivarna Plus 2 set to Integer 2, and iTunes.


----------



## damien78

lohb said:


> Come on Damien, bring back the simple search removal by adding in the 'X" next to any search term. I have to run A+ with the library tree on the left side now to get back up to all albums whereas before I could have album art covering the screen fully from left to right. Unless I'm missing something this search method is a downgrade in using the A+ GUI. It was so simple before...search for artist, play artist, click close in search bar for the search term and ALL albums instantly snap into cover view purely using the search bar functions not side tree.


 

 If you want to revert to the old filter search method that filters only in the view you have, you can then unselect the full search option at the bottom of the Library page of the preferences.


----------



## Lohb

damien78 said:


> If you want to revert to the old filter search method that filters only in the view you have, you can then unselect the full search option at the bottom of the Library page of the preferences.


 

 Thanks Damien !
 Back to the old style....love this A+ app so much.


----------



## Wilderness

naim.f.c said:


> As part of my Sony MDR-Z1R impressions, I compared a range of music players too. Thought the findings and opinions might be pertinent to this thread too.
> 
> ----
> 
> ...


 

 iTunes has a veil.  It is bad.  And it does not switch sample rates.
  
 Audirvana, the older version I tried, sounds way off.  Same with Pure Music.
  
 JRiver sounds fantastic.  Very full bodied yet full of detail.  It switches sample rates.  I got the paid version last week after using Pono's free version.


----------



## sterling1

wilderness said:


> iTunes has a veil.  It is bad.  And it does not switch sample rates.
> 
> Audirvana, the older version I tried, sounds way off.  Same with Pure Music.
> 
> JRiver sounds fantastic.  Very full bodied yet full of detail.  It switches sample rates.  I got the paid version last week after using Pono's free version.


 

 ​"iTunes has a veil", what! That's not my experience. I have a vast CD, vinyl and SACD collection on iTunes and I cannot discern a difference in sound from music played from iTunes to same selection played  from SACD player or turntable. The only way a computer player sounds different is when some sort of DSD is applied.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Can someone get me on track?
  
 I've been stuck with Apple way too long and am moving some stuff back to Windows. I don't know how a few things would work in Windows these days though, it's been 15 years.
  
 I'll be using Roon to play back music on a Windows machine as I love the way I discover music with it in my library and combined with Tidal.
 But I think it's not the best library manager and I also need to connect an MP3 player and get music on that as well.
 The MP3 player's sole purpose would be to connect it via USB in my car.
 What I use now is an iPod classic 160GB (already too small), iTunes for managing the library and Roon for playback.
  
 So my questions are:
 - what HUGE capacity MP3 player with USB would you recommend?
 - how do I get music onto it? Via USB, sure but do I need an application for that? Or can I do it straight from Windows?
 - what application would be a good library manager to organise and edit metadata like iTunes used in the classic view mode? Could that application also transfer music to an MP3 player?
 - is it possible to do all this via Roon? I mean managing a library (in an easy way, not album by album) and transfering to an MP3 player?


----------



## Wilderness

>​"iTunes has a veil", what! That's not my experience. I have a vast CD, vinyl and SACD collection on iTunes and I cannot discern a difference in sound from music played from iTunes to same selection played  from SACD player or turntable. The only way a computer player sounds different is when some sort of DSD is applied....



You could try JRiver. The difference between iTunes and JRiver is night and day huge. One is thin and lifeless, the other is rich and full bodied. 

If you can't tell the difference between iTunes and JRiver, you need better speakers or ears.


----------



## johnjen

Recently (version 22) of Jriver Media Center began using the sox render engine.
 This wasn't a night and day difference but is a noticeable step up none the less.
  
 As for the SQ differences between different players, well I prefer Media Center despite its collection of idiosyncrasies, which all players have.
 And now with the sox render engine the SQ is just that much better.
  
 JJ


----------



## Krutsch

wilderness said:


> iTunes has a veil.  It is bad.  And it does not switch sample rates.
> 
> *Audirvana, the older version I tried, sounds way off.*  Same with Pure Music.
> 
> JRiver sounds fantastic.  Very full bodied yet full of detail.  It switches sample rates.  I got the paid version last week after using Pono's free version.


 
  
 You should try a newer version. A+ 2.6 sounds really good, IMO.
  
 By the way, I agree with you on iTunes. There is something off when playback through native iTunes.


----------



## Zoom25

Side question: I remember a few years ago having a discussion that on the newer Macbook Pro Retinas (at that time), the USB port on the right side was the better choice for audio.
  
 I was wondering if anyone knows which USB port is the best choice for a Late 2009 iMac. I remember there being a way to check this as well based on the number of connections? Any suggestions? Running 10.6.8. Thanks!


----------



## AppleheadMay

appleheadmay said:


> Can someone get me on track?
> 
> I've been stuck with Apple way too long and am moving some stuff back to Windows. I don't know how a few things would work in Windows these days though, it's been 15 years.
> 
> ...


 
  
 No tips from the people who use a Windows PC?
 JRiver maybe? Or are there other options I should consider for what I want to do?
 Does JRiver, being a media center, play Bluray and DVD ISO rips as well?


----------



## Krutsch

zoom25 said:


> Side question:* I remember a few years ago having a discussion that on the newer Macbook Pro Retinas (at that time), the USB port on the right side was the better choice for audio.*
> 
> I was wondering if anyone knows which USB port is the best choice for a Late 2009 iMac. I remember there being a way to check this as well based on the number of connections? Any suggestions? Running 10.6.8. Thanks!


 
  
 Yes, it is. Look at the System Report and the USB Device Tree. You want the USB port that is not being shared with anything that is active (as best as you are able).
  
 I've personally experienced a big difference in drop-outs using the right port (as in: none), whereas I've had intermittent chirps/clicks using the left port.
  
 As always, YMMV.


----------



## Zoom25

krutsch said:


> Yes, it is. Look at the System Report and the USB Device Tree. You want the USB port that is not being shared with anything that is active (as best as you are able).
> 
> I've personally experienced a big difference in drop-outs using the right port (as in: none), whereas I've had intermittent chirps/clicks using the left port.
> 
> As always, YMMV.


 
  
 Which one would be the recommended port from the following?
  

  
 EDIT: Now manually reading the specs on each port and the differences are quite big.


----------



## Krutsch

zoom25 said:


> Which one would be the recommended port from the following?
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Now manually reading the specs on each port and the differences are quite big.


 

 Probably the first one, as the IR Receiver will likely be idle. Plug in your DAC and see where is shows up to map the physical ports to the USB Buses shown in the device tree.
  
 For what it's worth, you can also do some trial-and-error to see which one has the least activity on it. Play some high-res tracks (192/24 if you have them) to stress the connection and see if you get any pops and clicks.


----------



## AppleheadMay

krutsch said:


> Probably the first one, as the IR Receiver will likely be idle. Plug in your DAC and see where is shows up to map the physical ports to the USB Buses shown in the device tree.
> 
> For what it's worth, you can also do some trial-and-error to see which one has the least activity on it. Play some high-res tracks (192/24 if you have them) to stress the connection and see if you get any pops and clicks.


 
  
 Aren't the first two USB 1 and the other two USB 2? I think most dacs are USB 2.


----------



## Krutsch

appleheadmay said:


> Aren't the first two USB 1 and the other two USB 2? I think most dacs are USB 2.


 

 I don't have your machine... the USB layout changes across models. On mine, a MacBook Pro 2013, there are two physical ports that share both USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 duties. For me, the right port is best for DAC use, whereas the left port is shared with other devices. In the past, when I've plugged my DAC into the left port, I've experienced periodic dropouts.


----------



## Lohb

The iPurifier 2 removes all such USB woes/considerations.... and then some.
 They just posted objective jitter (etc) measurements on the Coax version in the iP2 thread recently.


----------



## AppleheadMay

lohb said:


> The iPurifier 2 removes all such USB woes/considerations.... and then some.
> They just posted objective jitter (etc) measurements on the Coax version in the iP2 thread recently.


 
  
 I had that thing to try and remove some slight USB noise. Didn't help a bit so I sent it right back.


----------



## Lohb

appleheadmay said:


> I had that thing to try and remove some slight USB noise. Didn't help a bit so I sent it right back.


 

 Worked on multiple fronts with my set-up with no mains electricity after the DAC.


----------



## AppleheadMay

lohb said:


> Worked on multiple fronts with my set-up with no mains electricity after the DAC.


 
  
 So how do I power my headphone amp? It's on an Accustic Arts power strip with the DAC already.


----------



## Lohb

appleheadmay said:


> So how do I power my headphone amp? It's on an Accustic Arts power strip with the DAC already.


 

 Not sure, many variables trying to nail annoying hiss...ground loops etc.


----------



## Krutsch

lohb said:


> The iPurifier 2 removes all such USB woes/considerations.... and then some.
> They just posted objective jitter (etc) measurements on the Coax version in the iP2 thread recently.


 
  
  


appleheadmay said:


> I had that thing to try and remove some slight USB noise. Didn't help a bit so I sent it right back.


 

 When I was experiencing USB drop-outs, I tried a Schiit Wyrd and an iFi iUSBPower ...
  
 if you have USB problems that are causing dropouts during playback, in general, these devices won't completely solve the problem.


----------



## grokit

appleheadmay said:


> No tips from the people who use a Windows PC?
> JRiver maybe? Or are there other options I should consider for what I want to do?
> Does JRiver, being a media center, play Bluray and DVD ISO rips as well?


 
  
 I posted this recently (for me) in a mostly-windows player thread, but I'm mostly on Macs and I think it fits better here.
  
 Plus I have tried another audio player since then, Google Play.
  
 From my limited reading of it, the Music Bee player looks worth checking into for Windows-based systems.
  
 My post from that thread:
  
_I'm usually on a Mac laptop with Amarra Hifi to play from my iTunes library, I used to use Pure Music years ago and still do on an older Mac. When I boot my desktop Mac Mini into Windows 7 I have used a variety of solutions, none completely satisfying. I also have an Android tablet and an iPhone. I have also bought a fair amount of CD's through Amazon over the years, and they have created a digital streaming library for me of my CD purchases accessible from their Amazon Music app. I have also signed up for Prime membership lately, which includes quite a few more free titles I don't already own to browse from._
  
_Anyways this is a great player for my devices and even my Mac/PCs, the desktop version even lets you select various quality levels and setting it to high on my Mac I find no need to boot up my Amarra sQ streaming sound enhancing software. When I searched for Amazon Music on this site nothing came up, so I'm posting it here. It sounds great to me with various DACs and it's simple to use, and if you've bought CDs or are a Prime member it's really worth checking out. Unlike their video player, you can put the Amazon Music on a device independently from their shopping software which is also a plus._
  
_I have been listening to Greg Lake's Songs of a Lifetime and Kieth Emerson's Live From Manticore Hall in the wake of their demise this year, courtesy of Amazon Prime and they are great live recordings. I highly recommend them as well as the players._
  
 Unlike the Amazon desktop music player app, the Google Play music player is launched from a web browser window; I use Chrome for this.
  
 IMO Google Play has better audio quality than is available with (_edit:_ their) HD YouTube videos, and it does improve with Amarra sQ while the Amazon app really doesn't so much. So the audio quality is similar between the two, almost up to iTunes/Amarra HiFi. I used a coupon to buy a copy of "A Salute to King Crimson" and am quite happy with it.


----------



## AppleheadMay

@grokit 
  
 Thanks for the link to the Windows player thread and the Misc Bee tip.
 I'm not really looking for a player as I use Roon which is fantastic but Music Bee looks like a nice library manager as well.
 I'll post my questions again in that thread, probably a better place than here, we're mostly discussing quality players here.


----------



## sterling1

wilderness said:


> >​"iTunes has a veil", what! That's not my experience. I have a vast CD, vinyl and SACD collection on iTunes and I cannot discern a difference in sound from music played from iTunes to same selection played  from SACD player or turntable. The only way a computer player sounds different is when some sort of DSD is applied....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 ​Pursuant to your suggestion, I downloaded the trial version or JRiver and performed an experiment; first, I listened to the Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture SACD (Telarc SACD-60541) from Sony DVP-S9000ES player to Sony TA-E9000ES pre/pro; then, ripping this material to iTunes, I listened via AirPlay using AirPort Express S/PDIF 16/44 connection to Sony TA-E9000ES. Finally, I ripped material to JRiver and listened via usb to S/PDIF conversion using Creative Sound Blaster X-FI HD at 16/44 to Sony TA-9000ES. I could not distinguish a sound difference between any player, certainly not to say that any sounded "better" or "worse".
  
 Now, several years ago, I remember reading an article written by the guy who created the Foobar Player. He stated, there was no difference in SQ between players. Certainly, my ears, seem to agree. The one thing that I like about JRiver is I can tinker with it, much like tinkering with a turntable tonearm; but, for me, that does not have any meaning in regards to my listening satisfaction. I will continue to experiment but so far I do not see any JRiver feature which has a meaningful benefit over what I enjoy with iTunes. And, although the $69 cost seems very reasonable, I'd rather use my money for other areas of HI-FI where an improvement in sound is more certain, like better speakers, or maybe an OPPO UDP-205 to enjoy multi-channel SACD's.


----------



## Wilderness

sterling1 said:


> ​Pursuant to your suggestion, I downloaded the trial version or JRiver and performed an experiment; first, I listened to the Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture SACD (Telarc SACD-60541) from Sony DVP-S9000ES player to Sony TA-E9000ES pre/pro; then, ripping this material to iTunes, I listened via AirPlay using AirPort Express S/PDIF 16/44 connection to Sony TA-E9000ES. Finally, I ripped material to JRiver and listened via usb to S/PDIF conversion using Creative Sound Blaster X-FI HD at 16/44 to Sony TA-9000ES. I could not distinguish a sound difference between any player, certainly not to say that any sounded "better" or "worse".
> 
> Now, several years ago, I remember reading an article written by the guy who created the Foobar Player. He stated, there was no difference in SQ between players. Certainly, my ears, seem to agree. The one thing that I like about JRiver is I can tinker with it, much like tinkering with a turntable tonearm; but, for me, that does not have any meaning in regards to my listening satisfaction. I will continue to experiment but so far I do not see any JRiver feature which has a meaningful benefit over what I enjoy with iTunes. And, although the $69 cost seems very reasonable, I'd rather use my money for other areas of HI-FI where an improvement in sound is more certain, like better speakers, or maybe an OPPO UDP-205 to enjoy multi-channel SACD's.


 
   
 

 I am curious about why we are not hearing the same thing with JRiver compared to iTunes.  I am guessing that it must be that I use speakers and you, I am assuming, are using headphones.  Could that be it?  This is a mystery. 

 Perhaps when using headphones, the music software doesn't matter as much as it does when using speakers?  I never plug in headphones to my computer, and so I can't comment on whether there are any differences among various music software when using headphones.
  
 I am using JRiver to output from my iMac to an Audioquest Jitterbug and Dragonfly Red DAC to Dynaudio Excite 14A active speakers and an SVS sealed subwoofer.  I also have tried inexpensive PSB PS1 speakers and a small PSB sub. With either pair of speakers and a sub, I notice a night and day difference between iTunes and JRiver.  JRiver makes the music come alive with more warmth, resolution, details, decay, reverb, and timbre.  Music is a joy to listen to with JRiver, and I almost feel the band is in the room especially with vocals, acoustic guitar and bass.  It is an analog sound somewhat, very natural and full bodied.
  
 I am listening about six feet from my speakers in a nearfield set up.
  
 After feeling that iTunes was lifeless and veiled, I tried Pure Music but gave up on it and tried Audirvana for a while.  Then when I tried JRiver I decided to stop looking -- no need to go elsewhere.  I would switch, though, if something is really better.  I may try something else to play MQA when that takes off if I think it is worth it.
  
 JRiver offers the option to play music from RAM instead of the spinning hard drive.  Did you set that ("memory") option in Jriver when you tried it?  Do you have enough RAM (you probably need at least 8 GB)?  I have 16 GB of RAM.  Also, you can enable an option to have JRiver take exclusive control of the external speakers.  These are the only two options I have enabled in JRiver other than using gapless playback.  I found that volume leveling and adaptive volume are best left unselected (selecting these options makes rock too quiet).
  
 All of the music genres from my library are better with JRiver.  I listen to folk, singer songwriter, electronic, alternative, jazz, rock, world, classical, and a little country. 
  
 I have around 50 percent of my 4,000 tracks in Apple AAC 16 bit 44/256, 25 percent in 16 bit 44/1411, and 25 percent in 24 bit 96 AIFF, and it all sounds better in JRiver.  I was shocked by how much better Apple AAC 16 bit 44/256 files sound in JRiver, like CD quality.  I don't upsample anything.  Do you have a DAC and have you set JRiver to match the sample rate of the music files you are playing?  Unlike iTunes, which does not change the sample rate when you play anything higher than CD 1411 rips, JRiver does play your music files' correct sample rate that it sends to your DAC if you set JRiver correctly.
  
 I am not using an amp, receiver, or preamp.  My speakers and sub have internal amps.
  
 Everything is wired with my set up, with Audioquest Big Sur cables.  No wireless.
  
 Anyway, if you are happy with the way iTunes sounds, good.  I use iTunes for playlist management and syncing to my iPad and iPhone.  Whatever works for the individual person is good.


----------



## jcn3

sterling1 said:


> ​Pursuant to your suggestion, I downloaded the trial version or JRiver and performed an experiment; first, I listened to the Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture SACD (Telarc SACD-60541) from Sony DVP-S9000ES player to Sony TA-E9000ES pre/pro; then, ripping this material to iTunes, I listened via AirPlay using AirPort Express S/PDIF 16/44 connection to Sony TA-E9000ES. Finally, I ripped material to JRiver and listened via usb to S/PDIF conversion using Creative Sound Blaster X-FI HD at 16/44 to Sony TA-9000ES. I could not distinguish a sound difference between any player, certainly not to say that any sounded "better" or "worse".
> 
> Now, several years ago, I remember reading an article written by the guy who created the Foobar Player. He stated, there was no difference in SQ between players. Certainly, my ears, seem to agree. The one thing that I like about JRiver is I can tinker with it, much like tinkering with a turntable tonearm; but, for me, that does not have any meaning in regards to my listening satisfaction. I will continue to experiment but so far I do not see any JRiver feature which has a meaningful benefit over what I enjoy with iTunes. And, although the $69 cost seems very reasonable, I'd rather use my money for other areas of HI-FI where an improvement in sound is more certain, like better speakers, or maybe an OPPO UDP-205 to enjoy multi-channel SACD's.


 
  
 Did you rip the files as wav, Apple lossless, aiff,  aac, or mp3 ?


----------



## Naim.F.C

sterling1 said:


> ​Pursuant to your suggestion, I downloaded the trial version or JRiver and performed an experiment; first, I listened to the Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture SACD (Telarc SACD-60541) from Sony DVP-S9000ES player to Sony TA-E9000ES pre/pro; then, ripping this material to iTunes, I listened via AirPlay using AirPort Express S/PDIF 16/44 connection to Sony TA-E9000ES. Finally, I ripped material to JRiver and listened via usb to S/PDIF conversion using Creative Sound Blaster X-FI HD at 16/44 to Sony TA-9000ES. I could not distinguish a sound difference between any player, certainly not to say that any sounded "better" or "worse".
> 
> Now, several years ago, I remember reading an article written by the guy who created the Foobar Player. He stated, there was no difference in SQ between players. Certainly, my ears, seem to agree. The one thing that I like about JRiver is I can tinker with it, much like tinkering with a turntable tonearm; but, for me, that does not have any meaning in regards to my listening satisfaction. I will continue to experiment but so far I do not see any JRiver feature which has a meaningful benefit over what I enjoy with iTunes. And, although the $69 cost seems very reasonable, I'd rather use my money for other areas of HI-FI where an improvement in sound is more certain, like better speakers, or maybe an OPPO UDP-205 to enjoy multi-channel SACD's.




I've discerned an audible difference between PureMusic and Amarra that I can consistently pick up in blind A/B testing, so I'm going to have to call foul on this one. And usually I'm quick to call out nonsense or phantom differences in high priced cables, amps, dacs etc. 

You can also change Integer modes in Audivarna on the fly, and actually hear the immediate but very subtle changes. Even the designer of the programme himself states Integer Mode 2 is "warmer", though to me it essentially sounds like iTunes default.

Likewise in Amarra which lets you switch to default iTunes and back again at the press of a button. 

Not saying some music players don't sound exactly the same, but I'm willing to bet money on certain players being marginally (Eg very, very slightly) audibly different, even from a scientifically recorded frequency response perspective. It's weird and silly, but I suspect there's some intentional colouring of sound by way of filtering or processing, used to give the perception of an improvement in certain players.




jcn3 said:


> Did you rip the files as wav, Apple lossless, aiff,  aac, or mp3 ?




On that subject, I found these videos interesting. 

https://youtu.be/UrfX-g8auc8

https://youtu.be/5Q3UJ1SKkG4


----------



## sterling1

Here's what leads me to believe iTunes is as good a sounding player as others out there. I can play any of my stereo SACD's and then listen to the same material streaming from iTunes at 256k; and, each, so far,k has sounded the same, that's to say indistinguishable, through my HT speakers (JBL L100t3's and JBL B-380 passive sub), whether the iTunes material is sent to HT via Wi-Fi (Airport Express) , or via USB to S/PDIF. Either input to pre/pro uses pre/pro's DAC. Pre/pro is a Sony TA-E9000ES set to crossover mains to sub at 50hz. At any rate, because I clearly can not discern that SACD sounds better than my iTunes downloads, I usually only buy multi-channel SACD's and everything else I purchase from iTunes Store  or just enjoy using Apple Music subscription. I believe a player could only be perceived as sounding better than another  with some sort of DSP added. No DSP, then all players should sound the same, unless something is broken creating digital errors.


----------



## johnjen

One differentiating aspect to players are the render engines they use.
  
 Recently Jrivers started using the sox render engine, which while not making a night/day difference, was noticeable none the less, at least on my rig.
  
 And I could clearly hear differences between the several players I auditioned several years back with JRivers coming out on top.
 And of course some of them have been upgraded, but none of them have the feature set I look for, even though Jrivers has WAY more features (video, streaming, multiple zones for audio stream control, etc.) than I'll ever want or use.
  
 But it is a pc based program with its accompanying mindset, which can be a source of frustration and consternation for some.
  
 Still for SQ I still find it better than any of the others I have used.
  
 JJ


----------



## vloh

Hi All,
  
 I am new to Mac OSX music player. I have been using MP3 before. Recently I am re acquire FLAC for all my MP3s. I have been using VLC as my player and folders as my music library. I am thinking of investing PureMusic. Do you all think it is a good idea? Or VLC with folders is good enough.
  
 VL.


----------



## Naim.F.C

vloh said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I am new to Mac OSX music player. I have been using MP3 before. Recently I am re acquire FLAC for all my MP3s. I have been using VLC as my player and folders as my music library. I am thinking of investing PureMusic. Do you all think it is a good idea? Or VLC with folders is good enough.
> 
> VL.


 
  
 You're probably just fine with iTunes or VLC to be fair, but if you really do want a different player, I'd probably recommend Audivarna Plus 2, since it looks nicer, is a bit more versatile, easier to use, quicker, simpler, has a better UI, and also has a choice of format conversion with Integer 1 and 2 options, allowing you a very, very slight difference in audio signature depending on preference.
  
 PureMusic to me sounds a bit drier and flatter than all other music players, including iTunes. Not sure it's particularly ideal, plus the UI is mega ugly and the player is a bit fussy with respect to track timeline skipping.


----------



## vloh

naim.f.c said:


> You're probably just fine with iTunes or VLC to be fair, but if you really do want a different player, I'd probably recommend Audivarna Plus 2, since it looks nicer, is a bit more versatile, easier to use, quicker, simpler, has a better UI, and also has a choice of format conversion with Integer 1 and 2 options, allowing you a very, very slight difference in audio signature depending on preference.
> 
> PureMusic to me sounds a bit drier and flatter than all other music players, including iTunes. Not sure it's particularly ideal, plus the UI is mega ugly and the player is a bit fussy with respect to track timeline skipping.


 

 Hi Naim,
  
 Thank you for the advice. Will Auivarna Plus 2 allow me to keep my current folder structure?
  
 VL.


----------



## Naim.F.C

vloh said:


> Hi Naim,
> 
> Thank you for the advice. Will Auivarna Plus 2 allow me to keep my current folder structure?
> 
> VL.


 
  
 I'm honestly not sure how Audivarna works as a solo player, but presumably yes it will, using your folders the way they're currently set up etc. But Audivarna and PureMusic both work best integrated with iTunes. Essentially you just use iTunes as per normal, but both music players do all the audio processing in the background instead of iTunes.
  
 This is how PureMusic overlays around iTunes.
  

  
 And Audivarna just has this little additional pop up player, but you don't have to use it. You can just exclusively use iTunes with Audivarna running in the background.


----------



## vloh

naim.f.c said:


> I'm honestly not sure how Audivarna works as a solo player (presumably yes it will, using your folders etc). But Audivarna and PureMusic both work best integrated with iTunes. Essentially you just use iTunes as per normal, but both music players essentially do all the audio processing in the background instead of iTunes.
> 
> This is how PureMusic overlays around iTunes.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks. Audivarna looks cool.


----------



## Wilderness

johnjen said:


> One differentiating aspect to players are the render engines they use.
> 
> Recently Jrivers started using the sox render engine, which while not making a night/day difference, was noticeable none the less, at least on my rig.
> 
> ...


 

 I agree.  Nothing I have tried matches JRiver's sound quality.  Not even close.  Not iTunes, Pure Music, or Audirvana, or some others I have forgotten.
  
 I tried some additional settings today in JRiver.  After setting Integer mode and Sox resampling, I found another couple of settings that made a difference: Living Room and Surround Field.  I set Living Room to 1.  Any higher than 4 caused static.  And Surround Field to Subtle.  The sound is now more lively, and vocals have more decay.  Bass is tighter.  Tools>Options>DSP>Effects>.  Treble is smoother yet more present without being harsh.


----------



## sterling1

wilderness said:


> I agree.  Nothing I have tried matches JRiver's sound quality.  Not even close.  Not iTunes, Pure Music, or Audirvana, or some others I have forgotten.
> 
> I tried some additional settings today in JRiver.  After setting Integer mode and Sox resampling, I found another couple of settings that made a difference: Living Room and Surround Field.  I set Living Room to 1.  Any higher than 4 caused static.  And Surround Field to Subtle.  The sound is now more lively, and vocals have more decay.  Bass is tighter.  Tools>Options>DSP>Effects>.  Treble is smoother yet more present without being harsh.


 

 ​Your perception of sounding better  is coming from DSP. I can make any player sound different from another by using a digital equalizer or effects;. but, when it's straight wire with gain, all players will deliver the same sound from the same digital file.


----------



## johnjen

sterling1 said:


> ​Your perception of sounding better  is coming from DSP. I can make any player sound different from another by using a digital equalizer or effects;. but, when it's straight wire with gain, all players will deliver the same sound from the same digital file.


 
 Um, you can believe that, if that is important to you, but I simply don't agree.
  
 A player has many 'sections' that perform different functions, like the render engine I mentioned previously.
 And the DSP is another section which uses plugins which are also different from player to player.
  
 That is to say there are systems where differences are plainly heard between different players.
 And when I compared the different players, it was bare bones, no DSP, no added emphasis or 'extras' involved, just the straight players playing the same tracks back to back.
  
 And granted I've not heard the newest versions of some of the more popular players but they all lack certain functionality that I deem important.
  
 But then that is what I have come to understand in my audio journey.
  
 JJ


----------



## sterling1

johnjen said:


> Um, you can believe that, if that is important to you, but I simply don't agree.
> 
> A player has many 'sections' that perform different functions, like the render engine I mentioned previously.
> And the DSP is another section which uses plugins which are also different from player to player.
> ...


 

 ​The science of it suggests that no matter the player, you when you play the same file  at the same volume you'll  get the same sound. This has been my experience so far from all experiments with trial versions of JRiver, Foobar and others in comparison to Windows Media Player and iTunes using Windows Audio Session to send digital stream by any means to my pre/pro DAC. But, hey, even the creator of Foobar has stated in no uncertain terms that ALL players sound the same. So, for me, I use the player which is most convenient and intuitive as I see it, which is iTunes.


----------



## Naim.F.C

sterling1 said:


> ​The science of it suggests that no matter the player, you when you play the same file  at the same volume you'll  get the same sound. This has been my experience so far from all experiments with trial versions of JRiver, Foobar and others in comparison to Windows Media Player and iTunes using Windows Audio Session sending digital stream by any means to my pre/pro DAC. But, hey, even the creator of Foobar has stated in no uncertain terms that ALL players sound the same. So, for me, I use the player which is most convenient and intuitive as I see it, which is iTunes.




What science of it? Do you have frequency response charts comparing all the music players, modes, options etc? Or detailing the exact method of processing, filtering etc?


----------



## sterling1

naim.f.c said:


> What science of it? Do you have frequency response charts comparing all the music players, modes, options etc? Or detailing the exact method of processing, filtering etc?


 

 ​What do you think " processing, filtering, etc" is? It's DSP. And that's the thing that can make the music sound different from other players which I already alluded to. DSP gets you a sound you prefer; and, if  you prefer the processing options from a particular player for the "sound" such processing yields, by all means enjoy it. My processing is handled by my pre/pro.


----------



## Naim.F.C

sterling1 said:


> ​What do you think " processing, filtering, etc" is? It's DSP. And that's the thing that can make the music sound different from other players which I already alluded to. DSP gets you a sound you prefer; and, if  you prefer the processing options from a particular player for the "sound" such processing yields, by all means enjoy it. My processing is handled by my pre/pro.




So what do Integer modes 1 and 2 do in Audirvana, and why do they sound slightly different? The scientific explanation would be cool.


----------



## sterling1

naim.f.c said:


> So what do Integer modes 1 and 2 do in Audirvana, and why do they sound slightly different? The scientific explanation would be cool.


 

 ​Why any player can sound different between others and be made to sound different within itself is through the application of DSP (Digital Signal Processing).  In some devices the kind and amount of DSP can be selected, in some it can not. But, when the processing is minimal or when its the same between players the sound will indeed be the same. Now, here is what sort of things I can distinguish, a 128kb file vs. a 256 file or 16/32 vs.16/44. So far, I can not distinguish 16/44 from higher resolution files i.e. 24/96 and 24/192. Now, somewhat off topic, I believe that when the CD was introduced in 1982 its claim was perfect sound, forever perfect. I think, the statement was true. So, the question today is how is it possible to make perfect more perfect? That question when answered sincerely makes it very hard to believe anything is gained by adopting Hi-Res digital formats. Therefore, whatever the compute player, if it can process a 16/44 file, you are getting really great SQ.


----------



## Wilderness

wilderness said:


> I agree.  Nothing I have tried matches JRiver's sound quality.  Not even close.  Not iTunes, Pure Music, or Audirvana, or some others I have forgotten.
> 
> I tried some additional settings today in JRiver.  After setting Integer mode and Sox resampling, I found another couple of settings that made a difference: Living Room and Surround Field.  I set Living Room to 1.  Any higher than 4 caused static.  And Surround Field to Subtle.  The sound is now more lively, and vocals have more decay.  Bass is tighter.  Tools>Options>DSP>Effects>.  Treble is smoother yet more present without being harsh.


 

 I know I am quoting myself here, but there's a reason.  I noticed that some songs, especially some live recordings, sound a little better with these settings turned off, and the slight improvement in other songs wasn't worth it.  So I turned off the settings.  I will try various settings and tweaks from time to time in the future, but I will also keep in mind that improving one thing can harm something else.
  
 I also noticed tonight that to fully enjoy music from speakers, all background noise in a house or apartment needs to be shut down.  I had noticed today that some songs sounded really bad from my speakers, and I thought about getting a different DAC.  I am playing those same songs now in my quiet house and they sound fine and I am enjoying the experience.  Earlier today, when I thought some songs sounded bad, I was running my washing machine and dishwasher each a dozen feet from my speakers.  The listening environment, I now know better than ever, is hugely important in perceived sound quality.  This lesson was one I had to experience for myself to fully appreciate.  I am wondering about other influences on perceived sound quality, too, such as listening to music when groggy in the morning versus when wide awake, and listening when emotionally receptive versus listening when distracted, etc.  And playing music when a DAC has not fully warmed up.  And then, of course, there are room treatments....


----------



## sterling1

​I wonder if relative humidity makes  my music sound different? I get the impression that it does. I also wonder about what  details I miss when listening to music at a relatively low SPL. Right now, I'm listening to the SACD of Pictures at an Exhibition performed by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra conducted by Fritz Reiner at a level which seems like what I'd get at the theatre. The detail I hear is adding greatly to my at home experience for this great work.


----------



## pinnahertz

sterling1 said:


> ​I wonder if relative humidity makes  my music sound different? I get the impression that it does. I also wonder about what  details I miss when listening to music at a relatively low SPL.


 While humidity does change how sound propagates through air, it's not going through enough air in your listening room to have any noticeable effect. If you sat a couple hundred feet from your speakers, yes you might notice that.
  
 But differences in sound quality can be percieved for a number of reasons, and many of those have nothing to do with actual changes in the sound. Our perception is easily altered by expectation bias, and aside from the fact that we'd all like to believe we are not affected, all of us are. It's often impossible to easily identify the bias, but it's there and it's powerful. If we feel, and know that humidity is up, that feeling changes a lot about how we perceive the world around us, even if the actual stimulus has not changed.
  


sterling1 said:


> Right now, I'm listening to the SACD of Pictures at an Exhibition performed by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra conducted by Fritz Reiner at a level which seems like what I'd get at the theatre. The detail I hear is adding greatly to my at home experience for this great work.


 
 The CSO/Reiner recordings are technically not great. They were recorded on early tape recorders and most importantly, old tape formulations with lots of problems. Prevalent was Scotch 111, a very basic tape type that saturated quickly and had a relatively high noise floor. The machines themselves were full of mechanical and electrical issues. SACD isn't improving any of that. What you're enjoying is the performance.


----------



## pinnahertz

wilderness said:


> I know I am quoting myself here, but there's a reason.  I noticed that some songs, especially some live recordings, sound a little better with these settings turned off, and the slight improvement in other songs wasn't worth it.  So I turned off the settings.  I will try various settings and tweaks from time to time in the future, but I will also keep in mind that improving one thing can harm something else.
> 
> I also noticed tonight that to fully enjoy music from speakers, all background noise in a house or apartment needs to be shut down.  I had noticed today that some songs sounded really bad from my speakers, and I thought about getting a different DAC.  I am playing those same songs now in my quiet house and they sound fine and I am enjoying the experience.  Earlier today, when I thought some songs sounded bad, I was running my washing machine and dishwasher each a dozen feet from my speakers.  The listening environment, I now know better than ever, is hugely important in perceived sound quality.  This lesson was one I had to experience for myself to fully appreciate.  I am wondering about other influences on perceived sound quality, too, such as listening to music when groggy in the morning versus when wide awake, and listening when emotionally receptive versus listening when distracted, etc.  And playing music when a DAC has not fully warmed up.  And then, of course, there are room treatments....


 
 Listening when groggy/away yes.  Engaged vs distracted, yes. DAC warming up, no, not a bit.  Room treatments, absolutely, but hard to compare before/after.  And background noise? Absolutely. 
  
 Getting bad sound and considering a different DAC is a bit misdirected.  The differences in DAC performance are microscopic, inaudible, but highly affected by expectation bias.  The difference between speakers is huge, their position in the room, huge, acoustics of the room, huge.


----------



## Zoom25

pinnahertz said:


> Listening when groggy/away yes.  Engaged vs distracted, yes. *DAC warming up, no, not a bit.*  Room treatments, absolutely, but hard to compare before/after.  And background noise? Absolutely.
> 
> Getting bad sound and considering a different DAC is a bit misdirected.  *The differences in DAC performance are microscopic, inaudible*, but highly affected by expectation bias.  The difference between speakers is huge, their position in the room, huge, acoustics of the room, huge.


 
 Agreed with everything except for those two.


----------



## pinnahertz

zoom25 said:


> Agreed with everything except for those two.


 
 Expected that.  Too bad there's no real evidence (ABX data) to support it.


----------



## Zoom25

pinnahertz said:


> Expected that.  Too bad there's no real evidence (ABX data) to support it.


 
  
 1) Warm-up time:
  
 I have found warm up to be important on all my gear: DACs, Class A, Class A/B, and Class D amplifiers, Bryston music server, linear power supplies. I leave my DACs, music serve, and Class D on 24/7. You'll find manufacturers recommending that as well. For Class A/AB, it's a lot quicker. For digital gear, it's a lot longer. You'll find plenty of Bryston and Naim owners echoing the exact same thing, along with manufacturers saying the same thing. Thermal stabilization is a real thing.
  
  
 2) DACs sounding different:
  
 I have an Emotiva DC-1 which is mid level DAC and neutral. My other DAC (Dangerous Music Source w/ LPS) and other high end DACs that are neutral and have brought into my setup trash the DC-1. If the critiquing is done via headphones, then it's probably tougher to hear it. However, in my case, it's much simpler to prove.
  
 Get a big treated room with a full range system and level match all the DACs. Next, I can even put earbuds in your ear to block the sound. Yet, you'll still be able to tell the difference based on how deep the bass goes. Aside from hearing the difference, you can feel the difference. My DC-1 for example can never hit the bass with that tightness. Regardless of how much I crank it, I can never replicate that feeling in the chest.
  
 There's another thread on another forum (which I don't know if I'm allowed to reference) are testing all top DACs and people are consistently finding differences in testing among all high-end DACs (Crane Song Solaris/Avocet IIA, Prism, Dangerous Music Convert-2, Mytek Brooklyn, the new high end RME DAC, Burl B2). It should be mentioned that most of us there are running high-end monitors in decent rooms, so perhaps that maybe the case. We're mostly talking about $10k+ rigs here. I don't expect the general headphone crowd to really match that.
  
 Once you spend a lot of time with each particular chain, listening both passively and actively, it becomes quite easy in doing blind A/B. The time-interval in the A/B is also of great importance. I don't want to derail this thread any further as it's about Mac players, but absolutely needed to step in and say this. I've heard this way too many times that all DACs sound the same, which makes me wonder if that person has ever tested high-end DAC in a highly transparent chain in a decent room.


----------



## CarlosUnchained

Not being transducers, the expectation bias makes bigger differences than the measurable sound differences between components. Your brain creates real audible differences where there's no differences or the differences are beyond your hearing capacity.
  
 Some people tend to forget that this a very personal hobby, where nobody has the absolute truth.


----------



## Zoom25

http://dangerousmusic.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/st-sr-manual.pdf
  
  
The paragraphs below are from the Dangerous Audio manual for the Monitor ST and I think this sums it up nicely, It is from Chris Muth, the designer for the Dangerous Audio Stuff and who was once the in house tech at Stirling Sound I believe:
  


> "Do I turn my gear off at night?
> 
> This is a good question and one that takes some reflection to answer. There are several issues to be weighed in making the decision of what to do with unattended gear. Equipment that is powered down when the facility is not in use can’t be damaged by power problems short of a direct lightning strike, however, turn-on transients can, over time, lower the reliability of equipment because of inrush current spikes. On the other hand, a room left powered and unattended can result in blown speakers if the power company has problems and there is no one to turn the room off. If one lives in a stable power situation (non-rural or power-conditioned), our preference is to leave the monitor section, A/D converters, and solid state power amps on unless the facility will not be used for a time.
> 
> Over the years, the experience of the Dangerous team has been that gear left on is more stable in performance and sound quality, and doesn’t really cost very much in extra power consumed. Solid state amps and converters can take several hours to stabilize in temperature and the sound quality is a moving target while things are warming up. Having said that, the writer has come home to his studio and found smoked speaker cones (bummer) due to Con Edison power switching problems. This issue is a tough call and really situation dependant. Studios that power down daily can lose a piece of gear now and then to the rough reality of daily power-up. The repair bill is likely more than the extra electricity consumed had the equipment stayed on."


 
  
 Both Dave Hill of Crane Song and Chris Muth have found this in their testing. Chances are that 90% of your music has at some point been through either a Dangerous Music component or Crane Song. A lot of their designs have been used in consoles as well. This is also echoed by many high-end manufacturers in both hi-fi and high-end pro audio.
  
 Other ways people have tested this before is by making sure all the gear has been run for a long time and printing a mix. Then turn everything off and the next day by the time it's all cool, print a mix. You can compare the sound and A/B to see which one is more natural and warm sounding. You can also run null tests.
  
 Regarding human capabilities and thresholds, here's a story that I have found true many times:
  


> Although completely different, this whole topic reminds me of something Joe Chiccarelli told me..
> 
> He complained for years in the early version of Pro Tools that consolidating the audio files changed the sound (in a bad way), and would continue to change the more times you consolidated your edits. Now you can imagine on big projects that have many people working on them, with multiple versions of multiple edits and stems being tossed around between different studios that there is lots of consolidating going on. Joe felt so strongly about this that he would never consolidate, and he would send all his mixes to the mixer with all the edits still in tact as he didn't want to degrade anything and felt the mixer should receive the pure audio files as they were recorded. All the guys at Avid (then Digidesign) kept saying, "you're crazy Joe, its scientifically impossible...it's just zeros and ones being re written". Still, Joe held his ground and refused to believe the science and what the 'tests' were saying on paper and rather trust his ears and his experience.
> 
> ...


 
  
 In the past, whenever this topic has came up, I have typically been very easy and not really pushed things, but now I don't feel the need to hold back. If someone tells me that they flat out cannot hear any difference between any DAC or that gear warm up doesn't affect sound, I can say one or more of these things is true:
  
 1) The gear is not up to par
 2) The room is not up to par
 3) The person has not trained their brain/ear. This takes a long time of listening and working for hours upon hour in the same spot and eventually you get so used to hearing subtle changes in compression, EQ, phase issues, tonality, detail retrieval, spacing, etc. 
  
 I'm not saying this to be rude as I also at one point wasn't there. The room, gear, learning, practicing and time have all played a factor. You can talk to many Grammy winning mastering engineers with top shelf records working with top artists and they'll replicate what I am saying. I guarantee it without any hesitation.


----------



## pinnahertz

zoom25 said:


> 1) Warm-up time:
> 
> I have found warm up to be important on all my gear: DACs, Class A, Class A/B, and Class D amplifiers, Bryston music server, linear power supplies. I leave my DACs, music serve, and Class D on 24/7. You'll find manufacturers recommending that as well. For Class A/AB, it's a lot quicker. For digital gear, it's a lot longer. You'll find plenty of Bryston and Naim owners echoing the exact same thing, along with manufacturers saying the same thing. Thermal stabilization is a real thing.
> 
> ...


 Sorry, that's a great opinion, but it's not proof.  


zoom25 said:


> Once you spend a lot of time with each particular chain, listening both passively and actively, it becomes quite easy in doing blind A/B. The time-interval in the A/B is also of great importance.


 Well, I'm not sure what you're calling a "blind A/B test", but until all biases are removed, you don't have much. Well administrated DBT/ABX would confirm your opinion on warm up (or not), but the problem is a good DBT/ABX is hard and expensive to do. THat's unfortunate, because opinions based on biased comparisons are cheap and easy. 





zoom25 said:


> I don't want to derail this thread any further...


 Too late... 





zoom25 said:


> I've heard this way too many times that all DACs sound the same, which makes me wonder if that person has ever tested high-end DAC in a highly transparent chain in a decent room.


 Yup, been done. Hard to talk much about it because it brings the science haters out of the woodwork.


----------



## pinnahertz

zoom25 said:


> In the past, whenever this topic has came up, I have typically been very easy and not really pushed things, but now I don't feel the need to hold back. If someone tells me that they flat out cannot hear any difference between any DAC or that gear warm up doesn't affect sound, I can say one or more of these things is true:
> 
> 1) The gear is not up to par
> 2) The room is not up to par
> ...


 
 Well, I guess I'm in the wrong forum.  Anything else I would say in response would just be interpreted as insulting, and I don't mean to do that. I do respect other's opinions, so long as they realize an opinion without backup data is just that, an opinion.   I will admit to being disappointed, though.


----------



## winders

pinnahertz said:


> Well, I guess I'm in the wrong forum.  Anything else I would say in response would just be interpreted as insulting, and I don't mean to do that. I do respect other's opinions, so long as they realize an opinion without backup data is just that, an opinion.   I will admit to being disappointed, though.


 

 Yeah, people buy uber expensive DACs just so they can experience "expectation bias".


----------



## johnjen

pinnahertz said:


> Sorry, that's a great opinion, but it's not proof.


 
 There are some measurements made by Atomic Bob on the Jggy dac at different times during burn in.
 They are clearly different.
  
 If that would provide proof, or not, is dependant upon what you consider proof.
  
 For me the 'proof' is in hearing the music, not in tests or numbers, which are ofttimes misleading (ie. tests that don't correlate, etc. to the experience of music).
  
 JJ


----------



## sterling1

pinnahertz said:


>


 

 ​Yes, humidity does have an effect, even in my listening room; and,  regarding my SACD, of course it's the performance but the SACD of this performance does allow me to listen to it as was recorded in 3 channels. Also, I am actually impressed with this SACD which gives me the impression that magnetic tape recording back then could capture a performance so well.


----------



## CarlosUnchained

johnjen said:


> There are some measurements made by Atomic Bob on the Jggy dac at different times during burn in.
> They are clearly different.
> 
> If that would provide proof, or not, is dependant upon what you consider proof.
> ...


 

 Ears are WAY more misleading than numbers. True that measurements don't tell the whole story, but still I don't trust anyone ears, not even mine because I know I'm biased.
 You are not proving anything to me if you say "it sounds good".
  
 Just think measuring a table with your arm. Or saying how far is the Eiffel Tower with your eyes. Or how warm is the teapot just by touching it. It makes no sense.
 In a hobby that the differences are so subtle even for trained ears, the error is greater since each person hear different AND are differently biased.
  
 I take what sounds best for me.


----------



## pinnahertz

johnjen said:


> There are some measurements made by Atomic Bob on the Jggy dac at different times during burn in.
> They are clearly different.
> 
> If that would provide proof, or not, is dependant upon what you consider proof.
> ...


 
 Link please.
  
 As to your "proof", I can easily prove that your hearing music can be influenced by placebo.  That one is a done deal, actually for a very long time.


----------



## pinnahertz

sterling1 said:


> ​Yes, humidity does have an effect, even in my listening room; and,  regarding my SACD, of course it's the performance but the SACD of this performance does allow me to listen to it as was recorded in 3 channels. Also, I am actually impressed with this SACD which gives me the impression that magnetic tape recording back then could capture a performance so well.


 
 Humidity...nope.  Sorry, not a chance, though you may be 100% convinced it is.  
  
 Yes, the old tape is amazing.  But Reiner, even more so.  I'll have to get one of those 3-channel SACDs.  I admit to not knowing about them.


----------



## pinnahertz

carlosunchained said:


> Ears are WAY more misleading than numbers. True that measurements don't tell the whole story, but still I don't trust anyone ears, not even mine because I know I'm biased.
> You are not proving anything to me if you say "it sounds good".
> 
> Just think measuring a table with your arm. Or saying how far is the Eiffel Tower with your eyes. Or how warm is the teapot just by touching it. It makes no sense.
> ...


 
 I used to think measurements were inadequate, that we could hear things we can't measure.  But that was a long time ago.  Since then, I've been fooled many, many times.  I've taken and administrated many ABX tests,  and now have the capability to measure far, far beyond any hearing ability.  Measurements do tell the whole story, but we may have difficulty understanding how they do that.  It's all there, but the challenge is interpretation and relation to how things sound.
  
 Example: it's extremely easy to measure the effects of  humidity.  In fact, it's well documented (not new). If something about a device changed with warm up, that's simple to check also.  There's no limit to the examples of changes that are measurable but not audible.


----------



## Krutsch

Where is a moderator when you need one?


----------



## johnjen

carlosunchained said:


> Ears are WAY more misleading than numbers. True that measurements don't tell the whole story, but still I don't trust anyone ears, not even mine because I know I'm biased.
> You are not proving anything to me if you say "it sounds good".
> 
> Just think measuring a table with your arm. Or saying how far is the Eiffel Tower with your eyes. Or how warm is the teapot just by touching it. It makes no sense.
> ...


 
 Proof in this context is subjective to begin with since it boils down to, do the changes made sound better, or not?
 We listen to music and decide for ourselves what is 'better' based upon our experiences, mostly having to do with does what we hear sound better than before we made any changes.
 Numbers usually don't directly relate to SQ changes and certainly static numbers don't present the whole picture even from the test they are derived from.
 Graphs do a better job but they are only reflecting the results of that one specific test.
  
 Music on the other hand is more or less untestable, at least with the available tests we now have.
 I listen to music and decide if what I hear is 'better' than what I have heard in the past, or not.
 Individual measurements by themselves are helpful in determining if the gear is operating properly but don't usually have a direct correlation to how we perceive music in real time.
 And trying to tie multiple measurements together to adequately describe how music is affected by these same changes is equally as difficult.
  
 Lastly, "I take what sounds best for me.", is my point.
 It all boils down to "…what sounds best for me."
 Not numbers or tests or expert opinions etc.
 Granted they all contribute to some degree but in the end it is what I hear that matters, and I have come to trust my hearing.
 That others don't or are convinced otherwise, is beside the point that I DO trust my sense of hearing.
  
 And since "I take what sounds best for me." is what I use as my final arbiter as well, all of the tests and numerical results are at best partial reflections of the real time experience of listening to music, which is what ALL of this is about to begin with, at least for me.
  
 JJ


----------



## johnjen

pinnahertz said:


> Link please.
> 
> As to your "proof", I can easily prove that your hearing music can be influenced by placebo.  That one is a done deal, actually for a very long time.


 
 Due to existing antagonisms, I can't provide a link, not here.
 But they are easy enough to find if you really want to.
  
 JJ


----------



## pinnahertz

johnjen said:


> Due to existing antagonisms, I can't provide a link, not here.
> But they are easy enough to find if you really want to.
> 
> JJ


 
 You said, _"There are some measurements made by Atomic Bob on the Jggy dac at different times during burn in. They are clearly different."_
  
 Now you refuse to post a link.  Interesting tactic.  So I did more than my usual due diligence, and searched Google for Atomic Bob for a few minutes...a long time for any Google search.  Three pages deep all I see is reference to a young guitarist, and Google suggesting what I really want is "Atomic Bomb".    I search for "Jggy DAC", and, aside from hits back to your posts here, no results.  I see there is a Schiit product with a roughly similar nickname, so I hit the Schiit site looking for "Jggy DAC".  Nope, nada.  So I checked their review for the YGGDRASIL DAC....nope, no Atomic Bob, no DAC measurements after burn-in.
  
 We're done here unless you post that link.  Pretty much hearsay otherwise.


----------



## winders

pinnahertz said:


> We're done here unless you post that link.


 
  
 I think we were done before we even started.


----------



## johnjen

pinnahertz said:


> You said, _"There are some measurements made by Atomic Bob on the Jggy dac at different times during burn in. They are clearly different."_
> 
> Now you refuse to post a link.  Interesting tactic.  So I did more than my usual due diligence, and searched Google for Atomic Bob for a few minutes...a long time for any Google search.  Three pages deep all I see is reference to a young guitarist, and Google suggesting what I really want is "Atomic Bomb".    I search for "Jggy DAC", and, aside from hits back to your posts here, no results.  I see there is a Schiit product with a roughly similar nickname, so I hit the Schiit site looking for "Jggy DAC".  Nope, nada.  So I checked their review for the YGGDRASIL DAC....nope, no Atomic Bob, no DAC measurements after burn-in.
> 
> We're done here unless you post that link.  Pretty much hearsay otherwise.


 
 Are you aware of the antagonism between this site and another?
  
 Apparently not, because if you were you'd have gone to that site and found those posts.
  
 I have no wish to be banned from here just to satisfy your demand for proof.
  
 If you'd like to find that info PM me and we can deal with it that way.
  
 JJ


----------



## Wilderness

zoom25 said:


> 1) Warm-up time:
> 
> I have found warm up to be important on all my gear: DACs, Class A, Class A/B, and Class D amplifiers, Bryston music server, linear power supplies. I leave my DACs, music serve, and Class D on 24/7. You'll find manufacturers recommending that as well. For Class A/AB, it's a lot quicker. For digital gear, it's a lot longer. You'll find plenty of Bryston and Naim owners echoing the exact same thing, along with manufacturers saying the same thing. Thermal stabilization is a real thing.
> 
> ...


 

 I connected a new DAC, the Meridian Explorer 2, to my computer system today.  It is smoother than my Dragonfly Red.  This is obvious with some songs more than others.  For example, I noticed that Jozef Van Wissem's acoustic instruments can sound too strong with the Dragonfly and my Dynaudio speakers, but just right with the Explorer.  The Dragonfly has been described an Xray into the music, and that can be fun at times but it also is too hard edged with some songs.  Vocals are also smoother with the Explorer.  I prefer the Explorer, no A/B testing needed.
  
 I haven't heard high end DACs, but everything I have read says that they all sound different.
  
 So, I agree with you that different DACs can change what we hear.  As can various music player software and file formats.  From what I have been reading lately, Roon, Tidal, MQA, and JRiver have been getting a lot of use by audiophiles and newbies who are seeking the best sound from their systems.


----------



## Wilderness

I have learned a lot about audio and music on Headfi.  It is nice when I find that others agree with me here, but it is also okay when I see that some people have different opinions.  I have the opportunity to learn something new when I encounter opinions or methods and gear that are different than my own.


----------



## Mortone

I know there is another link on Fidelia, but why is it not talked about on this link?


----------



## Tro95

mortone said:


> I know there is another link on Fidelia, but why is it not talked about on this link?


 
  
 I'm not too sure what you're trying to say, but the first post in this thread does mention Fidelia. Having used Fidelia myself I quite liked it, but the UI was terrible and it hasn't been updated in years despite having obvious issues. I've since switched to Audirvana and not looked back.


----------



## omasciarotte

Hey sterling1,
  
 This thread is now so old and so long, pretty much any topic related to player SQ has already been discussed, dissected and jacked around to the point of nausea. Try searching backwards and you’ll find lengthy discussions on why different players, and different OSs, may sound different with a bit-perfect bitstream.
  
 Quote:


sterling1 said:


> ​The science of it suggests that no matter the player, you when you play the same file  at the same volume you'll  get the same sound. This has been my experience…


 
  
 I have to agree with Naim.F.C on this. I’m not sure what “science” you’re referring to, but audio software engineers will tell you that:
  
 a) there are many ways to implement any particular function, and each has its advantages and disadvantages from a processor/hardware efficiency and audible impact perspective.
  
 Anecdote: A kid fresh out of college thinks that Matlab has all the answers. After all, it “knows” how to form a parametric filter, so that should work just fine…until the newbie finds that their code sounds like ass.
  
 b) by running DSP or, for that matter, changing the bitstream in any way, you alter the sound. Sure, you can make it subjectively “better,“ but the bitstream is no longer what the artist/producer/label created. We each have opinions, but just because you or I cannot discern a particular aspect of audio, it doesn’t mean it’s invalid. It just means *you* can’t hear it!
  


sterling1 said:


> So far, I can not distinguish 16/44 from higher resolution files i.e. 24/96 and 24/192.


 
  
 I’m glad you mention that as it implies either:
  
 a) your auditory mechanism is not able to convey the information (no insult intended, just stating fact)
 b) your system & room is not resolving enough (again, no insult intended, just stating fact)
 c) you have not yet trained your hearing to discern the differences
  
 Can’t do much about item (a) (a gross generalization) but, for (b); you can throw money at the problem. Item (c) is the real goodie in that you can train your ear/brain to be more perceptive!
  
 Want to learn more about the sciences of software engineering, psychoacoustics, audio engineering and physics? This ain’t the place! That said, there’s plenty of certified, objective information available on the interwebs if you’re careful about validating the source…Wanna visit your local libraries?
  
 One last thing: until you’ve actually sat down at a (unfortunately very costly) collection of highly resolving systems and performed listening tests along with other trained listeners, individually changing one variable while keeping everything else the same, can you unequivocally state _your opinion_ and expect no push back. A first step might be to hit some audiophile shows with your reference audio in hand and hear what some of those hi rez systems sound like.


----------



## Krutsch

There is a whole collection of sub-fora, on Head-Fi, where you can argue until you are blue in the face, off-topic from Mac OS X Music Players:
  
http://www.head-fi.org/f/133/sound-science
  
 Enjoy!


----------



## DSNORD

2 Audirvana questions:

(1)-Does Audirvana support MIDI Multi-Output Device (MOD) use on a Mac?

I have a MOD set up that consists of an Audioquest Dragonfly, Schiit Audio Yggdrasil, and Dante Virtual Sound Card. 

iTunes, Roon, and Pure Music output to all 3 devices of the MOD, but Audirvana won't recognize the MOD. I have to manual choose which individual device I want Audirvana to use, and then it plays fine. The problem is that the Dragonfly and Yggdrasil feed separate systems, and I can't get them to play simultaneously with Audirvana but I can with the 3 other players. 

This limits Audirvana's value to me in spite of it sounding slightly better and having some desirable features that the others lack. 

(2)- Is Integer Mode supported on a Dante Virtual Sound Card ?

Audirvana does not run in Integer Mode as it feeds my Mac Mini's Dante Virtual Sound Card which outputs via Ethernet to an Atterotech unDaes-O which then outputs over AES/EBU to my Yggdrasil DAC. Audio Over Internet Protocol sounds better than USB in my system using iTunes, Roon, Pure Music. 

It will run in Integer Mode if Audirvana outputs to the Dragonfly and Yggdrasil over USB. 

Both USB and AOIP sound great and similar, but I wonder if AOIP would be even better if Integer Mode was active using the Dante. 

Thanks for the input. 

DSNORD


----------



## Zoom25

Anyone here using Amarra SQ+ along with the Dirac Live IRC?


----------



## sterling1

omasciarotte said:


> I have to agree with Naim.F.C on this. I’m not sure what “science” you’re referring to, but audio software engineers will tell you that:
> 
> a) there are many ways to implement any particular function, and each has its advantages and disadvantages from a processor/hardware efficiency and audible impact perspective.
> 
> ...


 

 ​At least one software engineer, the developer of Foobar says all players sound the same; and, hey, as long as we have multiple choice, how about D) the reason I cannot hear a difference is because there is no difference when players are sans DSP .


----------



## omasciarotte

sterling1 said:


> ​At least one software engineer, the developer of Foobar says all players sound the same; and, hey, as long as we have multiple choice, how about D) the reason I cannot hear a difference is because there is no difference when players are sans DSP .


 
  
 Hey sterling1,
  
 That would be a convenient though myopic response in that it ignores the majority opinion of mastering engineers, veteran audio software engineers and audio–centric consumers. For folks who say they hear no difference in identical data being delivered via different methods, all you have to do is inject various jitter spectra into their “identical” information and hear how it changes the subjective character of the converted music. Though the data does not change, most everyone can hear the effects of jitter.
  
 Another test that makes one question old school received wisdom is try the bypass button in Amarra. It routes the music either through iTunes when in bypass or through Amarra and, again, most though not all listeners can hear a difference. That mostly depends on the quality of the DAC and what the DAC is feeding downstream.
  
 Speakin’ of tests, I’m guessing you use Windows…have you tried listening to playback of the same file through MediaMonkey, VLC, Windows Media Player and Foobar playing the same file with all effects disabled? Since none of them are dedicated audio players plus they’re running on Windows, it’s a little bit of a PITA to get bit perfect operation but, it’s worth the effort.


----------



## Lohb

I guess DIRECT MODE just isn't coming back due to Apple locking the latest OS in whatever way they did.
  
 Wish my audio chain remained the same when Direct Mode got disabled - so the brain burn-in with old gear would have detected any lesser SQ with it off.
 Just like the idea of A+ being totally decoupled from the Apple audio code anyway.


----------



## sterling1

omasciarotte said:


> Speakin’ of tests, I’m guessing you use Windows…have you tried listening to playback of the same file through MediaMonkey, VLC, Windows Media Player and Foobar playing the same file with all effects disabled? Since none of them are dedicated audio players plus they’re running on Windows, it’s a little bit of a PITA to get bit perfect operation but, it’s worth the effort.


 
 Yes, I have indeed experimented with all of the above; and, I rejected all as iTunes seems over all to be more convenient, intuitive, and useful.  Now, I've moved on to spending my leisure time, which is a luxury, on activities I believe to be more meaningful to the quality of my life in general than obsessing over media players.


----------



## omasciarotte

sterling1 said:


> …iTunes seems over all to be more convenient, intuitive, and useful.  Now, I've moved on to spending my leisure time, which is a luxury, on activities I believe to be more meaningful to the quality of my life in general than obsessing over media players.


 
  
 Agreed, iTunes is a generally well designed product from a UX perspective. Also, I applaud you for knowing what’s meaningful in life!


----------



## pinnahertz

omasciarotte said:


> Agreed, iTunes is a generally well designed product from a UX perspective. Also, I applaud you for knowing what’s meaningful in life!


 
 My problem with iTunes is that its UI has gotten much worse over the years and updates.  It's typical of the kind of self-serving bloat-ware that Apple (and Microsoft) pump out, loaded with commercial product, and inhibiting the user on some very simple and basic functions.  I don't agree it's well designed (anymore), and it doesn't contribute to my particular quality of life with its annoyances. 
  
 iTunes used to be simpler, and less congested with "extras" like "For You", "New", "Radio" and "Connect".  The My Music pane is cobbled up with 3 sub-panes.  It used to be just a list with column-head sort choices and playlists, devices, and shared libraries always viewable in static pane to the left.  The UI now demands the user to toggle between different "views" of the same library, none of which is always what you want.  The pushed Radio and iTunes Store content is quite annoying.  I have a much older version running on my media server that works better, easier, and is actually more stable.  In fact, the current iTunes version has pushed me to search for something else that is simpler, and has no retail "push" to it.  I find the ever-tightening integration with the iTunes Store to be problematic, and just in the way.   View customization is now nearly gone.  And the constant stream of bugs with each update is just irresponsible.  Things like the vanishing AirPlay icon (restored by turning on the mini player, then restarting iTunes...really???).  Each update has, IMO, taken steps forward for Apple marketing, tightened Apple's connection with the user, and moved functionality backward.   It's added "features" are Apple-serving only, and yet as a music player, it's only gotten worse.  It's just a manifestation of the real goals behind Apple now.  The "User Experience" was the driving force behind the success of the Mac.  Now the User Experience is secondary or tertiary, and that's across all products.  
  
 Mandatory OS and Applications that are distributed with them should NOT be commandeered for promotion and advertising.  iTunes is just a step or two behind pushing the kind of junk Win 10 pushes on the unsuspecting user, who then must effectively "hack" his brand new system to remove the junk-ware. 
  
 iTunes on IOS is a horrible mess now, with iCloud integration, you're often presented with selections you can't actually play.  Resetting and eliminating that isn't straight-forward, and doesn't stay anyway.  I spent 40 minutes on the phone with AppleCare trying to fix that, it stayed fixed for about three days then reverted.  
  
 The search for something better than iTunes continues.  And, for perspective, I've been a Mac user since the Mac Plus.  I'm not saying it was better then, but in the last six years Apple has completely lost its direction.  It's like they globally replaced "fun to use" with "incomprehensible complexity".  
  
 (Stepping of the soap box now...thanks).


----------



## sterling1

​I am an Apple Music subscriber, and, I've gotta tell ya, the "for you"and "browse" features make iTunes even more spectacular now. Each day I have an opportunity to listen to genres of music which iTunes has gathered I might like, music both old and new. It's simply fabulous and well worth the $9.99 a month fee. The music I hear which I really like can be downloaded and/or placed in my iTunes library for playback from iCloud  without charge; and, I can purchase it if I wish. Purchasing it allows the music to be burnt to a CD for listening to on  my car's radio. I also buy iTunes "match" annually. This great feature stores my entire iTunes library in the iCloud. This feature has helped me get iTunes back up and running after a computer crash a few years ago. The iCloud also allows me to bypass my laptop all together and just listen to music from the iCloud via my iPhone streaming to Home Theatre wirelessly using Airport Express for Airplay function. It's all great- I am able with a few clicks on my phone to listen to most everything ever recorded in high fidelity. WOW!


----------



## CarlosUnchained

sterling1 said:


> ​I am an Apple Music subscriber, and, I've gotta tell ya, the "for you"and "browse" features make iTunes even more spectacular now. Each day I have an opportunity to listen to genres of music which iTunes has gathered I might like, music both old and new. It's simply fabulous and well worth the $9.99 a month fee. The music I hear which I really like can be downloaded and/or placed in my iTunes library for playback from iCloud  without charge; and, I can purchase it if I wish. Purchasing it allows the music to be burnt to a CD for listening to on  my car's radio. I also buy iTunes "match" annually. This great feature stores my entire iTunes library in the iCloud. This feature has helped me get iTunes back up and running after a computer crash a few years ago. The iCloud also allows me to bypass my laptop all together and just listen to music from the iCloud via my iPhone streaming to Home Theatre wirelessly using Airport Express for Airplay function. It's all great- I am able with a few clicks on my phone to listen to most everything ever recorded in high fidelity. WOW!


 

 Doesn't iTunes match store a different copy of the songs you have? For example, does it store ALAC or AIFF?


----------



## sterling1

​iTunes "match" will up or downsample users uploads to 256k @ 44.1. In  my experience the service has not stored a different copy. In fact, I sometimes wish the service did. Much of my music was originally ripped from LP's; and, some of those have the snap, crackle, and pop associated with LP's.  Listening to those from the iCloud I still get the snap, crackle, and pop. I have not however uploaded any MP3 music. The service may indeed look for higher bits and bites on those. I believe they may do that. I'd need to find something I have in my library that's stored there in MP3 and send to iCloud to test that out.


----------



## omasciarotte

*Zoom25 said*: 





> Anyone here using Amarra SQ+ along with the Dirac Live IRC?


 
  
 Yup, got a inexpensive (but not Behringer) mic, a Dayton UMM-6 calibrated by Cross-Spectrum Acoustics LLC, to do the profiles. SQ+ is a very nice tool (the EQ is essential) and Dirac, IMO, is currently the best software–only correction available.


----------



## turkayguner

I love the audio quality and the music catalogue with my Tidal hifi subscription. But I would prefer a better UI over Tidal's, with better music discovery options and metadata etc. Is there any software or iOS app you recommend other than Roon?


----------



## Whazzzup (Jun 16, 2017)

I'm going to run two systems.

One with antipodes audio ds GT running roon core for my TT gsx mk2 combo. Remotly run via my iPad Pro, or iPhone 7. Take the iMac and iTunes out of play.
The second my iMac 5k will run a second dac/amp and my kef desktop speakers and LAN lined to my network are two Apple TV which of course will all be on iTunes.


----------



## AppleheadMay

turkayguner said:


> I love the audio quality and the music catalogue with my Tidal hifi subscription. But I would prefer a better UI over Tidal's, with better music discovery options and metadata etc. Is there any software or iOS app you recommend other than Roon?



Nope, nothing quite like Roon + Tidal I'm afraid. Beats Apple Music by far.


----------



## turkayguner

AppleheadMay said:


> Nope, nothing quite like Roon + Tidal I'm afraid. Beats Apple Music by far.



500$ is kind of hard to swallow, and just on the way to my wedding uh oh..


----------



## AppleheadMay

turkayguner said:


> 500$ is kind of hard to swallow, and just on the way to my wedding uh oh..



The wedding/wife will be a whole lot more expensive ... ;P


----------



## turkayguner

AppleheadMay said:


> The wedding/wife will be a whole lot more expensive ... ;P


Yeah man I have already broke the bank..


----------



## Allanmarcus

I'm building a list of Mac players. This is what I have so far. I'd love help. I do plan on adding columns to the sheet for features. If you want to help, let me know.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AgcI0HzsPocyU9HM4iiPp2klVcHk624iefRft36GM10/edit?usp=sharing

Many of these players are no longer in active development, and I note that in the spreadsheet.

Amarra 4
Amarra Luxe
Amarra SQ+
Audirvana Plus
Clementine
Cog
deadbeef
Decibel
Ecoute
Elmedia Player
Fidelia
HQPlayer
iMusic
iTunes
JRiver Media Cetner
Kodi
Musique
Nightingale
Pine Player
Play
Plex
Pure Music
Quod Libet
Roon
Swinsian
Sylo
Tomahawk
VLC
Vox
Winamp

And possibly
Amarok
aTunes
Audion
Banshee
cmus
Guayadeque Music Player
Music Player Daemon


----------



## Norabati

Norabati said:


> Thanks for that Joeexp.
> All the music will be stored on a 500gb external solid state drive. I'm pretty sure that the setup will work but it would be a disaster to buy the Macbook and find that it cannot cope with pulling large audio files from an external drive rather than its own internal storage. So I just wondered if anyone had a similar setup and could give their opinion.


Final update - went ahead with the Mac Mojo Audirvana and external SSD. Very happy with the setup as a high quality portable unit while travelling for long periods. Some minor buffering issues now and then but worth putting up with for the sound quality.


----------



## bmichels

joeexp said:


> Nobody -  but  you  - seems to be needing a "folder structure"; Perhaps it isn't the software?



He is not alone. I also wish Audirvana or Roon offer navigation by folder.  I often use it on my Auralic Aries !


----------



## rage3324 (Nov 12, 2017)

What's the word on Plex for Mac? It appears to be to Direct Playing but tough to tell if it is manipulating the signal at all.

As a Mac, Plex and Tidal user. What is my best player option? I know Roon is the answer but that is too much $$$$$$$


----------



## Slaphead

Just a word of warning to anybody using VOX - DO NOT UPGRADE to version 3. It's now gone subscription based meaning you'll have to pay about 16 bucks a year just to access all those basic extra things such as the inbuilt EQ which were freely available in the previous version.

It'll still play music, but that's about it.


----------



## cpauya

Slaphead said:


> Just a word of warning to anybody using VOX - DO NOT UPGRADE to version 3. It's now gone subscription based meaning you'll have to pay about 16 bucks a year just to access all those basic extra things such as the inbuilt EQ which were freely available in the previous version.
> 
> It'll still play music, but that's about it.



Good call.  I made the mistake of installing Vox v3 and was surprised that those "Advanced" features are now subscription-based.  I love using Vox's BS2B Preset or crossfeed, good thing they still have the older versions so I installed version v2.8.26 instead found at https://vox.rocks/mac-music-player/old-versions


----------



## Capmad03

Slaphead said:


> Just a word of warning to anybody using VOX - DO NOT UPGRADE to version 3. It's now gone subscription based meaning you'll have to pay about 16 bucks a year just to access all those basic extra things such as the inbuilt EQ which were freely available in the previous version.
> 
> It'll still play music, but that's about it.



Thanks for the heads up! The app auto updated on my iphone the other day and I was totally bummed. Any iOS alternatives?


----------



## Allanmarcus (Dec 15, 2017)

Anyone try eqMac2 for system wide EQ on the Mac?

GitHub repo, for the extra nerdy

update: Easy install. I just tried it with FireFox and Pandora and it seems to work well.

second update: umm, I'm less impressed. Seems somewhat buggy. When it works, it seems to work well. Might be FireFox. Using it with Chrome seems to work better.


----------



## cpauya

Allanmarcus said:


> Anyone try eqMac2 for system wide EQ on the Mac?
> 
> GitHub repo, for the extra nerdy
> 
> ...



Thanks for this, been looking for a system-wide EQ for macOS.  I just tried it on my macOS v10.13.2 with Spotify + DT880 and it rocks so far (and it's open-source!).


----------



## Mortone

cpauya said:


> Thanks for this, been looking for a system-wide EQ for macOS.  I just tried it on my macOS v10.13.2 with Spotify + DT880 and it rocks so far (and it's open-source!).


Why would a free eq program need your access key to your computer?


----------



## cpauya

Mortone said:


> Why would a free eq program need your access key to your computer?


Not sure what you meant by `access key` but it needs to install an audio driver thus it would need your admin password during installation.  Here's the source, though I don't understand it that much: https://github.com/nodeful/eqMac2/tree/V2.2


----------



## Allanmarcus

Mortone said:


> Why would a free eq program need your access key to your computer?


As @cpauya said, it has to install a sound driver, so it needs the user to authenticate as an admin. The way this, and all system wide sound mods works it to install a sound driver. You please your iTunes (or whatever) into this new sound driver which funnels the sound into their program, then out to your desired sound out.


----------



## Left Channel

rage3324 said:


> What's the word on Plex for Mac? It appears to be to Direct Playing but tough to tell if it is manipulating the signal at all.
> 
> As a Mac, Plex and Tidal user. What is my best player option? I know Roon is the answer but that is too much $$$$$$$



The fact that you got no answer for over a month probably _is_ your answer. 

Plex will "direct play" or transcode automatically. You have no control over that or most other aspects of your system audio. 

Plex is all about convenience. I run it so non-technical family members can access our music/video/photos server via a simple interface in their Mac browsers or our TiVo and Roku boxes. I use different server and player software for myself.

Plex may be enough if you jack headphones directly into your Mac. But with most external DACs you'll hear a clear difference using players that cost money. Mentioned most often on computer audiophile websites are Audirvana+, HQPlayer, JRiver, and, yes, Roon. Also Amarra, but it is a work-in-progress.Try the trials.


----------



## davidland

helpful!


----------



## rage3324 (Dec 19, 2017)

Great info. Plex just released Plexamp (a winamp inspired player). Curious to see how this performs. 
https://medium.com/plexlabs/introducing-plexamp-9493a658847a
https://www.plex.tv/blog/plex-labs/


----------



## Left Channel (Dec 19, 2017)

rage3324 said:


> Great info. Plex just released Plexamp (a winamp inspired player). Curious to see how this performs.
> https://medium.com/plexlabs/introducing-plexamp-9493a658847a
> https://www.plex.tv/blog/plex-labs/



Thanks for alerting us to Plexamp! That was fun to play with. WinAmp "Plexified". Too Plexy for most here I fear, but great for anyone listening directly out of their computer's built-in audio, and in a size optimized for laptop screens.

As with Plex Media Player, the sound quality is inferior to software players that can be adjusted to work best with external DACs. To my ears there was a veil over the music until I switched to one of those players.

This homage to WinAmp could be taken as a bit of an insult by some enthusiasts. WinAmp is much more customizable and tweakable. Windows users can install a WASAPI plugin. WinAmp has been available for Mac for a few years, but hasn't gotten much traction. Many Mac owners here bypass Audio MIDI, relying instead on features added by higher-SQ software players. Plexamp is not meant for those users. But it sure is fun, and I will install it for some of the family here.

*Edit: *I automatically typed "PlexAmp" at first. Why no camel case in this name? Maybe their lawyers got involved. Corrected above: "Plexamp".


----------



## Allanmarcus

Left Channel said:


> Thanks for alerting us to Plexamp! That was fun to play with. WinAmp "Plexified". Too Plexy for most here I fear, but great for anyone listening directly out of their computer's built-in audio, and in a size optimized for laptop screens.
> 
> As with Plex Media Player, the sound quality is inferior to software players that can be adjusted to work best with external DACs. To my ears there was a veil over the music until I switched to one of those players.
> 
> ...


I gotta chime in. While I’m sure many like the sound output of various players, to “truly” hear the DAC, one should send the music data to the DAC bit perfect. Putting aside various transports like USB, optical, reclockers, spdif converters, and decrapifiers, you can get simple bitperfect transport with iTunes simply by putting the iTunes volume to 100%. Sure, iTunes doesn’t do DSD, Flac (yet), or auto switching. You can add BitPerfect for $10 to get auto switching, as well as all sorts of upscaling options. Certainly my equipment is resolving enough that if there were a difference, I should be able to hear it.  I’m incredibly lucky in that, for the most part, I cannot hear any difference between players. If I use bitperfect to max upscale, I think I can hear a slight difference.  Not better, but different. 

A player is either sending data bitperfect, or not. Unless you have incredibly well trained ears and super hearing, most people would not be able to tell the difference between players.


----------



## Left Channel

Allanmarcus said:


> I gotta chime in. While I’m sure many like the sound output of various players, to “truly” hear the DAC, one should send the music data to the DAC bit perfect. Putting aside various transports like USB, optical, reclockers, spdif converters, and decrapifiers, you can get simple bitperfect transport with iTunes simply by putting the iTunes volume to 100%. Sure, iTunes doesn’t do DSD, Flac (yet), or auto switching. You can add BitPerfect for $10 to get auto switching, as well as all sorts of upscaling options. Certainly my equipment is resolving enough that if there were a difference, I should be able to hear it.  I’m incredibly lucky in that, for the most part, I cannot hear any difference between players. If I use bitperfect to max upscale, I think I can hear a slight difference.  Not better, but different.
> 
> A player is either sending data bitperfect, or not. Unless you have incredibly well trained ears and super hearing, most people would not be able to tell the difference between players.



Good example of a way to remove the "veil" of which I spoke. But talk about that to my Plex users here, and you'll just get blank stares. To most people, it's not worth the trouble. We're the ones with the problem.


----------



## PierreC (Feb 5, 2018)

Hi,
At home I listen Tidal Hi-Fi and MQA with my Shanling M2s plugged in my mac with Audirvana.
But during my work, I only use Bluetooth connection between Audirvana and my Sony MDR-1000x.

I understand that for my AAC library, the best bluetooth transmission is AAC, because there is no more encodage.

However, to listen Tidal Hi-fi with bluetooth, I am a bit confused... between AAC and aptx. Indeed, I measured the transmission of both codecs (see both attached files), the aptx (yellow curve) seems to transmit at 430 Mbytes/sec (constant bitrate) and AAC (blue curve) at 270 Mbytes/sec (various bitrate).

So at first sight the aptx seems to have a better transfert rate, but I red (I don't know where anymore...) that AAC encodage  has a higher quality than aptx.

What is your opinion about that? Which codec I should use to get the best quality as possible in my headphone (AAC or aptx) for streaming Hi-Fi Tidal music?
Thank you in advance!


----------



## Allanmarcus

If you can’t tell the difference by listening, it don’t matter.


----------



## cloudkicker

PierreC said:


> Hi,
> At home I listen Tidal Hi-Fi and MQA with my Shanling M2s plugged in my mac with Audirvana.
> But during my work, I only use Bluetooth connection between Audirvana and my Sony MDR-1000x.
> 
> ...


If you're streaming


PierreC said:


> Hi,
> At home I listen Tidal Hi-Fi and MQA with my Shanling M2s plugged in my mac with Audirvana.
> But during my work, I only use Bluetooth connection between Audirvana and my Sony MDR-1000x.
> 
> ...



Is your Bluetooth device sending AptX? If not and it sends AAC only then use AAC. You can also stream/download TIDAL in non-HiFI as it's lower res is AAC and avoid the conversion to AAC to your headphones.


----------



## PierreC

Yes, the MDR-1000x send in AptX as well as AAC.
My question was a bit more technical. I mean, regarding compression quality using the same bitrate, which one is better? If you know a link where differences between this two codecs are well-explained (with frequency test, comparison with audio sources,...), please let me know because I didn't find that on the web yet.
Thanks.


----------



## PierreC

I found this:
http://www.sereneaudio.com/blog/how-good-is-bluetooth-audio-at-its-best
But I would like the same kind of comparison with AAC too, if it exists.


----------



## KaiFi

I still haven't found a good iTunes alternative for MacOS X. JRiver has potential, but right now it's too sluggish and messy. What I want is something like MusicBee (or just Music Bee itself). That would be great.

Roon is nice, but it doesn't allow for the playlist-based listening that I do (I listen mostly to classical and organize everything into playlists by work). So I still end up using iTunes.


----------



## PierreC

I started to try Audirvana (3 weeks trial), you can manage playlist also.


----------



## Allanmarcus

KaiFi said:


> I still haven't found a good iTunes alternative for MacOS X. JRiver has potential, but right now it's too sluggish and messy. What I want is something like MusicBee (or just Music Bee itself). That would be great.
> 
> Roon is nice, but it doesn't allow for the playlist-based listening that I do (I listen mostly to classical and organize everything into playlists by work). So I still end up using iTunes.


I'm not sure what "playlists by work"
Rune does have a way to creating smart playlists (sort of). It's not as good as actual Smart Playlists from iTunes.


----------



## KaiFi

PierreC said:


> I started to try Audirvana (3 weeks trial), you can manage playlist also.



Thanks. Never even heard of that one, but I just checked it out and it seems pretty similar to what I'm looking for. 



Allanmarcus said:


> I'm not sure what "playlists by work"
> Rune does have a way to creating smart playlists (sort of). It's not as good as actual Smart Playlists from iTunes.



What I mean is that I create a new playlist for each classical work, i.e. a playlist called "Violin Concerto in A minor", then I put that in a playlist folder called "Violin Concertos", then I put that in a folder called "Vivaldi" (as an example). In other words, I like to have playlists for everything and group them into folders and group those folders into composer folders. iTunes allows that easily, but most of the other alternatives don't.


----------



## torifile

KaiFi said:


> Thanks. Never even heard of that one, but I just checked it out and it seems pretty similar to what I'm looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is that I create a new playlist for each classical work, i.e. a playlist called "Violin Concerto in A minor", then I put that in a playlist folder called "Violin Concertos", then I put that in a folder called "Vivaldi" (as an example). In other words, I like to have playlists for everything and group them into folders and group those folders into composer folders. iTunes allows that easily, but most of the other alternatives don't.


Roon allows tags, which is likely what you’re after. I haven’t messed around with it since I’m a full album listener. If there’s something you’d like me to try, let me know and I’ll see how it works. 

I’ve tried Audirvana and now Roon. After 3 days with Roon, I was sold. It’s quite an impressive suite of apps. I was looking for something to be able to control music playback from my Mac mini without having to use a VNC client because it’s cumbersome. The iOS apps that Roon has developed are nothing short of amazing. I’m an iOS developer and I’m in awe of their functionality. Give it a try - they have a 2 week trial.


----------



## Allanmarcus

KaiFi said:


> What I mean is that I create a new playlist for each classical work, i.e. a playlist called "Violin Concerto in A minor", then I put that in a playlist folder called "Violin Concertos", then I put that in a folder called "Vivaldi" (as an example). In other words, I like to have playlists for everything and group them into folders and group those folders into composer folders. iTunes allows that easily, but most of the other alternatives don't.



I believe you can do that with Roon either using the Saved Searches directly, or using tags and saved searches. It's totally not as easy as it is


torifile said:


> Roon allows tags, which is likely what you’re after. I haven’t messed around with it since I’m a full album listener. If there’s something you’d like me to try, let me know and I’ll see how it works.
> 
> I’ve tried Audirvana and now Roon. After 3 days with Roon, I was sold. It’s quite an impressive suite of apps. I was looking for something to be able to control music playback from my Mac mini without having to use a VNC client because it’s cumbersome. The iOS apps that Roon has developed are nothing short of amazing. I’m an iOS developer and I’m in awe of their functionality. Give it a try - they have a 2 week trial.



I’ve been playing with roon. I got a 60 day trial through music direct. Roon's UI is not what I would consider its strong suit. For me, the value proposition for roon is the control over playback. Lots of options per output device, and they can all be managed centrally. I found the UI to be clunky and years behind iTunes. Where it is better is info about artists and tidal integration. Where it falls behind is smart playlist and general “fit and finish”. If roon were $60, with a $25 upgrade every year or two, I might buy it. I just don’t need the features it has, and I would miss smart playlists (including nested ones) and iOS syncing. Saved searches just don’t cut it for me as smart playlists.  Also, I’m not sure how one can listen to one's music when away from home without streaming from one’s own server, which, with data caps at home, I cannot do.  Yep, I’m old school and sync my music to my devices. 

Now I’m not saying Roon is not good for everyone, but I highly recommend really diving into it and understanding its pros and cons before purchase. 

heres the 60 day trial https://www.musicdirect.com/Get-Roon


----------



## torifile

I know it’s not “audiophile approved” but Roon also allows control/streaming to SONOS devices. It’s a multi room audio setup without having to pay for a SONOS connect - basically, it can turn my nice speakers into sonos enabled speakers. 

I don’t use my SONOS for critical listening but they are really nice to have throughout the house. 

But the killer feature for me really is the remote control of my music server. I don’t really need playback outside of my local network. Is it worth $120/year? I don’t know what it’s worth to others but the convenience  of having lossless playback is worth a lot to me. The endpoints functionality is icing on the cake. 

At the very least, everyone should try the 60 day trial linked up above.


----------



## Allanmarcus

torifile said:


> But the killer feature for me really is the remote control of my music server. I don’t really need playback outside of my local network. Is it worth $120/year? I don’t know what it’s worth to others but the convenience of having lossless playback is worth a lot to me. The endpoints functionality is icing on the cake.



Agreed, the ability to play from a central computer is nice. I do this with iTunes. I have speakers and amps in the bedroom, kitchen, garage, living room, and family room. Each has an Apple express modem, except the Family room, which has a Yamaha AVR with AirPlay. I can either play from my iPad directly (all lossless) or from my Mac's iTunes (via the iPad Remote app), to any of these speakers. An express modem costs $50 refurbished from Apple (full one year warranty), so the whole system wasn't that expensive, and there is no annual fee!  Of course I had to buy speakers and amps for all the rooms, but over the years I managed to collects way too many. Topping, Dayton, and others make some very nice basic amps that work well. For speakers, there are tons of great speakers now under $300/pair. Add a sub, and Dayton makes some great speaker for under $50/pair.

That said, Roon's ability to customize the sound for each output is very impressive.


----------



## torifile

Allanmarcus said:


> Agreed, the ability to play from a central computer is nice. I do this with iTunes. I have speakers and amps in the bedroom, kitchen, garage, living room, and family room. Each has an Apple express modem, except the Family room, which has a Yamaha AVR with AirPlay. I can either play from my iPad directly (all lossless) or from my Mac's iTunes (via the iPad Remote app), to any of these speakers. An express modem costs $50 refurbished from Apple (full one year warranty), so the whole system wasn't that expensive, and there is no annual fee!  Of course I had to buy speakers and amps for all the rooms, but over the years I managed to collects way too many. Topping, Dayton, and others make some very nice basic amps that work well. For speakers, there are tons of great speakers now under $300/pair. Add a sub, and Dayton makes some great speaker for under $50/pair.
> 
> That said, Roon's ability to customize the sound for each output is very impressive.


This is a viable solution for sure. The thing about it for me is that I want to separate my playback from the device controlling the playback which is why I started down the SONOS route. It’s nice if multiple devices can have input into what’s being played/queued up.  

$10/month for a service that makes my life easier the way Roon seems to be is worth it, IMHO. I don’t want to tinker with things when I’m relaxing. But as someone upthread mentioned, if you start a trial and cancel, they’ll offer 3 free months if you sign up for a year. I make it a habit to cancel trials immediately so I don’t forget when the trial period runs out. If I like it, I’ll subscribe then. But they emailed me the day after I canceled offering 3 free months and a 3 free month trial of TIDAL. I’ve already got TIDAL but I have no problem starting a new account since I just add full albums and I don’t need to worry about playlist management. Cool.


----------



## Allanmarcus (Mar 23, 2018)

torifile said:


> It’s nice if multiple devices can have input into what’s being played/queued up



Agreed. With iTunes playing from the Mac to the AirPlay devices and being controlled by the Remote app on multiple devices, you get that functionality too.

Great idea with the trials. I set calendar entries to remind be to cancel.

BTW, I have comcast for internet, and I'm happy with it. I call them annually (again, calendar reminder) to renegotiate my rates. It's painless and has always resulted in my rate not going up about $25/month. I've done this for years. Just call and ask to speak with "Customer Loyalty:. If they ask why, just say your thinking about cancelling. Customer Loyalty will try to up-sell you. Just ask if they can provide the same or better service at a lower price than what you are paying now. Settle for the same price for another year.


----------



## torifile

What remote app are you talking about? The new remote app doesn’t appear to have iTunes functionality. There’s the old version that does but it is, well, old and looks like trash on my iPhone X.


----------



## Krutsch

KaiFi said:


> *Roon is nice,* but it doesn't allow for the playlist-based listening that I do (I listen mostly to classical and organize everything into playlists by work). *So I still end up using iTunes.*



You know you can use both at the same time, right? I do this. I use iTunes to manage my library and then Roon for playback to my end-points (and to merge in TIDAL tracks).

Just setup Roon to look at your iTunes library - that's it. Everything imports, including all of your playlists.


----------



## Allanmarcus

torifile said:


> What remote app are you talking about? The new remote app doesn’t appear to have iTunes functionality. There’s the old version that does but it is, well, old and looks like trash on my iPhone X.



Umm. I just use an app called Remote on my iPad.



Krutsch said:


> You know you can use both at the same time, right? I do this. I use iTunes to manage my library and then Roon for playback to my end-points (and to merge in TIDAL tracks).
> 
> Just setup Roon to look at your iTunes library - that's it. Everything imports, including all of your playlists.



Very true. That is how I have it set up. What Roon is missing, for me, is playlist organization. No folders for playlists, unless I'm mistaken. The added value for Roon, again, for me, isn't worth the price over iTunes. YMMV, of course. Very personal decision.


----------



## dcguy73

Allanmarcus said:


> I believe you can do that with Roon either using the Saved Searches directly, or using tags and saved searches. It's totally not as easy as it is
> 
> 
> I’ve been playing with roon. I got a 60 day trial through music direct. Roon's UI is not what I would consider its strong suit. For me, the value proposition for roon is the control over playback. Lots of options per output device, and they can all be managed centrally. I found the UI to be clunky and years behind iTunes. Where it is better is info about artists and tidal integration. Where it falls behind is smart playlist and general “fit and finish”. If roon were $60, with a $25 upgrade every year or two, I might buy it. I just don’t need the features it has, and I would miss smart playlists (including nested ones) and iOS syncing. Saved searches just don’t cut it for me as smart playlists.  Also, I’m not sure how one can listen to one's music when away from home without streaming from one’s own server, which, with data caps at home, I cannot do.  Yep, I’m old school and sync my music to my devices.
> ...



That Music Direct free 60-day trial offer has expired. I tried it multiple times, but to no avail.

The best I could find was a 30-day trial through Acoustic Sounds.


----------



## torifile

Allanmarcus said:


> Umm. I just use an app called Remote on my iPad.


The Remote app? I swear it doesn’t have any way to control iTunes remotely. I could be wrong but I couldn’t find a way to do it. Can you post a link to the one you use?


----------



## Allanmarcus

torifile said:


> The Remote app? I swear it doesn’t have any way to control iTunes remotely. I could be wrong but I couldn’t find a way to do it. Can you post a link to the one you use?


I think you have to turn Home Sharing on in iTunes, then use the app, then add the device to Remote.

I think these are the instructions. 
https://support.apple.com/kb/ph19503?locale=en_US

and here

https://www.imore.com/how-use-itunes-remote-control-home-sharing


----------



## KaiFi

Allanmarcus said:


> Very true. That is how I have it set up. What Roon is missing, for me, is playlist organization. No folders for playlists, unless I'm mistaken. The added value for Roon, again, for me, isn't worth the price over iTunes. YMMV, of course. Very personal decision.



Yeah, that's my issue. I have hundreds of playlists. Being able to organize them into folders (and those folders into more folders) is the only way my system works, otherwise I'd be scrolling through a ton of them to find anything. That's the main reason I use iTunes.


----------



## torifile

Allanmarcus said:


> I think you have to turn Home Sharing on in iTunes, then use the app, then add the device to Remote.
> 
> I think these are the instructions.
> https://support.apple.com/kb/ph19503?locale=en_US
> ...


So strange. I have tried that and nothing I do ends up with iTunes showing up as a source. I can do it with the old remote app but not the new one.


----------



## Currawong

First post updated. Are there any new players I've missed which I should add?


----------



## ngoshawk

I have used Pine Player almost exclusively when not on Tidal Premium. Good simple player with many options to tailor your sound. You can link your iTunes music as well:

https://pine-player.apponic.com/mac/


----------



## Lohb

Anyone using a network receiver unit that will work with Audirvana sub-$100 ?
I just need a small receiver box to kick 16/44 out to a DAC over optical.

There is an entry-level unit from August
https://www.augustint.com/us/productmsg-326-295.html
But the issue it has is, you cannot manually advance to next track or drag the slider along a track without it hanging/seizing up in
A+. 

A+ designer confirmed the issue is with August firmware not A+.


----------



## Currawong

Lohb said:


> Anyone using a network receiver unit that will work with Audirvana sub-$100 ?
> I just need a small receiver box to kick 16/44 out to a DAC over optical.
> 
> There is an entry-level unit from August
> ...



Does it have to be optical? My first thought is a Raspberry Pi with suitable software.


----------



## Lohb

Currawong said:


> Does it have to be optical? My first thought is a Raspberry Pi with suitable software.


No, actually USB will be an option as well.Looking at Allo Usbridge and other ones now. Thanks.


----------



## aminus

I've been looking for a good iTunes alternative primarily for DSD support and automatic sample rate switching. So far JRiver appears to be the best one. I've tried Amarra (converted my DSD into PCM instead of playing it DoP), Audirvana+ (had some sort of weird issue where it didn't play certain tracks gaplessly) and Swinsian. I've purchased Bitperfect but I'm unsure if the DSD Master addon required to play DSD files will actually allow me to access my .dsf files in a library interface, and if it will directly stream DoP to my DAC. Anything else I should consider before I go purchase Jriver? The library organization does leave something to be desired so my options are open.


----------



## MacedonianHero

aminus said:


> I've been looking for a good iTunes alternative primarily for DSD support and automatic sample rate switching. So far JRiver appears to be the best one. I've tried Amarra (converted my DSD into PCM instead of playing it DoP), Audirvana+ (had some sort of weird issue where it didn't play certain tracks gaplessly) and Swinsian. I've purchased Bitperfect but I'm unsure if the DSD Master addon required to play DSD files will actually allow me to access my .dsf files in a library interface, and if it will directly stream DoP to my DAC. Anything else I should consider before I go purchase Jriver? The library organization does leave something to be desired so my options are open.



Yeah, Roon. Game-set-match the best player I've used!


----------



## aminus

MacedonianHero said:


> Yeah, Roon. Game-set-match the best player I've used!


I don’t know how I feel about dropping $500 for a player with lots of features I’m not going to use.


----------



## MacedonianHero

aminus said:


> I don’t know how I feel about dropping $500 for a player with lots of features I’m not going to use.



I love it....the features are outstanding and the album artwork/information take me back to my old vinyl days. Plus it is the quickest player around and doesn't slow down with my 1400+ albums loaded into it. Plus there is a free 14 day trial...I strongly suggest you give it a try. I came from Audirvana and Amarra and wasted $200 there before I switched to Roon.


----------



## aminus

MacedonianHero said:


> I love it....the features are outstanding and the album artwork/information take me back to my old vinyl days. Plus it is the quickest player around and doesn't slow down with my 1400+ albums loaded into it. Plus there is a free 14 day trial...I strongly suggest you give it a try. I came from Audirvana and Amarra and wasted $200 there before I switched to Roon.


I really have no need for all the extra artist/album information, I pretty much know what I need to know about what I’m listening to. And I’m never going to touch any of the streaming or server stuff. It’s kinda redundant for my uses. I just want a library that plays all my song formats without issue, not much more.


----------



## MacedonianHero

aminus said:


> I really have no need for all the extra artist/album information, I pretty much know what I need to know about what I’m listening to. And I’m never going to touch any of the streaming or server stuff. It’s kinda redundant for my uses. I just want a library that plays all my song formats without issue, not much more.



Try to help someone....lol.

Roon will be the best player with the least issues of all the players (I've never had any actually). You don't always get what you pay for, but with Roon, you really do.


----------



## aminus

MacedonianHero said:


> Try to help someone....lol.
> 
> Roon will be the best player with the least issues of all the players (I've never had any actually). You don't always get what you pay for, but with Roon, you really do.


I mean, I’m sure it’s a great player. I just don’t know if it’s worth the hefty asking price if I’m not touching most of the functionality.


----------



## MacedonianHero

aminus said:


> I mean, I’m sure it’s a great player. I just don’t know if it’s worth the hefty asking price if I’m not touching most of the functionality.



That's why there's a 14 day free trial.


----------



## Allanmarcus

aminus said:


> I really have no need for all the extra artist/album information, I pretty much know what I need to know about what I’m listening to. And I’m never going to touch any of the streaming or server stuff. It’s kinda redundant for my uses. I just want a library that plays all my song formats without issue, not much more.


Then jriver is your player.


----------



## Satir (Aug 18, 2019)

JRIver. As ancillaries, dBPoweramp and PerfectTunes. The latter has a Beta version that will tag DSD files if required. Gear comes and goes. The music matters most.


----------



## jcn3

aminus said:


> I mean, I’m sure it’s a great player. I just don’t know if it’s worth the hefty asking price if I’m not touching most of the functionality.



if you use tidal or qobuz, then the roon radio functionality makes it worth it alone.  roon radio kicks in when you're queue is empty and starts playing music that's similar that it thinks you'll like -- both in your library and what's available in roon and qobuz.  i'm discovered so much amazing much that i never would have known about otherwise.


----------



## omasciarotte

jcn3 said:


> if you use tidal or qobuz, then the roon radio functionality makes it worth it alone.  roon radio kicks in when you're queue is empty and starts playing music that's similar that it thinks you'll like -- both in your library and what's available in roon and qobuz.  i'm discovered so much amazing much that i never would have known about otherwise.



TIDAL also does the same when an existing playlist runs out…


----------



## jcn3

omasciarotte said:


> TIDAL also does the same when an existing playlist runs out…



not with tidal content and library content.  of course, if you only use tidal, then my point is moot.


----------



## Allanmarcus

I tried JRiver. I tried to like it; I really did. It so clearly a Windows port. It doesn't feel like a Mac application at all. Too bad, as it has some good features, and could easily be an iTunes replacement if Apple ever really destroys the new music application. 

I also used Plex and Kodi pretty heavily. Kodi is a lightweight music player. Plex does have decent to good meta data lookup, which is really nice, and decent smart list capabilities.

Of course if one wants to sync music with an iOS device, Apple Music App (iTunes, not the streaming service) is the only game in town. Roon plays very nice with an existing iTunes library, but $500 lifetime is hard to swallow.


----------



## samuraivoodoo

I'm using the Vox player. Itunes is junk


----------



## brainchill

I'm old, so I came from a Winamp/xmms world as far as digital music is concerned ... so for me I play with some of these but I'm mostly stuck in a file structure with artist name>album title>track names and still mostly just use something like VLC


----------



## claud W

I have some issues I need help with. I have Audirvana Plus on my Mac Mini that is new last year. I was able to get DSD with my Cord 2Qute DAC. Yesterday I got a new Matrix X-Sabre Pro DAC and all it played is PCM. Is there something I need to adjust in Audirvana Plus? My Mac Mini? The Matrix?
In addition, I seem to have several albums on Audirvana Plus that have songs repeated through the whole album. How best way to remove the extra songs?


----------



## claud W

Fixed issue one. I had never configured Audirvana Plus, so, all this time, about 3 years, all I have been listening to is PCM. Until my new DAC, I just thought I was listening to DSD.


----------



## tumpux

An honest question if you dont mind, do you notice any difference between pcm and dsd stream?


----------



## AnakChan

Depends on CD/SACD, headphone/speaker/amp gear, etc. e.g. off my Stax headphones, yes but off my V-Moda, somewhat more difficult. And for CD/SACD, if it was the early 2003 version of Norah Jones SACD, nope but the reissued 2012 version, yes. In other words, plenty of variables at play.


----------



## Lohb

Think I posted this on an article by accident vs this thread...

Anyone have AudirvanaPlus_3.2.16.dmg ?
I need to test it against AudirvanaPlus_3.2.18.dmg to see if the issue I have is with A+ or new Air machine...
I want to keep using a fully working A+ vs new Audirvana one which I really don't like. 

Had to roll back to Sierra after finding out old A+ has been "retired" on Catalina....i just find GUI awful on new Audirvana.


----------



## Krutsch

Lohb said:


> Anyone have AudirvanaPlus_3.2.16.dmg ?
> ...
> Had to roll back to Sierra after finding out old A+ has been "retired" on Catalina....i just find GUI awful on new Audirvana.



Yes. I am running the latest A+ on the latest Catalina on the latest MacBook Air. Everything works fine.


----------



## Lohb

Krutsch said:


> Yes. I am running the latest A+ on the latest Catalina on the latest MacBook Air. Everything works fine.


Strange, I could not get it to point to my library with 3.2.18 on Catalina and 2019 Air. I assumed it no longer worked with catalina as a way to force everyone on to the new one.


----------



## SilverEars

Do you guys get slow-down for sound to output on Tidal on a Mac?  I see the player's progess bar moving, but no sound comes out immediately like in Windows, and takes a bit of time for the sound to kick-in.


----------



## Currawong

SilverEars said:


> Do you guys get slow-down for sound to output on Tidal on a Mac?  I see the player's progess bar moving, but no sound comes out immediately like in Windows, and takes a bit of time for the sound to kick-in.



What's your entire set-up?


----------



## SilverEars (Feb 23, 2020)

Currawong said:


> What's your entire set-up?


Mac Mini to Yggdrasil via usb.  I'm wondering if this is regular issue that others are facing with Macs or isolated to my computer configuration.  Doesn't matter what DAC is connected, I tried others as well, and Tidal does the same thing.  It's got to be within the software.


----------



## Currawong

SilverEars said:


> Mac Mini to Yggdrasil via usb.  I'm wondering if this is regular issue that others are facing with Macs or isolated to my computer configuration.  Doesn't matter what DAC is connected, I tried others as well, and Tidal does the same thing.  It's got to be within the software.



I just tried the TIDAL app again. I think the delay is caused by the app buffering the track. 

On another note, I found a new minimalist player on the App Store: Colibri


----------



## SilverEars (Mar 5, 2020)

Currawong said:


> I just tried the TIDAL app again. I think the delay is caused by the app buffering the track.
> 
> On another note, I found a new minimalist player on the App Store: Colibri


For some reason the new 2018 Mac Mini has longer lag than the 2011 model on High Sierra?  Makes no sense.  I will be adding more ram to the mini to see if it improves it, but I doubt it's ram related, it's got to be the software.

What's really odd about Macs (and Apple products like ipods) is that there is some wort of a house sound in the way music is put out.  It's odd to me that Macs output dry sound out of their usb ports compared to Windows pcs.  I wonder why?  It so sure on this distinction of the sound.  Macs sound leaner due to this dry nature.

I usually find dry sound to be more detailed due to the tightness.  I find wet to be more smoothed over, or blended kinda sound, but seems more life-like and natural of course.


----------



## DjBobby

SilverEars said:


> For some reason the new 2018 Mac Mini has longer lag than the 2011 model on High Sierra?  Makes no sense.  I will be adding more ram to the mini to see if it improves it, but I doubt it's ram related, it's got to be the software.
> 
> What's really odd about Macs (and Apple products like ipods) is that there is some wort of a house sound in the way music is put out.  It's odd to me that Macs output dry sound out of their usb ports compared to Windows pcs.  I wonder why?  It so sure on this distinction of the sound.  Macs sound leaner due to this dry nature.
> 
> I usually find dry sound to be more detailed due to the tightness.  I find wet to be more smoothed over, or blended kinda sound, but seems more life-like and natural of course.


I have zero lag with the MacBook Pro, music starts immediately using latest Tidal and Audirvana apps.

Don't get it quite what do you mean by dry house sound of Apple. Using external dacs, Macs and iPads only output simple digital signal which is then "colored" by the output device. Using the same MacBook for the USB digital out, I can hear distinctive difference with the external dacs using ESS Sabre chips (dry and tight) and AKM (wett and fat).


----------



## SilverEars (Mar 6, 2020)

DjBobby said:


> I have zero lag with the MacBook Pro, music starts immediately using latest Tidal and Audirvana apps.
> 
> Don't get it quite what do you mean by dry house sound of Apple. Using external dacs, Macs and iPads only output simple digital signal which is then "colored" by the output device. Using the same MacBook for the USB digital out, I can hear distinctive difference with the external dacs using ESS Sabre chips (dry and tight) and AKM (wett and fat).


Which year model MBP, and the spec?  I actually notice a difference on a single DAC that changes the level of dryness depending on if it's being fed digital from a Mac or Windows PC usb implimentation.  Mac sounds dry, and I know it's from the Mac if I compare with Winodws PC usb out.


----------



## DjBobby

SilverEars said:


> Which year model MBP, and the spec?  I actually notice a difference on a single DAC that changes the level of dryness depending on if it's being fed digital from a Mac or Windows PC usb implimentation.  Mac sounds dry, and I know it's from the Mac if I compare with Winodws PC usb out.


MacBook Pro Mid 2018 with 16GB Ram. 
Very interesting indeed. Listening the stored music through the Marantz network player and though the MacBook Pro, I can't say I hear much difference, if at all. 
Will try and compare the Mac with one Windows laptop very soon.


----------



## Allanmarcus

SilverEars said:


> Which year model MBP, and the spec?  I actually notice a difference on a single DAC that changes the level of dryness depending on if it's being fed digital from a Mac or Windows PC usb implimentation.  Mac sounds dry, and I know it's from the Mac if I compare with Winodws PC usb out.


If the Mac and the pc are sending the data bit perfect, there cannot be a difference in sound with the same DAC.  I don’t know if tidal sends bit perfect, but iTunes and many other programs can send bitperfect.


----------



## Currawong

Allanmarcus said:


> If the Mac and the pc are sending the data bit perfect, there cannot be a difference in sound with the same DAC.  I don’t know if tidal sends bit perfect, but iTunes and many other programs can send bitperfect.



Actually, there can be a difference, depending on how much noise is also being sent over the USB lines. Some more recent DACs have isolation on their USB inputs to deal with this. It's also possible, given the complexity of how USB works, that the output of a computer can cause the USB receiver in the DAC to do more processing, causing it to generate more noise inside the DAC itself. That is why the audiophile music players have optimisations to reduce the amount of processing done via USB to minimise this.


----------



## Allanmarcus

Currawong said:


> Actually, there can be a difference, depending on how much noise is also being sent over the USB lines. Some more recent DACs have isolation on their USB inputs to deal with this. It's also possible, given the complexity of how USB works, that the output of a computer can cause the USB receiver in the DAC to do more processing, causing it to generate more noise inside the DAC itself. That is why the audiophile music players have optimisations to reduce the amount of processing done via USB to minimise this.


I don't think a player can reduce amount of processing done via USB. A player can use less CPU time, which _might_ reduce noise on crappy PCs, the the data sent to the DAC is identical if the data is sent bit perfect. 
Sure, there can be USB noise, but all things being equal (a decent PC and a Mac) sending bit perfect info over a decent USB to a well implemented USB DAC, the sound should be exactly the same.


----------



## Twangsta

Is anybody using Audirvana 3.5?
I had to upgrade as I moved to a windows desktop recently. 
Wanted to ask about the upsampling settings.
Has anybody had any insights into them?

I'm using KRK rocket 5 studio monitors and an HD800 via an RME babyface pro, my BLC Linear has a bad volume pot, need to fixit.


----------



## Mortone

Twangsta said:


> Is anybody using Audirvana 3.5?
> I had to upgrade as I moved to a windows desktop recently.
> Wanted to ask about the upsampling settings.
> Has anybody had any insights into them?
> ...


It is limited to the ability of the computer it is attached to, Mac Laptop 192. I have an outboard DAC that allows it to go to 350 pull and with a filter 700.


----------



## digitalreferee

I know I'm extremely late to the party on this thread and sorry for the necroing but I'm always surprised that nobody ever seems to mention *Cog* as an amazing, lightweight and functional player for Mac:

https://cog.losno.co/

Used to be that it was inactive in terms of development, which didn't prevent me from using the old version for years (amazingly that version still works perfectly well, you can find it at this link here if you want a version for an older computer), but now it's been picked up by a developer again, by virtue of it being open source.

What I personally love about it is that you just point it to your root folder for your local music, and then it lets you access the Mac OS file tree, double click on any folder to instantly start a playlist of that folder, and that works if you have subfolders too (for example if you want to listen to an entire artist's discography that you have all in one folder for that artist, with multiple subfolders for each album, you can). Maybe it's just because it's tailored to the way I want to listen to my collection (I have everything extremely well ordered and don't care for Artist/Albums sorting) but I honestly have never found any fault with Cog in general in terms of functionality for just playing stuff. It's very versatile and doesn't really have had any issues with the files I threw at it (I think the only time I ran into a wall was trying to open some wavpack files, and that has since been fixed).

Highly recommend it if anyone is still looking for a good player for their local collection on Mac. And it's also a native Mac app and not a port or a cross-platform app (or worse, some electron atrocity), which is always nice.


----------



## omasciarotte

Regarding Cog, it lists lots of bells and whistles but doesn’t include the most important in my consideration:

forced automatic SR switching of the DAC to match the source file/stream's sample rate
bit–perfect playback
Also, it doesn’t mention that the dev has attempted to make it as hi–fi as possible, so I have to dismiss it as just another player app, in a choice of hundreds, that focus on functionality rather than fidelity.

To be honest, I have not done any critical listening to Cog in many years so maybe I’m missing something.


----------



## digitalreferee

I totally get your point though, that's also why I mentioned, it perfectly fits my purposes but it might not everyone's.

Those features might be good ones to point out to the developer though, if you feel so inclined. They're very active and there are frequent updates, with features being added on a regular basis, so I'm sure they'd look into bit-perfect playback and forced DAC sample rate matching of source if it was of interest to enough people.

Then again, you might not be into the idea of browsing your collection in the way Cog likes to implement it (which is admittedly the big reason why I'm not into any of the usual software being recommended) so it might not be worth it.


----------



## dondadpie

I was looking at Swinsian before. Never got around to giving the trial a go, but will try to soon


----------



## homesickmadmax

aminus said:


> I've been looking for a good iTunes alternative primarily for DSD support and automatic sample rate switching. So far JRiver appears to be the best one. I've tried Amarra (converted my DSD into PCM instead of playing it DoP), Audirvana+ (had some sort of weird issue where it didn't play certain tracks gaplessly) and Swinsian. I've purchased Bitperfect but I'm unsure if the DSD Master addon required to play DSD files will actually allow me to access my .dsf files in a library interface, and if it will directly stream DoP to my DAC. Anything else I should consider before I go purchase Jriver? The library organization does leave something to be desired so my options are open.


Colibri is good, but no library


----------

