# Better Sound for Mac Users- Pure Music Player



## bixby

I just wanted to let folks know that there is a new music player for Mac users that is better than itunes for playback (in my opinion) on high quality systems.

 I found out about it from another forum and have been playing with the demo for several days now. I like the sound quality a lot better than itunes. iTunes is still decent mind, but this is a step up in naturalness. It uses itunes for it's database and search capabilities, but uses it's own 64 bit audio player.

 It competes with other audiophile players like Amarra, only costs quite a bit less.

 I first ran into the gentleman behind Pure Music in 2006 at RMAF. He wrote the Pure Vinyl software for digitizing vinyl on your Mac. It has a really good reputation.

 FYI, downloading the demo gets you a full featured software for 15 days.

 I am placing my order today since he has a special running through March 14 at $79. EDIT- The site is PURE-MUSIC-PLAYER.COM

 And no I don't work for Pure Music. Just impressed user. I have been waiting a long time for something like this to come along.


----------



## mamba315

I will have to check this out. I just got a Mac Mini and want the best FLAC playback possible without the outrageous (IMO) cost of Amarra.


----------



## mrwinick

Have you compared it to anything other than itunes?


----------



## schwallman

use fluke.


----------



## leveller1642

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *schwallman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_use fluke._

 

Isn't that just a FLAC plug-in for itunes, rather than a music player? 

 Thank Bixby for posting. i had been considering Amara but at $400, dongle hassles and still in an apparent quasi-beta state, I hesitated.


----------



## grawk

you can get the single system version of amarra without a dongle for $295

Amarra Computer Music Player


----------



## bixby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mrwinick* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you compared it to anything other than itunes?_

 

On the pc, I use foobar and have used itunes, album player, and winamp.

 On the Mac side I have used ecoute, itunes, and heard vlc.

 I have not read anywhere that some like cog or play are much better and I am not about to try ten players that have received only mediocre reviews. The beauty of Amarra and Pure Music is that they use itunes data and organizational format. It is quite convenient. And the geeks I trust or audiophiles, if you will, like both.


----------



## krmathis

Thanks for the link and info. This one is all new to me.
 Will definitely check out.


----------



## alvin sawdust

Was using the pure vinyl player on the 15 day demo,when that ran out i downloaded the pure music player demo.Sounds better than itunes to me,not that itunes sounded bad at all.Will definately purchase at the intro price.


----------



## bixby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the link and info. This one is all new to me.
 Will definitely check out. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I am curious to hear how you like it with your K1000s. should sound superb!


----------



## alvin sawdust

Just purchased and have just updated to version 1.02.Don't know what the main differences are but have noticed there is now a reset button which restarts the player in seconds.


----------



## bixby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *alvin sawdust* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just purchased and have just updated to version 1.02.Don't know what the main differences are but have noticed there is now a reset button which restarts the player in seconds._

 

I did read that 1.02 now support time remaining or used on the Touch as a remote updating playback time every 3 secs or so, whereas before it would not move at all.

 Not sure of other differences.

 How are you liking the sound?


----------



## gbacic

You just stole 80 bucks from me!
 I was hoping that I could find something like this, but never took the time to look for a program.


----------



## bixby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gbacic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You just stole 80 bucks from me!
 I was hoping that I could find something like this, but never took the time to look for a program._

 

I didn't get your $80, please send it to me again 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Not really, I have nothing to do with Pure Music other than being a customer.

 but if you want to donate some $ to me for the turn on feel free!


----------



## stringgz301

I downloaded the demo and tried it. It is really intended for users that want to control the volume on their Mac. It appears to have a highly configurable and sophisticated set of algorithms for adjusting the volume and EQ (along with a number of other features). It also appears to integrate tightly (although using a highly non-Mac-like interface) with iTunes.

 For those of us that just want a bit-perfect audio player and control the volume using an external headphone amp I don't really see anything that I'd pay money for. iTunes or VLC both do that just fine.


----------



## krmathis

Yeah, I downloaded and gave it a try as well.
 But it only lasted some few minutes, and it's now gone. For one the UI was not to my liking, taking over the upper part of the screen with scrolling song title and more. Second of all I do not get why it has a volume control, as I though it was all about bit-perfect playback.
 "PREFS" button in the Docking control did not work either.

 That does not say it will not be a match for other users of course.


----------



## bixby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stringgz301* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I downloaded the demo and tried it. It is really intended for users that want to control the volume on their Mac. It appears to have a highly configurable and sophisticated set of algorithms for adjusting the volume and EQ (along with a number of other features). It also appears to integrate tightly (although using a highly non-Mac-like interface) with iTunes.

 For those of us that just want a bit-perfect audio player and control the volume using an external headphone amp I don't really see anything that I'd pay money for. iTunes or VLC both do that just fine. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I just wanted to point out a few things that may be misleading in your note. There is no EQ functionality with Pure Music. And 0db volume setting is bit perfect with no dither applied. In fact all volume control dither settings can be bypassed and turned off. This is akin to running itunes at full volume. 

 As for paying money for a volume control? Hmmm itunes and VLC came out sounding much less natural in my listening tests. For me it is all about the sound quality, but I do respect ones preference for something else. At least you gave it a try.

 cheers


----------



## bixby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, I downloaded and gave it a try as well.
 But it only lasted some few minutes, and it's now gone. For one the UI was not to my liking, taking over the upper part of the screen with scrolling song title and more. Second of all I do not get why it has a volume control, as I though it was all about bit-perfect playback.
 "PREFS" button in the Docking control did not work either.

 That does not say it will not be a match for other users of course. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

FYI the scrolling info and meters can be turned off. Yes, the user interface is different in that it require itunes to be open so you can use it to find your songs. You just need to re-size things a bit. Not sure why it disappeared on you. 

 The reason it has a volume control and a good one is for those folks who do not use a preamp and run their dac directly into their amp. This allows one to skip the added component of a pre and still have good control of volume with minimal loss of resolution.

 I use a pre so 0db is the setting I use all the time and it is bit perfect.

 At least you gave it a spin

 cheers


----------



## hockeyb213

You guys say it is 64 bit but I just went into my activity monitor and it is not reported as a 64 bit torrent.


----------



## bixby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hockeyb213* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You guys say it is 64 bit but I just went into my activity monitor and it is not reported as a 64 bit torrent._

 

I am not technical but does this help? It is from the Pure Music "read me" file.

_With the Monitor setting in Pure Music at 0 dB, the
 original audio isn't altered at all: you get direct playthrough via a lossless, 64
 bit audio kernel to your high-end DAC.

 The iTunes Music Server feature uses iTunes as a music database and user
 interface, while all audio is rendered and played via Pure Music's low CPU
 overhead audiophile quality 64 bit resolution playback engine (64 bit resolution
 audio is an entirely different thing than the 64 bit memory addressing now
 available in Apple's Snow Leopard OS 10.6)._


----------



## sseckm?n

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stringgz301* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For those of us that just want a bit-perfect audio player and control the volume using an external headphone amp I don't really see anything that I'd pay money for. iTunes or VLC both do that just fine. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I agree, why would you be using anything else? Is there even a noticible difference in quality using a different playback device?


----------



## Bubu1

I downloaded this software yesterday after finding this thread. After listening for a while, my impression is that the sound is a bit more natural and that both soundstage and imaging are better than with iTunes (I'm using an intel macbook from 2007 running snow leopard). By better I mean that the soundstage appears a bit wider and it is easier to pinpoint instrument location in the recording. The bass also seems to be a bit better fleshed out and fuller. Qualitatively, I seem to be enjoying the music more and switching between the two, iTunes seems a bit dynamically flat by comparison. I'm curious to hear other impressions about this software and also how it compares to Amarra. As a frame of reference, I listen to primarily classical music.


----------



## jax

I tried Amarra on my rig (mini-version with key) and could not perceive any differences via headphones or via a very revealing speaker-based system in a dedicated room. My friend had the same experience in the latter (speakers) and could not hear a difference. We were using only standard rez files...not hi-rez downloads. I tried WAV, AIFF and ALAC. I could not hear any difference with Amarra on vs. iTunes playing the same cut. There's an article on Amarra in the current Absolute Sound. I haven't tried PureMusic.


----------



## DynaMike

Does this work with streaming via WLAN -> an Airport Express router?
  I remember to have read that the Airport always converts to 44.1khz...
   
  Didn´t get it to stream higher than that - any ideas or is that streaming method not supported?
   
   
  Cheers!


----------



## Student_Driver

Am using Pure Music to allow the automated switching of audio encoding schemes without having to close iTunes, fire up Midi Setup etc. 
   
  Have not downloaded iTunes 10 yet as am unsure whether they are compatible. Anyone tried?


----------



## Bubu1

iTunes 10 and pure music 1.61 seem to be working fine together for me!


----------



## Student_Driver

Bubu, Thanks. Will download iTunes 10.


----------



## Dynobot

Quote: 





bubu1 said:


> iTunes 10 and pure music 1.61 seem to be working fine together for me!


 
   
   
  How does internet radio work???


----------



## fallingreason

That looks amazing, and for a decent price.  Thumbs Up!


----------



## Bubu1

Dynobot,
  Unfortunately I don't listen to internet radio so I'm not much help here!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  Quote: 





dynobot said:


> How does internet radio work???


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





dynobot said:


> How does internet radio work???


 
  it doesn't. 
   
  Pure music plays files and does not use itunes for anything other than file management and user interface.


----------



## Student_Driver

Has anyone tried using an iphone or ipad to control Pure Music? I assume that the Apple Remote application will not work as it controls iTunes and not Pure Music.


----------



## bixby

Pure Music works with ipad as well as touch with the standard remote app.  It may not show the elapsed time unless you check a setting in pm, though.
   
  Also, you do not want to press a button while loading a gapless album too soon after you pressed play cuz it may crash the app if the entire album did not load into memory for playback.
   
  cheers


----------



## gus6464

Does this support airtunes?


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





gus6464 said:


> Does this support airtunes?


 


  nope


----------



## mrspeakers

Been running the demo all day and so-far, me likey.  I have an increasing quantity of 24/96 and 88.2 material, and was rather irritated by the need to constantly switch devices in MIDI and quit iTunes, or just downsample everything, which sucked.
   
  The upsampling seems to be interesting.  Normally this has not improved the audio, in my experience, but with "doubling" as the default for me, my ALAC material just magically bumps up to 88.2, and darned if the audio on some tracks doesn't sound better (I noted a bit of extra transparency and air on my 256K material, much more of a difference than with the ALAC source.  What's up with that?).
   
  I downloaded this wondering why it would cost anything at all, but it does seem to be growing on me.  A little more listening and I may just buy this.
   
  BTW, the scrolling meter stuff on the top is just GROSS UI.  Very NOT MAC.  Sorry to shout, but the UI started it...


----------



## mrspeakers

It's interesting how few people seem to be tracking the concept of software to improve the source.  I'm hooked on this now, it's quite noticeable on good source material, and the upsampling is nice, and very automatic.  I'm a "silence between the notes" fan, and the articulation of dark space and air the software ads is interesting.  Doubters should try the free 15 day trial.


----------



## vuntruong

I tried it out, and I have to say, What's the point?  it doesnt do anything.  I cant hear the difference.  Better off using Foobar.  Purevinyl is better if u have a turntable.


----------



## bixby

What do you mean it doesn't do anything?  Did you get it to play files?  Did you read the TXT readme file?  Did you try memory play?   Hog Mode?  
   
  Give us some more details so we can help you.
   
  Then if you don't like it, you can stick with whatever you're using.  But don't say it doesn't do anything, it makes us think you didn't even hear it.
   

 Come to think of it, I don't believe you got it working on your mac!  You know it is a Mac only program right?
   
  And you do also know that Foobar does not have a Mac version, right?  At least they didn't the last time I checked.
   
  Kinda losing cred here vuntruong!


----------



## mrspeakers

and while we are at it what type of gear did you connect, how was it connected, and what is the resolution of the device? And what source material?

I find the better the source the omits difference I hear...


----------



## grawk

Given that he says it doesn't work as well as foobar, I'd say it means that it doesn't do anything, because he's running windows, and is just trolling because he's bored.


----------



## vuntruong

Alright,  I am using a MAC.  with VMware fusion to run windows and foobar at the same time.  I have the Mac Connected to PS adudio DAC---> Kenwood 600 amp----> DTQW speakers or Akg K701 headphones.  I like purevinyl because it was useful for ripping Vinyl etc...  Pure music player, I don't get.  I got it playing well.  and yes i got it to run in memory mode, and some crazy upsampling.  It seems to be "fat" like itunes as opposed to foobar.  With foobar i can create UPNP servers, play Flac, and well as Apple lossless.  Hell I can play files located on the MAc to my ipod touch, and then stream it back to Airport express if i want.  So now my ipod touch basically have access to all the files on my computer.  everything is good.  I was hoping pure music was a slimdown Purevinyl.  I was hoping it has really really good Volume controls and attenuation so we don't loose any "bits" or information when the volume is not set at max level.  I was hoping it display the bitrate that it actually send out to the DAc, like foobar.  I was hoping it has better volume controls.  I was disappointed.  puremusic uses too much of my computer's resourches.  The sounds playing through puremusic, well seems like the tremble just got cranked up.  Sound space, seems the same to me.  So really, I can't hear the difference between itunes and puremusic players that much.  That's just my observation.


----------



## mrspeakers

Well Vuntruong, that's quite different from "hearing nothing."  "Bright" to you may be what I hear on my rig as "more air."  
   
  On my laptop (hardly the racehorse of CPUs) this uses 2.4% CPU, which is hardly being a processor hog, and since you have control over memory consumption you choose how much to eat, so why the beef?  Anyhow, it's not your cup of tea, so be it.  I dig the control over parameters, though it's hardly user friendly in the conventional sense.  Geek-toy...
   
  I really like this software, and am finding transients are more clearly defined, and that percussion particularly is benefiting from the upsampling.  There's an easy clarity to the music, not at all edgy or sharp, but very liquid.  Listened to some 24/96 classical: woodwinds had a lovely timbre, and on rock percussion really sounded great.  Cymbals have a nice metallic sound to them, and drums you can really hear the impact on the drum head.

 I am excited to try this with the Burson.  It will be interesting to compare the DACPort to the Burson 160D's quality with iTunes vs. Pure Music source.  It's supposed to arrive Friday.


----------



## vuntruong

I'm just saying I expected more.  I have used product from Echo digital Corporation, specifically the indigo IO.  and I have to say that their drivers are top notch.  Well, I've change laptop, and the drivers doesn't work without the soundcard.  Man, I wish one can still use the driver to control all audio input/output.  I was hoping that pure music players was similar to their driver.  Oh well.  Keep at it.


----------



## Bones13

I have been using PureMusic since version 1.6, and have the current 1.72a, and use it on 2 computers.  They let you use your one license on the computers you use.
   
  Used correctly (hog mode, memory play, pre-allocation, +/- upsampling, I find it to be a real upgrade to standard Mac audio via a DAC.  Price is not too bad either.  I have been too cheap to spring for Amarra, and will not usually support any software with that type of copy protection, but I read that it works well also.
   
  PureMusic allows you continue to iTunes with all its features, remote controls, play lists, and just replaces most of Core Audio as I understand it.  On my home computer, I play system audio through the speakers in the monitor, and use the USB audio driver for W4S DAC2 to be the sole output of PureMusic.  This is controlled using the Midi utility.
   
  To some degree, getting the music to "pop" with PureMusic is similar to how you had to work with Foobar 2K to get true bitperfect out, when its working right, your head starts nodding, the difference really is noticable.


----------



## mijbil

My experience with PM (started with versioni 1.7 - I undertand there was some problems with earlier versions / significant improvements and added features along the way) has been pretty remarkable, and for anyone who can spare the coin I recommend it heartily. The immediately improvement in sound quality - clarity and definition, above all, as wel as "liveliness" -- really surprised me. Fortunately you can get the full-featured demo version for 15 days so you know exactly what you're getting. The other big big thing, at least for me, is the dithered volume control - if you use the volume on your preamp or amp it's not a concern, but that offers a genuine improvement over itunes native. Oh and the memory play is very cool - so that the music never skips. (And it is also FAR less resource-intensive than itunes - I haven't done the measurements myself, but I do notice that I have less problems with itunes taking over the system. I think I read somewhere (maybe on the PM web site?) that it is on the order of 1/10th the processing requirements of itunes for music playback....
   
  There are a few flaws though - it is annoying that you have to restart PM to change the source (sound device) - itunes native has no problem with hot-switching, something essential for comparing components/cables/etc. It "clips" on to itunes but can become "separated". And it doesnt work with certain sorts of itunes files (e.g. video) - in fact you cant play video with PM running, so you have to close it. You should just be able to disable it. (in fact, there is a feature for that, which tye call "less is more mode", but stupidly THAT window behaves differently, staying always int he foreground - i.e., you can't watch a video with that because the little PM window in the foreground blocks part of it.
   
  Improvements I would like in addition to those already mentioned: equalization/tone controls, a more "mature" GUI (probably one that "integrates" with itunes better, but of course not necessarily), work with other audio (video, web browser, flash, DVDs, etc) - I'm sure tha twould require a completely different kind of implementation (perhaps/probably acting as system-wide sound driver or sound card, rather than just a single application with audio output, but that would make it a TRULY killer app. 
   
  Hope these thoughts are helpful for prospective buyers. 
   
  Cheers.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





vuntruong said:


> Alright,  I am using a MAC.  with VMware fusion to run windows and foobar at the same time.  I have the Mac Connected to PS adudio DAC---> Kenwood 600 amp----> DTQW speakers or Akg K701 headphones.  I like purevinyl because it was useful for ripping Vinyl etc...  Pure music player, I don't get.  I got it playing well.  and yes i got it to run in memory mode, and some crazy upsampling.  It seems to be "fat" like itunes as opposed to foobar.  With foobar i can create UPNP servers, play Flac, and well as Apple lossless.  Hell I can play files located on the MAc to my ipod touch, and then stream it back to Airport express if i want.  So now my ipod touch basically have access to all the files on my computer.  everything is good.  I was hoping pure music was a slimdown Purevinyl.  I was hoping it has really really good Volume controls and attenuation so we don't loose any "bits" or information when the volume is not set at max level.  I was hoping it display the bitrate that it actually send out to the DAc, like foobar.  I was hoping it has better volume controls.  I was disappointed.  puremusic uses too much of my computer's resourches.  The sounds playing through puremusic, well seems like the tremble just got cranked up.  Sound space, seems the same to me.  So really, I can't hear the difference between itunes and puremusic players that much.  That's just my observation.


 

 Curious, which PS Audio dac are you using?  How are you connecting your mac, Toslink? and what brand are you using, plastic or glass?  Are you running other software like VM ware while playing PM?  
   
  The reason for all the quesitons is that if you have lots of things going on in a mac you may not hear what it is capable of.  And while it certainly does sound better than itunes on my setup you may not hear as big a difference than itunes when you have things not quite as tweaked for serious music listening.  For example, bluetooth and wifi should be off if you really want to hear the depth that Pm is capable of.  Using a very high quality usb to spdif converter will also allow PM to take you beyond even the best Toslink setup.  No longer will you have that 2 dimensional wall of sound, even if it sounds pretty darn good.
   
  Not sure what you mean by fat, since my computer shows about 1-2% cpu utilization.  PM is not a jack of all trades software as it concentrates more on quality and not flexibility and I can understand how that may be a factor in your decision to use PM or not.   Also not sure about your comments about bit perfect and the volume control.  I sue no dithering and still use the volume control on PM and cannot hear any loss of resolution nor can I with itunes volume control.  People get so wrapped up in bit perfect and think that is the only thing that matters to SQ.  Believe me there is a lot more going on in a computer based system  that affects SQ than moving bits around without loss.
   
  If you are running any other processes while listening, turn them off or quit the programs.  For example, even an idling Squeezebox server program can make the sound very high fi and two dimensional vs truly audiophile.  And you need to hear hog mode to truly hear what your system can sound like, and of course to do that you need to have another external sound device for output,
   
  As for the trebly sound of PM vs itunes a few answers to my initial quesitons could help explain it.  Upsampling for example works great if you let PM do it with the PS DL3 and it sounds best at 96khz vs native 44k, for example.  Or you may just prefer the sound of itunes vs PM, you would not be the first one 
   
  Also if you are no using memory play and also using your internal drive for your music files you will find the sound to be more jittery, or bright.  You will also hear that with itunes, but the difference may not be so apparent.
   
  In the end it is what you prefer, though, so enjoy whatever you like!
   
  Now, a lot of folks cannot use their macs solely for music, or don't want to fool with tweaking to get the best sound and that is okay, but you will not hear how good PM can sound that way. It still beat the tar out of itunes in my system, even before I knew about and tried the tuning I mention.   So in the end you may need to choose, SQ over flexibility and/ or maybe itunes or foobar is all you need.  At least you tried PM.


----------



## mrspeakers

Anyone interested in buying the Pure-Music software, two cool things:
   
  1) HDTracks is selling it on their site, and you get a 20% discount on your next HDT order.  Order more than $120 and it's getting back down closer to the intro price for PM
   
  2) I had a problem with not being able to play 88.2 via USB on my Burson, but found the very cool little M2Tech HiFace, which other sites report as being transparently compatible and quite nice with PM (USB to S/PDIF adaptor up to 24/192)


----------



## mrspeakers

Someone on another thread asked me why I cared about upsampling and why it's good/bad.  Upsampling and oversampling both have some benefits which I'll try to succinctly summarize.  It's been a long time since I studied digital sampling theory, inverse cosine functions, etc., so a) I'll probably garble the terminology a bit and b) I welcome anyone smarter or with deeper knowledge to please correct me. 
   
  1) There are multiple approaches to upsampling data.  One is simple "multiples" smoothing where you resample at 2x and stick a new data point in between the existing samples.  A smarter approach is to generate the mathematical curve represented by the wavepoint and essentially using splines to approximate the slope of the curve between points.  Using this you can actually come closer to synthesizing what "might" have been there, in all probability, as most changes between points, even for transients, don't represent extreme discontinuities.
   
  2) If the curve-creating and resampling algorithm is really good you can resample to arbitrary sample rates and have a very high probability that you are still at least maintaining, if not improving, the waveform integrity.  Much depends on the curve-fitting algorithm, and how many points forward, and backwards, in time are considered in generating the curve.  Another critical aspect to this is having very high bit-depth (like 64 bit resampling, such as Pure Music uses) vs. 24 or 32-bit integer/fixed point calculations done in most hardware-based upsampling.  Floating point allows for a much greater calculation accuracy when scaling volume, oversampling, etc. As a result, the sonic benefit of the software based approach on modern GPUs should be greater.  
   
  Why go to all this trouble to oversample?  Because 44.1K audio is too close to our hearing range, and the digital and analog filters needed to clean up the signal fall into the audible band, with what is called anti-aliasing noise.  By increasing the sample rate to a much higher level, any potential noise and distortion are moved much further from our auditory range.  
   
  The math of how the curve fitting is done is relatively complex, so any hardcore digital engineers can either correct this or explain the math further, if they have a few hours to spend (or know some good current citations).  I refreshed my knowledge here:
   
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampling
   
  http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/upsampling-vs-oversampling-for-digital-audio
   
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsampling
   
  Since Pure Music uses 64-bit floating point oversampling, as long as they've done a decent job (and you're using their high quality settings and "noise" creation functions) you will actually end up with potentially a better waveform, with fewer audible digital artifacts.


----------



## amcananey

Thanks, that's very helpful. [I'm going to get my terminology wrong here, so bear with me...] I had just assumed that one of the following would be true when listening to 44.1 (non-upsampled data): (a) any two adjacent data points would be connected linearly, which in most cases should provide a pretty good estimation of what "should" be there, or (b) a wave would be generated using the 44.1 data - while not perfect, I would assume the difference between a wave generated with 44.1 data and 96 data would be pretty similar. But from what you're saying, 44.1 is too close to the threshold where errors are audible, so not good, whereas 96 = better.
   
  Thanks!
  Adam


----------



## mrspeakers

The real value is in avoiding in-band aliasing artifacts. In a simple sense, all filters have to "fill in the gaps" for higher frequency data, that's crudely what happens when the digital and analog filters smooth the DAC output. Like jitter, this is hard to measure, or to explain. It's much more complex than THD...


----------



## Pale Rider

Quote: 





mijbil said:


> My experience with PM (started with versioni 1.7 - I undertand there was some problems with earlier versions / significant improvements and added features along the way) has been pretty remarkable, and for anyone who can spare the coin I recommend it heartily. The immediately improvement in sound quality - clarity and definition, above all, as wel as "liveliness" -- really surprised me. Fortunately you can get the full-featured demo version for 15 days so you know exactly what you're getting. The other big big thing, at least for me, is the dithered volume control - if you use the volume on your preamp or amp it's not a concern, but that offers a genuine improvement over itunes native. Oh and the memory play is very cool - so that the music never skips. (And it is also FAR less resource-intensive than itunes - I haven't done the measurements myself, but I do notice that I have less problems with itunes taking over the system. I think I read somewhere (maybe on the PM web site?) that it is on the order of 1/10th the processing requirements of itunes for music playback....
> 
> There are a few flaws though - it is annoying that you have to restart PM to change the source (sound device) - itunes native has no problem with hot-switching, something essential for comparing components/cables/etc. It "clips" on to itunes but can become "separated". And it doesnt work with certain sorts of itunes files (e.g. video) - in fact you cant play video with PM running, so you have to close it. You should just be able to disable it. (in fact, there is a feature for that, which tye call "less is more mode", but stupidly THAT window behaves differently, staying always int he foreground - i.e., you can't watch a video with that because the little PM window in the foreground blocks part of it.
> 
> ...


 
  I would concur in these assessments.
   
  I just made the switch from running my audio out of an AppleTV, feeding my PS Audio Digital Link III with the Cullen IV Mods. The connection between the ATV and the DAC was a Blue Jeans Toslink. I moved everything over to a spare Mac mini [1.66 Intel Core Duo; 2gb RAM], with an external Firewire 400 hard drive for media storage. The DAC is now fed from the USB on the mini; the PS Audio DAC does not run USB in asynchronous mode [I have a Halide Designs Bridge on order, but it's not in yet]. The mini only plays music. That's its only function, so while it is no heavyweight, it seems to have plenty of horsepower. Much as I love playback on the ATV, I made the switch precisely to have more options like Pure Music for playback and to facilitate the move to async USB.
   
  Last year, I spent a fair bit of time testing Amarra, but was not very satisfied with the results. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that I could not perceive enough differences to make me want to buy the software. Nothing sounded bad at all. Today, I believe I am going to plunk down the coin for Pure Music. I have not finished testing with PM on and off—as mijbil notes, A/B testing is not easy with PM—and may not until this weekend, but so far, I have been very pleased with the results. Here is what I have been listening to for these tests [all files Apple lossless]:
   
  Chris Rea's Road to Hell Pt. I & II
  Robert Shaw's Telarc of Verdi's Requiem, mostly the Dies Irae
  Mickey Hart's Dafos
  Amuseum & Jim Keltner from Sheffield Drum & Track Disc
  Dire Straits Brothers in Arms
  Beatles White Album [Mono & Stereo Remasters]
  Neil Young's Like A Hurricane [Weld Live Disc]
  Peter Gabriel's I Have the Touch
  Muddy Waters' Folk Singer
  Pink Floyd Dark Side of Moon [MFSL]
  Don Henley Boys of Summer [MFSL]
  Elton John Goodbye Yellow Brick Road [MFSL]
  Propellerheads History Repeating
  Beethoven Piano Sonatas [Rubinstein & O'Conor]
  Art Tatum Piano Starts Here [Zenph Re-Performance]
   
  All listening has been through the Apache and my HD800s with Moon Audio Blue Dragon balanced cable. So far, I have written in my notes, and I am mindful that I have a lot of different unaccounted variables going on [e.g., going from Toslink to USB]:
   
  1. Soundstage seems deeper, possibly wider
  2. Tighter bass
  3. Better air sounds on horns
  4. Possibly smoother? [Have to check this. I expected the shift to USB possibly to introduce some harshness, but the exceptional transients on Amuseum truly seem to hang in the air and decay like the real thing, while piano seems rock solid, without edginess, and note tone is very steady.]
   
  Perhaps more to come. So far, very satisfying. Looking forward to hearing the LCD-2/Lyr combo with this setup. And I concur in the request for better iTunes GUI integration, though the other requests don't matter to me.


----------



## mrspeakers

I found this little jewel of test data on the Pure-Music site.  http://www.channld.com/pure-vinyl_src.html
   
  It shows the digital artifacts of sample conversion.  Note that the PM conversion is quite clean, but I also dove into the links on the page and found some references that the Mac Core Audio does almost as well.  It would be very interesting indeed to see the inverse UPSAMPLE test vs. downsampling.


----------



## crumpler

Just downloaded and purchased this little gem of a music player. Am loving it so far. Definitely hear a difference on this music player vs itunes native! 
   
  Thanks for the smashing recommendation guys!


----------



## KingStyles

There is a new kid on the block to consider.  http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/fidelia/
  There is a thread just started at CA discussing it http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Anybody-tried-Fidelia


----------



## mrspeakers

Interesting.  Very snazzy looking.  
   
  Fidelia licenses their resampling software from iZotope, like Amarra does.  I like the fact it synchs with the iTunes library.  Hopefully Channel D rises to the challenge and upgrades the UI (it is really bad, 1985 Windows quality) and adds it's own basic library display functions.  I'm rooting for the scrappy startup that builds it's own technology from the ground up.
  
  Personally I would never use the effects features, so essentially this is going to sound exactly like Amarra, which also uses the iZotope engine.  Never heard Amarra but it's obviously well regarded, and this certainly looks nicer, and is not ridiculously overpriced.
   
  EDIT: I was looking at the computeraudiophile link and got a chuckle and saying it sounds closer to Pure Music than Amarra.  Unless Channel D is lying, they are the only ones with their own engine.  For straight playback with upsampling, Amarra and Fidelia will sound identical.


----------



## mrspeakers

OK, played with it for a couple of minutes and:
   
  1) It initially wouldn't load it's own music filters and made me click "OK" about 20 times (with no option to Quit or Cancel)
  2) It crashed
  3) Relaunching allowed the music filters to load but it didn't load iTunes
  4) I got into the settings right away and couldn't sort out the resampling.  While Pure Music's UI is horrid, at lest I understand their settings and I can avoid Audio Midi.  Working on device configuration in Fidelia immediately pushed me over to Audio Midi Setup.  
   
  Never got to listen to anything, as it didn't load my library, it's late and I didn't want to manually load files, and the device and upsampling settings felt like they might be there but it appears it will require reading documentation to figure out how to set it up correctly, and yet again I'm up past my bedtime.  If anyone gets it working, I'd be curious to hear results, but for now I'll stick with what I have...


----------



## Pale Rider

Quote: 





bixby said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I am curious about your statement [highlighted in blue] that BT and WiFi should be turned off. I did a little rummaging/Googling, but saw no such recommendation from Channel D—though I confess I have not asked them directly—and I am not groking why you think this should be the case. if you turned off WiFi, then you could not use the iPad/iPhone to control playback. If you turned off BT, then forget about a wireless keyboard [I use the Apple wireless keyboard and trackpad]. Granted, you could hook up Ethernet and USB devices [less pragmatic in my current installation], but help me understand why you think this recommendations make a difference. FWIW, I am running my Mac mini out to my PS Audio III [w/ Cullen IV mods], through both Blue Jeans Toslink and through USB. I am settling on the USB, and am looking forward to trying the Halide Designs Bridge.
   
  I tried wired/wireless setups over the weekend, and I could detect zero difference in sound, or in CPU load with the wireless capabilities switched in and out. 
   
  Just asking out of curiosity. And I am still curious why vuntruong is going to all that trouble through VMWare Fusion. Don't get me wrong; I love Fusion when I need it, but would not want to have to run my music that way.
   
  Cheers!


----------



## bixby

_RE:_
   
_ For example, bluetooth and wifi should be off if you really want to hear the depth that Pm is capable of. _
   
   
  I use a Macbook so for me monitor and keyboard are built in.  Obviously in many setups folks use the remote app and of course BT keyboards.  
   
  I recommended turning these things off because they made a noticeable improvement in depth in my system.  I  know not all will be able to turn them off, but you may want to try it.  I also found that turning off or stopping the squeezeserver software for my Logitech touch in my office system also had a beneficial impact on the sound.
   
  Just an FYI, there are even more things that my collegues have tried with success like using a solid state drive for the OS.  I just have not gotten that far yet.
   
  cheers


----------



## mrspeakers

I have a MBP and hear no difference at all with Wifi and Bluetooth off, and frankly have no idea why this would make any difference unless you have an RFI problem.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  On the other hand, going to the M2Tech coax made a noticeable though not profound difference vs. USB.


----------



## Pale Rider

I could see both an SSD and the M2Tech coax making a difference, especially the latter. But in the absence of an RFI problem, it's difficult to understand why BT and WiFi would make a difference. Understand, I hold to the view that "everything matters." It may not matter much, and different persons may be able to discern the sound/sight/smell/taste differences of something more or less than others. But everything matters. So, I am willing to consider the possibility that it does make a difference, but I am wondering why it should. With EM radiation all over the place, ranging from cell to office/home WiFi, to ordinary FM and AM, it's difficult to pinpoint why EM/RFI from the Mac itself should matter, if the chain is otherwise properly isolated/insulated. And a quick review of CPU load and processes wil show these activities impose orders of magnitude less demand on the computer than other stuff that music requires. But if you can hear it.........

Like I said, the SSD and M2Tech coax, I get. Though I would expect the latter to make a more noticeable difference. That's why I am considering adding the Halide Designs Bridge, or swapping up from my PS Audio III/Cullen IV DAC to a W4S/Ayre/Weiss.


----------



## vuntruong

*Hey there Headfier,*
*In response to some questions about my setup,  I am using a Macbook pro as a source to feed the PS Audio DLIII dac via a 2 feet long Toslink cable.  I believe the fiber optic cable is made out of polished glass, but I really don’t know, and I really don’t care.  I was under the impressions that when a fiber optic cable transmits lights (digital signal 1, and 0s) over such a short distance (2 ft), the quality of the signal should remain constant.  One only needs a high quality cable when one is transmitting digital signal over long distances.  The Dac feeds a Vintage Kenwood 600 integrated amplifier & Pioneer Spec4.  The Kenwood 600 is use to drive home made speakers ( not too different from Zaph audio Zrt, however, in a Double taper Quarter Wave Transmission line enclosure with 12 inch woofer loading the back horn).  The Pioneer Spec 4 is use to drive the woofer.  I have VMware fusion running in Unity mode because I use softwares (for school and work) that doesn’t have a mac version.  Why would RF, Bluetooth, Wifi, Noise in the Macbook pro, AC power noise have any influence on digital light signal (toslink)?  Hmmm.  I thought digital light signal was immune to interference.  Maybe the Toslink module in the macbook pro is not that good.  Oh well, I can’t hear any audible diff, so maybe I’ll try PM with headphones or something.  Maybe I can hear some diff having the drivers really close to my ears.   *


----------



## mrspeakers

With due respect to the earlier poster, I concur, it's almost inconceivable that having Bluetooth or WiFi affect sound quality.  I've embarrassed myself often enough to not say "impossible," but barely...
   
  A computer is filled with parts that radiate as much power, and often at "offensive" frequencies, that there is simply no reason these systems should have a specific effect unless it's radio picked up by the DAC. Even then, it's WAY less power and noise than a typical phone creates, especially Blackberries, which affects ANYTHING around. This sounds like a "amazing power cord" concept...
   
  Back to my task; I'm configuring a Mac Mini as a dedicated music system right now.  Pure Music with the HiFace (not going to be swapped, so should be OK) and a 1TB music drive.  It'll be hooked up to a 10' projector and my main theatre system, as well.  Very interested to see how the Burson does hooked up to a Theta amp, with the Mac front end...


----------



## Roller

Network adapters can affect DAC's sound, but not as in changing their SQ. As the hardware interfaces with the remaining components, it can introduce variable amounts of latency, which by itself can introduce small gaps in audio. But the debate is about SQ changes when Bluetooth/WLAN/LAN is enabled/in use, and along as the computer hardware isn't faulty, there shouldn't be sound degradation of any kind due to switching on and off network adapters.


----------



## bixby

Several folks have posted that they hear no difference when using cheap toslink cables, stock power cables, and radios on.  GREAT!  No one is trying to  make you believe you hear something that you do not.  However, as your system gets better and  as your ears are trained to listen to what are minute differences in the scheme of things, you may find that you too hear some differences.
   
  At least for those who have tried the above have an open mind and ears.   That's what this hobby is about.  If not we would not have folks trying to re cable their headphones, judging the sonic merits of different LOD cables, amps, players, etc.
   
  As for digital being all about 1s and 0s getting to some place intact, you are fooling yourself if you think that is all that matters.  Trust me (or not)  all those folks who say they do hear differences with various tweaks, mods and changes are not lemmings.  They try and judge for themselves as you did, albeit with a different result.
   
  All I was trying to point out is that to my ears these things matter.  If you have not tried it you should not be commenting on it.  Kind of like some folks here who recommend stuff they have never heard just because they read something about it.  Not so credible in my book!


----------



## mrspeakers

I am an engineer, with experience designing digital and audio systems, and so I sometimes get a bit "binary" in my perspectives, which is probably not great in an analog world.  
   
  The "1's and 0's" arguments have been around since digital was invented, but if you understand how the systems work at a low level, and where things like true re-clocking can occur, that should inform where an effect is even possible.  Clocking IS what makes a 1 and 0 not the same as another 1 and 0, that's jitter.  The data is not smooth, essentially, coming out of a DAC with high jitter.  Now the question is in different system, where is the clock generated?
   
  In my system I have some very advanced re-clocking that occurs outside my Mac via coax, and for USB as well, so jitter is eliminated and there is no question that system, cables, etc. are not going to have a material impact. On the other hand, if you have products that utilize a standard Tenor or TI USB chip or use a synchronous USB interface, they do not have particularly excellent clocking, and unless the manufacturer is bragging about re-clocking or jitter reduction somewhere, may actually benefit from this, more so with a Windows system than a Mac. 
   
  So I would suggest that what you propose might benefit systems with USB interfaces that don't reclock, but people should know more about their equipment before they invest in SSDs, or maybe if they find they ARE susceptible to improvements from these types of fixes, buy a quality USB to SPDIF device or a better asynchronous USB DAC with great reclocking.  
   
  Toslink is a whole other problem.  It's never generated great results for me so I have never paid attention to the problem.


----------



## warp08

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> I am an engineer, with experience designing digital and audio systems, and so I sometimes get a bit "binary" in my perspectives, which is probably not great in an analog world.
> 
> The "1's and 0's" arguments have been around since digital was invented, but if you understand how the systems work at a low level, and where things like true re-clocking can occur, that should inform where an effect is even possible.  Clocking IS what makes a 1 and 0 not the same as another 1 and 0, that's jitter.  The data is not smooth, essentially, coming out of a DAC with high jitter.  Now the question is in different system, where is the clock generated?
> 
> ...


 

 Well put.  This is the very same reason why I used the Sonicweld Diverter (on sale because I'm upgrading to the new version) and the Antelope Audio Zodiac+ DAC (on sale because I'm upgrading to the just released Gold version) with my MacBook Pro.  The Zodiac series DACs sport some of the best clocks in the industry, IMHO.  Even though the Zodiac can accept straight USB input at higher sampling rates, it's beneficial to introduce the Diverter into the chain to dejitter the USB audio stream and perform a high-quality SPDIF conversion into the Zodiac.
   
  Here is the Zodiac Gold owner's manual if anyone's interested for the specs:  http://www.antelopeaudio.com/SUPPORT/Manuals/zodiac_gold_manual_web.pdf  (it's about a 4MB PDF).
   
  I have started with the HiFace as well, but had lots of issues with their OSX driver.  The Diverter is much more expensive, but uses native Mac drivers and compatible with Amarra.
   
  Some specs of the new Diverter are here:  http://www.cryo-parts.com/index.php/sonicweld-diverter-192


----------



## mrspeakers

The diverter looks very cool but $1799?  Holy smokes!  M2Tech's latest driver has solved the GSOD problem I had, though they emailed it to me.  For whatever reason what is on their site isn't current.  That IS the problem with this product, custom driver.  On the other hand, the quality is amazing and the price is 8% of the diverter.  You could buy a HiFace AND a Burson AND a set of HD650s for that much.  I'm sure it's awesome, but it's not for everyone...


----------



## warp08

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> The diverter looks very cool but $1799?  Holy smokes!  M2Tech's latest driver has solved the GSOD problem I had, though they emailed it to me.  For whatever reason what is on their site isn't current.  That IS the problem with this product, custom driver.  On the other hand, the quality is amazing and the price is 8% of the diverter.  You could buy a HiFace AND a Burson AND a set of HD650s for that much.  I'm sure it's awesome, but it's not for everyone...


 

 Your point is well taken, but the truth is that even the 24/96 generation Diverter like mine is in a different class from the M2Tech product.  No, of course it's not 10 times better, but there is a significant difference in sound quality and that's not counting the cost of the extra USB-A to USB-B cable (not needed with the HiFace), which in my case is another $3K.  Then again, this is high-end audio and sometimes it costs an insane amount of money to get an extra 10-20% improvement.  The picture shows a Locus Design top-of-the-line 3FT Cynosure USB cable with a 6G Nano featured purely for comparison purposes.


----------



## bixby

On another topic, how do you like the Nano 6g for sound quality?


----------



## Bubu1

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> The diverter looks very cool but $1799?  Holy smokes!  *M2Tech's latest driver has solved the GSOD problem I had, though they emailed it to me*.  For whatever reason what is on their site isn't current.  That IS the problem with this product, custom driver.  On the other hand, the quality is amazing and the price is 8% of the diverter.  You could buy a HiFace AND a Burson AND a set of HD650s for that much.  I'm sure it's awesome, but it's not for everyone...


 

 I agree that the Hiface is a very good piece of hardware.  I actually use a jkenny battery-modded version with pure music and I really like it in my system.  I find the combination of the hiface and pure music to be very resolving and really very enjoyable to listen to especially with hi res files.
  May I ask how you got them to email you the latest drivers?  I assume that you are using the Hiface with your mac mini and if so, what improvements have you seen with the new driver?  Would you be willing to share it?
  Thanks,
  Tom


----------



## mrspeakers

I just emailed Marco from their contacts and he emailed me the driver.  PM me your email and I'll send it to you, or just email Marco Manunta <m.manunta@m2tech.biz> and ask for the latest.  They still have an older version posted online.  Why?  I don't know.


----------



## warp08

Quote: 





bixby said:


> On another topic, how do you like the Nano 6g for sound quality?


 


  It has actually pretty impressive SQ straight out of its HP-out with the JH16Pros for dance and rock, all things considered.  Great gym gear and can't beat the comfort, even though it's almost too small for efficient operation via that mini touchscreen.  For that the 4/5G Nanos were much better, but required a case to be clipped onto your belt or T-shirt.


----------



## Pale Rider

Quote: 





bixby said:


> Several folks have posted that they hear no difference when using cheap toslink cables, stock power cables, and radios on.  GREAT!  No one is trying to  make you believe you hear something that you do not.  However, as your system gets better and  as your ears are trained to listen to what are minute differences in the scheme of things, you may find that you too hear some differences.
> 
> At least for those who have tried the above have an open mind and ears.   That's what this hobby is about.  If not we would not have folks trying to re cable their headphones, judging the sonic merits of different LOD cables, amps, players, etc.
> 
> ...


 
  @bixby, I completely agree with you here. I am not saying that BT & WiFi _*cannot*_ have an impact, but I am saying I have not been able to detect any difference. And due to the amount of RF running around a given environment—e.g., my office—I may never be able to hear that difference.
   
  @vuntruong: read what bixby and mrspeakers wrote. That says it all. I started into hi-fi as a young man, and also a percussionist, and it took a long time for my ears then to start picking up the differences between equipment. I am old enough now, with old ears and tinnitus, to know that there is more going on than I can often tease out, but what is still amazing is that I can still have a friend or my wife make me listen blind, and 7+ times out of ten, I can tell the difference between 256 and 24/96. I just got done, as a matter of fact, A/B-ing the lossless rip of Steely Dan's Gaucho, and the HDTracks hi-res version. No contest. Could tell every single time. The uncompressed remastered version of Band on the Run was not quite as a fair a comparison, because the remaster sounds different than my original CD. Keith Jarrett's Køln Concert is extraordinarily superior on the hi-res.
   
  There are plenty of people who, when first exposed to the differences, cannot discern them. Does that mean they do not exist? No. It only means they cannot hear it.  FWIW, I used to think the same thing about Toslink. No more.


----------



## bixby

thanks warp08.  I have a nano 4g that I throw in my pocket when hiking or biking.  I was just wondering if the 6g is a bit better via hp out.  I am using my lowly Westone UM3X for those activities.  Wish I could have some of Jerry's stuff but these do fine for my budget.


----------



## bixby

just to make sure I wasn't fooling myself, I just played Jarrett's Koln 24/96 second segment with wifi and BT on and then off individually.  Each time I turned a radio off the background became quieter or more black, piano notes had more body, and his grunt or ramblings more clear and almost intelligible.  All this at about 76db through my speakers because my boy is not feeling well and I cannot turn it up.  Next came Andreas Vollenweider's White Winds CD with Glass House.  the decay on the flute was much longer, wind movement was easier to pick out and even the glass chimes were less crunchy.  Space was more apparent in the mix and dynamics a little bit better.  And this was with the async, timing correcting Halide Bridge feeding my dac.
   
  If it were the Silflex Toslink, I doubt I could hear the changes as easily, but I have in the past.  WMMV and all that since my "audible changes" are another's "can't tell the difference". 
   
  EDIT:  Could it be that what I and others are hearing is power supply related or processes related and not RF related?  Just a thought.  I do know that isolating the switching wall wart for my external hard drive with another power conditioner helped the sound as a reviewer of PM had suggested.  I know it is hard to believe it could but it did.  Also similar to the early discovery that an external hard drive sounded better with itunes than using an internal hard drive.


----------



## warp08

Quote: 





bixby said:


> thanks warp08.  I have a nano 4g that I throw in my pocket when hiking or biking.  I was just wondering if the 6g is a bit better via hp out.  I am using my lowly Westone UM3X for those activities.  Wish I could have some of Jerry's stuff but these do fine for my budget.


 
  I think it is much better, although I wouldn't trade my WhipMOD for it.  I couldn't tolerate the 4G without external amping like the Pico Slim or the RSA Shadow.  I actually rather like the UM3X and the other Westone Pro gear as well, and heard good things about the ES5.   Westone has probably the best fit especially with Comply tips for my ear canals among all the universals, and I had quite a few before jumping to customs.  Now with the JH-3A soon on the way, I have too many JHA customs to even think about investing in the ES5.  Even my insanity has to stop somewhere...I think.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





bixby said:


> just to make sure I wasn't fooling myself, I just played Jarrett's Koln 24/96 second segment with wifi and BT on and then off individually.  Each time I turned a radio off the background became quieter or more black, piano notes had more body, and his grunt or ramblings more clear and almost intelligible.  All this at about 76db through my speakers because my boy is not feeling well and I cannot turn it up.  Next came Andreas Vollenweider's White Winds CD with Glass House.  the decay on the flute was much longer, wind movement was easier to pick out and even the glass chimes were less crunchy.  Space was more apparent in the mix and dynamics a little bit better.  And this was with the async, timing correcting Halide Bridge feeding my dac.
> 
> If it were the Silflex Toslink, I doubt I could hear the changes as easily, but I have in the past.  WMMV and all that since my "audible changes" are another's "can't tell the difference".
> 
> EDIT:  Could it be that what I and others are hearing is power supply related or processes related and not RF related?  Just a thought.  I do know that isolating the switching wall wart for my external hard drive with another power conditioner helped the sound as a reviewer of PM had suggested.  I know it is hard to believe it could but it did.  Also similar to the early discovery that an external hard drive sounded better with itunes than using an internal hard drive.


 

 I looked at your profile and can't figure out what your complete setup is.  Can you be more specific about the complete rig (software, interconnect type, DAC, amp)


----------



## Pale Rider

bixby said:


> just to make sure I wasn't fooling myself, I just played Jarrett's Koln 24/96 second segment with wifi and BT on and then off individually.  Each time I turned a radio off the background became quieter or more black, piano notes had more body, and his grunt or ramblings more clear and almost intelligible.  All this at about 76db through my speakers because my boy is not feeling well and I cannot turn it up.  Next came Andreas Vollenweider's White Winds CD with Glass House.  the decay on the flute was much longer, wind movement was easier to pick out and even the glass chimes were less crunchy.  Space was more apparent in the mix and dynamics a little bit better.  And this was with the async, timing correcting Halide Bridge feeding my dac.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting speculation about the power supply. At one level, that makes more sense to me, but as I noted before, I don't doubt what you are hearing, just trying to understand the cause.

Have you tried this experiment with your headphones?


----------



## vuntruong

I'm not saying digital signal dont have errors.  Sure, u have clocks, and Jitters, and errors. U can't avoid errors.  I am Simply saying that Toslink cables, when transmitting light through short distances, are immune to interferences from radio frequency, cross talk, Wifi, etc....  The only prob one might run into with Toslink cable is that the signal get weaker through long distances bs the light doesn't get reflected properly due to the quality of the cable.  As for AC cable, Clean AC power, Clean DC power, Good conductor metal, great shielding, and good vibration dampening.  Sure, all those factors can help to reproduce some great music.  As for PM softwares playing music.  I had i hope for it, but I notice that it is just like purevinyl.  I tried it on my system, and i didn't really hear much of a difference.  Yeah, sure I might be able to train myself to hear the diff, but I was hoping i didn't have to try too hard to notice the improvements.  I think its a step in the right direction, it just needed more refinements.


----------



## warp08

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Neither can I because it keeps changing.  As far as computer audio it should look like this in about a week (some of the components are still in transit or being manufactured like the new 192 Diverter):  MBP->Songbird (soon to be Amarra)->Locus Design Cynosure USB->192 Diverter->Locus Design Reference SPDIF cable sourced from Whiplash->Zodiac Gold/Voltikus Power Supply->XLR3 Balanced to TWag SR71B IC-->SR71B-->SR71B to XLR3 TWag balanced adapter->various TWag v1 and TWag v2 recabled cans like Edition 10, Qualia, HD600 or non-recabled phones such as bass-heavy XLR4 balanced R10 and AKG K1K (connected to the SR71B via a TWag XLR4 balanced adapter.
   
  For power, I use a Power Plant Premier (for the Zodiac that will power the Voltikus PSU).


----------



## Phelonious Ponk

I've tried both Amarra and PM in my systems and I didn't hear a difference. I think I know why: Bits _are_ bits, but they aren't the whole story. The whole story is data, noise and timing (jitter). If you're running bit-perfect, data is taken care of. There won't be any difference between players on that front. Noise, I think, is the culprit -- a busy computer can make a lot of electrical noise that can ride along with your data to the analog part of your system. This might be why people seem to hear improvements when shutting down as much non-essential functionality as possible. And it is possible that players like PM and Amarra limit computer activity, enough to audibly reduce noise. So why don't I hear it? My system re-clocks and galvanically isolates between my Mac and my DACs, so I'm addressing the problem in hardware, arguably at the source, making all the hoop-jumping of optimization and minimization and special software a series of moot points. The fact that PM plays hi-res files without manually changing is helpful, but I hear no difference playing files in their native rates. So, IMO, this not a matter of "you won't hear a difference if your system is not good enough." Exactly the opposite. You won't hear a difference if your system addresses galvanic isolation and jitter adequately. MHO. YMMV.
   
  P


----------



## bixby

@Plonk:  Good logical argument ......but it still does not answer why me and many others hear these differences.  Three fellow members of the Audio group here in CO hear these differences on 3 different systems.  As for jitter being addressed.  Perhaps these tweaks are addressing it.  As for reclocking, a well designed async device like the halide with its master clock should address it.  As for galvanic isolation, the transformers in the Halide are there specifically to address that source of noise.
   
  YET, we still all hear differences in our 3 Mac based systems.
   
  Audio is still a frontier for figuring out what causes audible differences and even when you thing you have it all figured out somethign comes along and upsets the logical way of looking at it.  I am glad you don't have a system that "needs"  these changes or tweaks.  But I accept that mine is variable and can be changed with them.  I don't really care about it though, since the result is very nice.
   
  @Pale Rider- Headphones are next on my list.  I am testing another usb - spdif bridge that will be reviewed here soon and will let you know if I hear the same thing vis a vis tweaks on the mac.


----------



## bixby

@mrspeakers - Source is a Macbook with 4gb ram and external firewire 1 TB drive.  Pure Music is the player set to run in hog mode no upsampling.  Output from the Macbook is via Halide Bridge to the Blue Circle BC509 Dac, balanced out to Bel Canto EVO4 running in bridged stereo mode.  XLR cables are Element Cable Titans.Output from the amp is via 10 foot proprietary flat copper speaker cable not to dissimilar to Goertz M series.  Speakers are SP Technologies Timepiece 2.0 Monitors with Cardas jumpers.  Most of this ins in my gallery in my profiles if you care to look at the room.
   
  Testing with headphones will add the Blue Circle Hat Peed Thingee headphone amp and VH audio Pulsar interconnects in single ended mode.  And headphones will be the Shure 840s.


----------



## grawk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


----------



## warp08

Quote: 





phelonious ponk said:


> You won't hear a difference if your system addresses galvanic isolation and jitter adequately. MHO. YMMV.
> 
> P


 

 Speaking of galvanic isolation--and let me say that I have no financial or other interest to promote Locus cables except as a customer--I think quality ICs go a long way to enhance that.  The way the Cynosure cable is designed and being constructed, for example (and what's disclosed here is only part of the story) certainly make an interesting reading, at least for me:  http://locus-design.com/index.php/cynosure-usb-cable


----------



## Phelonious Ponk

Quote: 





bixby said:


> @Plonk:  Good logical argument ......but it still does not answer why me and many others hear these differences.  Three fellow members of the Audio group here in CO hear these differences on 3 different systems.  As for jitter being addressed.  Perhaps these tweaks are addressing it.  As for reclocking, a well designed async device like the halide with its master clock should address it.  As for galvanic isolation, the transformers in the Halide are there specifically to address that source of noise.
> 
> YET, we still all hear differences in our 3 Mac based systems.
> 
> ...


 

 I would agree that there is often no logical explanation for what audiophiles hear, and you're right that your halide should be addressing jitter and isolation adequately. I don't know what it is you're hearing. I only know that there is no reasonable explanation for it being a function of a media player, and neither Amarra nor Pure Audio make a difference in my system playing the same files at the same rates. I thought I heard something from both of them (this happens to me frequently when trying new things) but as soon as my wife started doing the shut downs and re-starts without me being able to see what was running, I was unable to identify which was which and couldn't really hear a difference I could put my finger on. I got it wrong as often (statistically speaking) as I got it right. It was an informal blind listening test, of course, and proves nothing but still, I call that "no difference," or close enough to spend the money on music. YMMV.
   
  Whatever it is you hear, I'm happy you're enjoying it. Audio really is nowhere near its frontier, though. The analog part of your signal chain is extremely mature and hasn't seen any revolutionary developments in several decades. The advances have all been incremental and mostly in the transducers for a long time now. The digital section is newer, of course, but it is far from its frontier days. Middle aged. Settled in. To the point where the differences between top-flight studio converters and the DAC built into a decent AV receiver are lost on all but those who are critically listening for the differences. In other words, audiophiles and pros. The only thing I've done in years that has fundamentally changed my systems is a move to active speaker systems in a domestic environment. That made a very audible difference that got me much closer to the clarity I experience in headphone listening. Of course active technology has been around for years. It was a new discovery for me, not the world.
   
  P


----------



## Phelonious Ponk

Quote: 





warp08 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  Galvanic isolation and shielding are not the same thing. Shielding keeps interference out of a specific cable. Isolation, as were talking about it here, endeavors to remove the electronic noise of the digital signal chain by breaking the chain completely before it enters the analog stage. The simplest examples would be an optical or wifi connection between computer and DAC. A well-shielded usb cable is not a bad thing, but the noise we're talking about is already in there.
   
  P


----------



## warp08

Quote: 





phelonious ponk said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Your point is well taken, but I would point out that it isn't just shielding, but the combination of multi-layer shielding and dampening, something that's equally as important in both analog and digital cables.  I was skeptical a first about the digital cables, but after some critical listening sessions, not any more.
   
  Speaking of pure galvanic isolation, I would also believe--based on its design and build quality--that the Sonic Diverter does a better job at it than the HiFace, although at a significant price premium.


----------



## Phelonious Ponk

Quote: 





warp08 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Not sure I get what you mean by "damping" in a digital cable.
   
  P


----------



## warp08

Quote: 





phelonious ponk said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Both aspects are explained in the product page located at the above link.  Obviously not everything, but the just of it.  I really can't give you more information, because it's a proprietary process as the author explains. But I do own the Polestar, did own the Nucleus and now own the Cynosure.  The SQ increased as I climbed the ladder and so did the thickness of each cable in the lineup.  Maybe the actual wires inside are different too--I have no way of telling--but for sure the better shielding and dampening layers have played a role there.


----------



## macrog

I have been using Pure Music Player since yesterday and have found the sound quality to be pretty much on a par with Decibel . Decibel is however a beta and crashes whenever I try to get it to load my whole library and sometimes Decibel just seems to crash for no obvious reason.
   
  I am pretty sure I will buy the Pure Music Player at the end of 15 day demo.  Amarra is simply too expensive. I would consider Amarra Mini if if supported memory playback. I also hate USB Dongles.
   
  Macrog


----------



## bixby

@Pale rider:
   
  Well I just spent the last two hours using my headphone amp and headphones to see if the differences I heard with the radios off on my computer could be heard with headphones.  Man was that tough.  On many songs with different bridges and toslink I could not tell any difference.  Toslink seems to be immune to me hearing a difference with any song.  With the USB bridges it was still hard as in many songs I could not definitively say I heard a difference.  BUT there were some songs that did show a difference although it was much more subtle than with speakers.  Why?   I am guessing that my headphones are not as open and revealing as my speakers and because the whole depth perception illusion is much better with speakers than with any headphone I have heard.
   
  So for many folks that listen to headphones, then it may not be a difference worth investigating.  Although a 24 bit 192 khz recording of Neil Young live easily showed the difference with the guitar overtones and the overall dynamics and space affected by having both radios on.  Also recordings with good high frequency information also were a bit more crunchy as if noise was being added.  So it seems plausible to me that some noise may be added to the signal from the computer even though the Macbooks are pretty quiet.


----------



## Pale Rider

Quote: 





bixby said:


> @Pale rider:
> 
> Well I just spent the last two hours using my headphone amp and headphones to see if the differences I heard with the radios off on my computer could be heard with headphones.  Man was that tough.  On many songs with different bridges and toslink I could not tell any difference.  Toslink seems to be immune to me hearing a difference with any song.  With the USB bridges it was still hard as in many songs I could not definitively say I heard a difference.  BUT there were some songs that did show a difference although it was much more subtle than with speakers.  Why?   I am guessing that my headphones are not as open and revealing as my speakers and because the whole depth perception illusion is much better with speakers than with any headphone I have heard.
> 
> So for many folks that listen to headphones, then it may not be a difference worth investigating.  Although a 24 bit 192 khz recording of Neil Young live easily showed the difference with the guitar overtones and the overall dynamics and space affected by having both radios on.  Also recordings with good high frequency information also were a bit more crunchy as if noise was being added.  So it seems plausible to me that some noise may be added to the signal from the computer even though the Macbooks are pretty quiet.


 
  bixby, thanks for doing that experiment. Very interesting.


----------



## Phelonious Ponk

Quote: 





bixby said:


> @Pale rider:
> 
> Well I just spent the last two hours using my headphone amp and headphones to see if the differences I heard with the radios off on my computer could be heard with headphones.  Man was that tough.  On many songs with different bridges and toslink I could not tell any difference.  Toslink seems to be immune to me hearing a difference with any song.  With the USB bridges it was still hard as in many songs I could not definitively say I heard a difference.  BUT there were some songs that did show a difference although it was much more subtle than with speakers.  Why?   I am guessing that my headphones are not as open and revealing as my speakers and because the whole depth perception illusion is much better with speakers than with any headphone I have heard.
> 
> So for many folks that listen to headphones, then it may not be a difference worth investigating.  Although a 24 bit 192 khz recording of Neil Young live easily showed the difference with the guitar overtones and the overall dynamics and space affected by having both radios on.  Also recordings with good high frequency information also were a bit more crunchy as if noise was being added.  So it seems plausible to me that some noise may be added to the signal from the computer even though the Macbooks are pretty quiet.


 


  Bixby, unless you either have very unusual speakers (actives or top-notch full range single drivers) in a very carefully measured and treated room, or a pretty bad headphone system, it is very unlikely that your speaker system is more revealing than your headphones. It's true that your speakers can create a sound stage that can't happen in cans, but headphones completely eliminate the formidable distortions of passive crossovers and room acoustics, and place the transducers just millimeters from your eardrums, allowing a tremendous amount of detail to come through. Resolution is the forte of a good headphone system.
   
  Regarding the 24/192 Neil Young recording -- did you re-set the sample rate and word length in audio midi setup when you switched back to iTunes? If not, then while PM was playing 24/192, iTunes was downsampling to 16/44.1. Even that can be very difficult to hear, but it's not apples to apples.
   
  P


----------



## mrspeakers

I design speakers, high-end stuff, and I can attest to the fact that headphones are "faster" and definitely more revealing,  I aspire to design a speaker like the LCD-2 or even the HD650 in that regard.  However, a good speaker can definitely project a "you are there" sensation with more depth and air around the instruments.  I created one system for Platinum Audio years back that just disappeared...  
   
  I can say this, and I did earlier, it may be simply that your DAC and Amp are radio sensitive, rather than pegging the source with the Mac.  knowing that, you probably want to also move any wireless phones, WAPs, or mobile phones at least 6' away.  Some gear IS sensitive to RFI, it can cause in-band distortions audio through IM and other means...


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





phelonious ponk said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  @ P:
   
  thanks for weighing in.  Yes, headphones make it very easy to hear detail and take the room out of the equation.  And that is exactly the point.  Without a room to help with the illusion we are left with drivers going directly to the ears.  And unless recorded with a binaural setup they miss the phase and reflected info that a room and speakers  provides.   You just do not get the illusion of depth with cans and at least the ones I have heard and I go to a few meets and nationals here inthe us.
   
  As for active speakers, yes I like them but and this is a big but, a well designed passve crossed speaker setup can sound really good with the right amp and power as compared with some not so great active setups.  I have heard lots of active systems that I would never trade my passive for.  Then again, I have heard some that I only hope to afford some day.
   
  Re:
   
  Neil Young, remember this is a pure music thread, I never listen to itunes and PM sets the rate without having to go back into midi if you set it up to right and unlike amarra, itunes is never ever playing anything.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> I design speakers, high-end stuff, and I can attest to the fact that headphones are "faster" and definitely more revealing,  I aspire to design a speaker like the LCD-2 or even the HD650 in that regard.  However, a good speaker can definitely project a "you are there" sensation with more depth and air around the instruments.  I created one system for Platinum Audio years back that just disappeared...
> 
> I can say this, and I did earlier, it may be simply that your DAC and Amp are radio sensitive, rather than pegging the source with the Mac.  knowing that, you probably want to also move any wireless phones, WAPs, or mobile phones at least 6' away.  Some gear IS sensitive to RFI, it can cause in-band distortions audio through IM and other means...


 

 thanks for the suggestions, but I do not think the amp and dac are radio sensitive.  If so I would have heard a difference with Toslink.  I did not.  I got concerned about RFI years ago and even did a test that shut down all wireless in my house.  No phones are within 20 feet etc.  Guess what....no impact on the sound.  I am betting that there is a chance some noise is getting through the usb port.  I don't really care if it is power supply or some other unknown source, the nice thing is........... I can turn it off!


----------



## mrspeakers

Well, you believe what you hear, and it's always possible you are right, but only a really well run double-blind test would validate that.  It's not my experience, but after many years in high-end audio, I'm a big cynic about unexplained audio differences (especially when cables are involved, but that's a whole other rant).  I'm glad it works for you, for whatever reason.
   
  That said, back to the subject of the thread, the Pure Music software works great, and with my new rig setup with a Mac Mini in my home theatre, I'm enjoying upsampling to 192K through the Integra via HDMI.  I definitely am hearing the difference there.  The upsampling is consistently providing a greater sense of air and more depth and localization for anything I run through the system.  With Pure Music, it's a snap to flip between the theatre and the Burson, while optimizing the playback quality.  
   
  I'm really happy with the rig.  I used Belkin 75 ohm cabling for the 18' run to the Burson, fed by the HiFace.


----------



## svertel

I've been using Amarra Mini but I just downloaded the demo of Pure Music and the improvement was immediately apparent.  It isn't even close.  Pure Music really opens up the mix and creates separation and depth without harshness.  They really nailed it.  I'm going to buy the full version asap.  I'm disappointed in Amarra because it's expensive!


----------



## warp08

I have finally bit the bullet and bought a full version of Amarra.  The dongle is annoying, but necessary because this is pro software.  I needed something that plays up to 384kHz because that's how high my Zodiac Gold goes up.  The full version does support a configurable memory cache playback.  Pretty slick how they integrate into iTunes.  Overall performance is amazing, partly because of the software and partly because of the Gold.  And the Voltikus PSU isn't even here yet.


----------



## talk2me

Thanks everyone for a great thread. I just bought a used and in good shape Macbook Pro from a friend, that came with over 2,000 iTune songs on it. Now I am completely new to computer audio, but not audio. My home system is a Burmester 911 MK3/Burmester 089 CDP/DAC-192/24/Preamp-analog volume and Venture CR-8 Signature speakers with Transparent Reference cables. I clean up my power with Sound Application Reference Line Stage. Now, I am on a quest to learn all about comuter hi-rez audio. because of you all, I just tried out Pure Music and all I can say is, "WOW!". It makes a huge difference to someone who is in tune to the subtle nuances that something like PM brings to the tabe. And this is just with $25 Phillips ear buds my bother gave me last week. Now i am researching M2tech/Audiophilleo etc. Also I have just starting to use my Macbook with tosclink mini to my DAC in my 089. Now I just read about USB and also headphone amps and headphones. I am more interested in integrating my Macbook into my stereo to it's finest first. But anyways, I know I have a ton to learn, but thanks to you, not only am I more motivated,but have learned a little also.


----------



## mrspeakers

Welcome to computer audio!
   
  I use an M2Tech and have no problems. It drives a 18' cable just phone.  The M2Tech has been very stable, but I wonder how it will support the next OS, etc.  It's also small and elegant.  LeePerry pointed out a device that looks interesting as it does not seem to require a custom driver, though it is limited to 96K instead of 192.  My understanding is any USB device running 192 needs a custom driver, but having said that, someone will doubtless prove me wrong.  
   
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Musical-Fidelity-M1DAC-M1HPA-and-V-Link-Async-USB-Converter-Review


----------



## grokit

>


----------



## 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.


----------



## crumpler

Yeah, i reckon cynics that believe in the "it's in the digital realm so it doesn't/shouldn't make a difference" camp should just download Pure Music Player and give it a go for themselves. I mean, it really is one of those things that can be so easily A/Bed.
   
  It comes with a 15 day try-for-free programme as well so if you really feel it doesn't make a difference at the end of the day, just remove it and call it a day. You've nothing to lose since you didn't need to purchase a $129 piece of software to improve your listening experience. If you can tell a difference like so many other of us do, buy the software and support it's development, and be happy that you've found a quick easy fix for a greater listening experience.
   
  That's what i call a win-win.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





mrspeakers said:


> Welcome to computer audio!
> 
> I use an M2Tech and have no problems. It drives a 18' cable just phone.  The M2Tech has been very stable, but I wonder how it will support the next OS, etc.  It's also small and elegant.  LeePerry pointed out a device that looks interesting as it does not seem to require a custom driver, though it is limited to 96K instead of 192.  My understanding is any USB device running 192 needs a custom driver, but having said that, someone will doubtless prove me wrong.
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Musical-Fidelity-M1DAC-M1HPA-and-V-Link-Async-USB-Converter-Review


 







  uh, you're wrong!  Kingrex USB device runs natively at 192 on the mac.  cheers


----------



## mrspeakers

It would appear to be so!  
   
  Interesting product.  If my HiFace ever croaks, I'll probably pick one up.  Thanks for pointing it out.  I'm glad someone has figured out how to make that work...


----------



## talk2me

What I need is a good usb to spdif converter to my DAC. So, MacBook Pro with Snow Leopard downloading using iTunes, enhanced and upgraded by Pure Music. Now to get the music to my USB-less DAC. I am currently using toslink mini and it sounds pretty darn good. I really lucked out in finding Pure Music so soon in my "rookie season". It makes a huge difference to me.
  Edit: LOL. Now I find out about Weiss ans firewire to add to the mix!


----------



## Ceja-Blu

while in hot pursuit of the ultimate listening experience, a new number of players came out as "alternatives"
  to the itunes player.  Speaking only from the experience of my 15 day trial and subsequent purchase of Pure Music, I can honestly say there is no noticeable and measurable improvement of my playback experience after betting $129 clams and spending two months tweaking the Pure Music player through my favorite cans.
   
  Pure Music turned out to be full of annoying little issues:  Audible clicks and digital skips while in playback.
  Several and continuing sudden quits.  Although the instructions clearly indicate potential conflicts with playback and websurfing simultaneously, this became an omnipresent inconvenience on a day to day basis.
  PureMusic has a very fun and tweakable interface with a cool feature for hog mode playback.  If this ultimately yielded a noticeable playback improvement in any sense of the audible spectrum, I would cheering on.  I will post detailed info on my listening tests on following messages.
   
  $129 clams later I'm eating the same clam chowder I got from a can ten years ago.
  The new iTunes (10.2.1) still rules the pack at a fraction of the cost.


----------



## crumpler

Quote: 





ceja-blu said:


> while in hot pursuit of the ultimate listening experience, a new number of players came out as "alternatives"
> to the itunes player.  Speaking only from the experience of my 15 day trial and subsequent purchase of Pure Music, I can honestly say there is no noticeable and measurable improvement of my playback experience after betting $129 clams and spending two months tweaking the Pure Music player through my favorite cans.
> 
> Pure Music turned out to be full of annoying little issues:  Audible clicks and digital skips while in playback.
> ...


 

 I've been using Pure Music Player for close to 2 months as well and i can definitely hear a difference in sound quality and did purchase the software after listening for just 15minutes.
   
  I don't experience any pops, crackles, clicks or skips using it all this time during websurfing. I've tried it both with the DACport as well as the HRT Streamer Pro.


----------



## macrog

I dont agree at all with your appraisal of Pure Music. I am getting zero dropouts (even when web surfing) and the best sound I have had from a computer. I am surprised that you purchased Pure Music after noticing no noticeable improvement.
   
  I just wish I could get as good a quality off PC. Foobar isnt nearly as good as Puremusic in my opinion.
   
  I personally find Itunes unlistenable sound quality wise.
   
  and no I don't resell Pure Music.
   
  Regards
   
  Macrog
   
  Quote: 





ceja-blu said:


> while in hot pursuit of the ultimate listening experience, a new number of players came out as "alternatives"
> to the itunes player.  Speaking only from the experience of my 15 day trial and subsequent purchase of Pure Music, I can honestly say there is no noticeable and measurable improvement of my playback experience after betting $129 clams and spending two months tweaking the Pure Music player through my favorite cans.
> 
> Pure Music turned out to be full of annoying little issues:  Audible clicks and digital skips while in playback.
> ...


----------



## grokit

I recently noticed that Pure Music saves your place in iTunes regarding song/playlist selection when you quit and restart it, iTunes can't do that alone so that's kind of cool.


----------



## talk2me

Quote: 





ceja-blu said:


> while in hot pursuit of the ultimate listening experience, a new number of players came out as "alternatives"
> to the itunes player.  Speaking only from the experience of my 15 day trial and subsequent purchase of Pure Music, I can honestly say there is no noticeable and measurable improvement of my playback experience after betting $129 clams and spending two months tweaking the Pure Music player through my favorite cans.
> 
> Pure Music turned out to be full of annoying little issues:  Audible clicks and digital skips while in playback.
> ...


----------



## mrspeakers

Was the last post written with invisible ink, or was the included post SO interesting it had to be repeated? Just saying....


----------



## Red Jacket Mike

I've got a couple of days left in my Pure Music 15 day trial, and I'm on the fence.  
   
  On the plus side, there definitely is a difference in the sound, largely because of the memory play feature, I think.  (I use a Mac Mini with a solid state internal drive and 8 GB of RAM.  My iTunes library sits on an external FW800 drive.)
   
  I have also downloaded the Voxengo Marvel GEQ.  This is a free graphic EQ plugin that works great with Pure Music.  It allows me to save different EQ curves for different headphone/amp combinations.  It seems like a much better quality EQ than the built in iTunes EQ (which doesn't work anyway with Pure Music).
   
  And, I like the switchable sample rate (I have mostly ripped CD tracks (AIFF) but also some HDTracks 24/96 stuff).
   
  On the downside, a couple of small picky things:  I do hear an occasional click/pop when initially starting a listening session, and sometimes when switching to a different album.  Also, I control everything from an iPad.  I use the Remote app, and a VNC viewer, since my Mac Mini has no monitor.  When music is playing, the time counter on the iPad only updates every other second.  Silly, I know, but I notice it.
   
  When using iTunes alone with the iPad and Remote app, everything is perfectly smooth, and there is instant switching of songs with not even a second of delay.  The audio is 99% as good, and there are far fewer settings to deal with.  Without Pure Music in the chain, I have my Audio/Midi settings permanently at 24/96.  My Mac Mini's optical out goes to a Meier StageDAC, and then on to my amps and headphones.
   
  So, as I said, I'm on the fence as far as purchasing Pure Music--there is a slight audible difference, but I'm not sure it's a $129.00 difference.


----------



## Ceja-Blu

Thanks for your post.
  You find  iTunes unlistenable by itself?   And Pure Music alleviates that difference after $129  bucks?
  One man's honey is another man's dirt.
  If you could point out where that quantum leap in quality sound takes place, I'll buy you a beer.
  I really want to know what those substantial, quantifiable differences in sound are in Pure Music and why I simply cannot hear them?
  iTunes by itself, going through a Nuforce Dac, a Grace m903, or Audio Gd Fun, is just beautiful.  I simply wanted icing on my cake
  for $129.  All I got was a  slight difference in the sound, for which I have no coherent description.  I also got clicks, irregularities in the track navigation,
  and a clumsy play button that cannot toggle.
  I'm still looking for that 24/96 player which will refill my brain with faith.


----------



## mrspeakers

ceja-blu said:


> Thanks for your post.
> You find  iTunes unlistenable by itself?   And Pure Music alleviates that difference after $129  bucks?
> One man's honey is another man's dirt.
> If you could point out where that quantum leap in quality sound takes place, I'll buy you a beer.
> ...




If you read the thread you will find out what the quantifiable differences are, though i doubt too many here would say iTunes is dirt vs simply not as good to many ears. 

Whether or not you do or don't hear or don't care is beyond anyone else's control.


----------



## bixby

Pure Music introduced version 1.8a today.  It is a major advancement in listening for those who have high resolution systems.  The whole sound signature of this player is different ( and better in my opinion) than the previous version 1.74.  In addition some lucky folks will be able to use integer mode which sounds very nice indeed.  
   
  My Macbook will not work with this mode though and many usb dacs will not either.  But when you use hog mode alone and experiment with the upsampling I think you will agree it is a fine player.  Just be sure to heed the advice in the documentation about tweaking your system, it does help.
   
  And even though I have not tried it yet it has a feature where you can use pure music to play back other sources like Pandora and Rhapsody.
   
  I tried Audirvana and that is also a great program yet I prefer the low frequency detail and ambiance ques I get with PM.  I also feel that PM is just a tad smoother in the highs.
   
  And for those who think bits are bits and any players that can process them bit perfectly all sound the same can move along, this thread is not for you.


----------



## shipsupt

Here is something I've noticed with Pure Music that I'd like to change/avoid... When playing back in iTunes random shuffle mode while I am working in another application the Pure Music and iTunes window will pop on top of whatever I am working on when a new song is loaded and starts playing.  Just a slight inconvenience that I'd like to avoid if there is a setting I can change?
   
  Thanks!


----------



## grokit

That's a weird one. Under advanced preferences there are a couple of options about keeping the iTunes window on top of the others that you could make sure are de-selected. Other that that I don't know.
   
  The biggest bug for me is that I have to run iTunes without PM for certain iPod functionalities, and the fact that it displays differently on different machines/displays regardless of the OS. It also won't upsample when I am running AstoundSound, but that's Astound's fault for being limited to 44.1k. Oh and the play button always has the play symbol displayed even when iTunes is paused; the PM scrolling bar says paused though.


----------



## shipsupt

I unchecked "Notify when busy loading into memory" in the Pure Music Preferences and this seems to have fixed this "issue" for me.  Thanks for the tip on checking those windows on top options, it lead me to the solution.


----------



## vinyllp33

Just downloaded the latest software version; I just played the same album over and it does seem to sound even better. 

Haven't tried the myriad new options yet but the play-through will be great for Internet Radio and other online music.

Question: How would one go about importing a DSD file? I assume these would be ripped from SACD's but I did not think that was possible.

Great stuff this Pure Music!


----------



## grokit

Hmm I've got the "automatically check for updates" checked in the PM prefs but evidently it's not checking (running 1.74a).


----------



## shipsupt

I think it only checks for updates when you restart it, that's the only way it seemed to check and tell me that 1.8 was available.

I need to try the new streaming (play through) capability, not even sure how to do it yet? I am hoping it will let me play the Linn feed through iTunes.


----------



## grokit

So I downloaded v1.8a and all of a sudden had distortion issues when playing at full iTunes volume, particularly in the low end. I played around quite a bit with the audio settings, disabled AstoundSound, played around with upsampling which didn't go too well as I could not only not stop the distortion but the upsampling would revert to 44.1 on the next song, etc. Finally I disabled the DSP options and everything got better. I have re-introduced AstoundSound (just level 1 as usual) to the mix, and even have upsampling working correctly and distortion-free with the "disable DSP options except upsampling, mono and invert" setting. Works for me, I like to keep things simple anyways. When I disabled the DSP options I lost the sidebar but still have the scrolling bar on top, so it looks better and I still have access to the preferences through the menu bar. Pure Music sounds better than ever now, whew!


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

For those of you familiar with using multiuser, general purpose systems, here's a tip I posted elsewhere that might be useful for those wanting to extract that last iota stability. http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/539740/mac-os-x-music-players-alternatives-to-itunes/660#post_7516421
   
  This should work for other SW players as well.


----------



## shamu144

Thanks for the tip.
   
  My old mid-2007 macbook is dedicated to music though, and I am not sure wether that would be necessary in that set up ?
   
  I downloaded a few days ago the latest 1.8 version and use it with integer mode (the AP2 is compatible). While it is certainly technically more impressive (dynamic, silence, black background, instrument separation), I find it borderline shrill and more agressive, lacking somehow weight and body... I guess this will be very system dependant but I preferred the fuller and more analog feeling of the previous version 1.74 I think... Need to play some more time with it though.


----------



## Dynobot

Keep in mind that when you change or adjust one link in the chain you might have to adjust other links slightly go optimize system synergy again.
   
  When I introduce a new component to my system or even a new software I take a look at everything.  Because I have a lot of extra cables [power, ic, speaker etc.] I make swaps as necessary and even do slight adjustments to the OS [in my case Linux so I adjust my buffer and real-time parameters].  I know its anal and time consuming but at least I satisfy myself in knowing I ended up with the best synergy possible.  Then if the new component does not measure up I get rid of it.
   
  Just my .02
   
  BTW, on my MacMini I use pure music 1.8 as well, the rest that system is really not up to snuff enough to be able to discern small differences, so I just listen and enjoy it as is....I have a TC Konnekt 8 hooked up via Firewire with SR-80is.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Dedicated computer audio systems would not need a separate account. They are already starting from a clean slate, and would stay in that context. The separate user account only eliminates potential issues when the system is being used as a multipurpose device, e.g. doing work while you play music. If you use your computer for other activities, e.g. work, there may be dropouts, skipping or other playback anomalies that would otherwise go unnoticed. The idea is to turn off/disable anything that would effect the data stream to the DAC. That's all. 
   
  On another note, I'm not sure that v1.8 includes updates that would impact or change the fundamental sound quality during playback, e.g. any normally applied DSP, or other types of algorithms. However, Rob at Pure Music can chime in if he'd like to. It is my understanding that he added new features including native Integer mode (for DACs that support it), pass through for several additional data streams, directly play DSD media, and improvements for importing FLAC files.   
   
  Quote: 





shamu144 said:


> Thanks for the tip.
> 
> My old mid-2007 macbook is dedicated to music though, and I am not sure wether that would be necessary in that set up ?
> 
> I downloaded a few days ago the latest 1.8 version and use it with integer mode (the AP2 is compatible). While it is certainly technically more impressive (dynamic, silence, black background, instrument separation), I find it borderline shrill and more agressive, lacking somehow weight and body... I guess this will be very system dependant but I preferred the fuller and more analog feeling of the previous version 1.74 I think... Need to play some more time with it though.


----------



## Dynobot

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> . The idea is to turn off/disable anything that would effect the data stream to the DAC. That's all.


 

 "renice" works great to increase the process priority for audio and reduce the change of drop outs.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

eek! Another UNIX guy?! 
   
  Righto, that works. Here's a link using a third-party app that's a work around "sticky:"  http://superuser.com/questions/285355/how-to-permanently-renice-a-process-on-mac-os-x-or-ios-etc
   
  Well, I'm not sure which is simpler, the dedicated user account or "renice." 
  
  Quote: 





dynobot said:


> "renice" works great to increase the process priority for audio and reduce the change of drop outs.


----------



## Dynobot

LOL....yeah UNIX is great!!!!
   
  I tried it on my Mac Mini but never bothered to make it permanent...too lazy I guess.  Mac is not my primary computer either...
   
  One of these days I am going to get Music Player Daemon working on my Mac, when/if that happens I will try to document the steps into simple to follow instructions and put it on my website.
   
   
   
  Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> eek! Another UNIX guy?!
> 
> Righto, that works. Here's a link using a third-party app that's a work around "sticky:"  http://superuser.com/questions/285355/how-to-permanently-renice-a-process-on-mac-os-x-or-ios-etc
> 
> Well, I'm not sure which is simpler, the dedicated user account or "renice."


----------



## fx101

For many users, players like Amarra and Pure Music WILL make a difference. It all boils down to iTune's rather iffy audio engine that doesn't always nicely handle the higher bitrate files it accepts. Basically, something like Pure Music or Amarra will natively play these files and not do some on-the-fly conversion for the 24 bit files in your library. If you equalize, you will actually be able to take advantage of the dynamic range that 24 bit offers at that point.  The EQ's will be WAY better than anything in iTunes. I'm guessing legitimate mastering algorithms are used in the EQ's... so used properly you should be able to get the perfect sound out of your headphones. It's certainly a heck of a lot cheaper and more user friendly than trying to run your iTunes through a routed VST Waves Equalizer.
   

  Honestly, it's no better than a copy of Pro-Tools/Ableton Live/Logic Pro with a dedicated ASIO driver. . In terms of improving .mp3's.... you can't just do that. You can process them in something like iZotope's VST mastering environment, but the overall fidelity will remain what it is.


----------



## grawk

I've just done a bunch of cleanup in this thread.  Please, if you want to discuss whether or not software like pure music is quantifiably valid, please take it to the sound science forum.


----------



## Phelonious Ponk

Quote:


> For many users, players like Amarra and Pure Music WILL make a difference. It all boils down to iTune's rather iffy audio engine that doesn't always nicely handle the higher bitrate files it accepts. Basically, something like Pure Music or Amarra will natively play these files and not do some on-the-fly conversion for the 24 bit files in your library.


 
If you define "nicely" as playing the native sampling rate without shutting down iTunes, re-setting to the rate of the file, then re-launching, this is absolutely correct. And if you have enough hi-res files to pay for this convenience it is a good reason to own Pure Music. But the implications here are inaccurate; there's nothing _iffy_ about iTunes' audio engine and nothing unpredictable about the process. iTunes _never_ changes automatically from one sampling rate to another; this has to be re-set in the operating system. 
   
P


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

In my case, all my sound quality comparisons have been with CDP's e.g. Meridian, Ah!, etc. My assumptin about iTunes is that it is a multi-media (audio and video) SW player designed for the masses; it is primarily tuned for compressed media. I want a dedicated music only foundation. Pure Music, Amara, et al, are designed with one purpose only, music reproduction. However, iTunes a an excellent media library management tool.  
   
  Recently, I took my Wyred 4 Sound DAC-2, MacBook Pro and external HD full of lossless media to a buddy's house. We spent the next six hours in a music fest evaluating and just having fun listening to all sorts of music, everything from standard Rebook to 24/192KHz. It was an ear-opener for my friend to hear what computer audio could provide, so much so, that the next week he ordered a bunch of new audio toys! 
   
  We listemed and compared CDs, the equivalent hi-rez versions, as well as upsampled versions (via Pure Music). Much of the CD equivalent hi-rez material is often remastered, so sadly, it's not a direct comparison. But heck, even 44.1 material sounds excellent on the Wyred 4 Sound DAC-2! Media mastered in hi-rez just sounds superb! There are no worries that there might be something lacking, since it's as close to the master as it's gong to get. The new SW playback possible with the likes of Pure Music means that we are as close to the master as we can possibly get, without sitting in the same room as the likes of Bob Katz, and other audio engineers.
   
  Not only is sound quality at a new pinacle using Pure Music (and other's), but the ability to instantly, and randomly cue music tracks is a godsend. I use my silver (and gold) CDs to rip to the hard disk (using XLD). If I ever revert to disc-based playback, it will be for the black, oil-based vinyl variety, amongst other reasons, partly for nostalgic reasons. Although, to attain a similar level of fidelity possible even with CD Redbook playback, you'd have to spend litereally thousands more than the equivalent SW solutions!


----------



## Phelonious Ponk

Quote:


> My assumptin about iTunes is that it is a multi-media (audio and video) SW player designed for the masses; it is primarily tuned for compressed media. I want a dedicated music only foundation. Pure Music, Amara, et al, are designed with one purpose only, music reproduction. However, iTunes a an excellent media library management tool.


 
   
Interesting. How do you assume iTunes, or any other digital media player has been "tuned" for compressed media or for higher fidelity?
   
P


----------



## Dynobot




----------



## Phelonious Ponk

Could I have some of that popcorn? 
   
  P


----------



## Dynobot

Here ya go, Popcorn and a Beer.
   
  I really need to get off my A** and get Music Player Daemon working on OSX.


----------



## mrspeakers

Hi all...  I was seeing a lot of opinions and comments on "integer" on the discussions here and the "Mac Players" thread, some of which seemed hyperbolic or misinformed, so I thought I'd drop a note to Channel D to see what the deal was.  Here's the reply, for anyone wanting to understand what "Integer Mode" actually is...  Bottom line: integer is "bit perfect."  No DSP, no modification to floating point.
   
  --------
   
  "Integer" as used in this context simply means using the device driver's nonmixable native integer format instead of floating point. (This is not provided by all device drivers or audio devices because Apple does not require that this be supported.) In Integer mode the audio is read from disk as integer format audio and conveyed to the device driver as integer without any alteration. As such, there is no opportunity for any signal processing, which could be as complex as real-time upsampling, or as simple as volume control, both of which require floating point (and upsampling done properly requires 64 bit floating point to avoid rounding or accumulation errors). Without Integer Pure Music loads the audio information in the same manner, as memory efficient packed integer audio (taking considerably less memory than would floating point format), but passed to the driver as floating point audio, after any optional signal processing, such as volume control, dithering, signal processing by plug-ins, etc.


----------



## HugoFreire

Hey guys! I'm new to Mac and Pure Music and I'm trying to import some FLAC files to iTunes using this app. FLACs are imported successfully and play normally, but the original FLAC tags (artist name, composer, track title etc.) won't get imported at all... Am I missing some step?


----------



## HugoFreire

Anyone?


----------



## crumpler

Quote: 





hugofreire said:


> Hey guys! I'm new to Mac and Pure Music and I'm trying to import some FLAC files to iTunes using this app. FLACs are imported successfully and play normally, but the original FLAC tags (artist name, composer, track title etc.) won't get imported at all... Am I missing some step?


 


  I've had pure music for a while now and have never imported FLACs into Itunes before so i can't really offer much help. However, i usually convert all my FLACs to ALACs in order to play them on my iDevices and all tags are imported smoothly and without fanfare.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Just press <command> <F> from within PM. The input dialogue pops up. Then drag a folder or a selection of FLAC files on top of the dialogue window. Poof! They are in iTunes!
   
  Remember, PM only uses iTunes as a database.  
  
  Quote: 





crumpler said:


> I've had pure music for a while now and have never imported FLACs into Itunes before so i can't really offer much help. However, i usually convert all my FLACs to ALACs in order to play them on my iDevices and all tags are imported smoothly and without fanfare.


----------



## crumpler

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Just press <command> <F> from within PM. The input dialogue pops up. Then drag a folder or a selection of FLAC files on top of the dialogue window. Poof! They are in iTunes!
> 
> Remember, PM only uses iTunes as a database.


 


  Thanks for that mate!


----------



## arjuna93

Has anyone compared latest versions of Amarra, Fidelia and Pure Music?


----------



## Revolution1

arjuna93 said:


> Has anyone compared latest versions of Amarra, Fidelia and Pure Music?


I compared Amarra, Audirvana 3.5, Roon, HQP Desktope and JRMC.
The Amarra Luxe has the most natural and comfortable sound, with a slight accent on the bass.
Behind it I would put Audirvana and HQP.
I listened to Fidelia a few years ago, in my opinion it was inferior to Audirvana 2.x


----------



## arjuna93

Revolution1 said:


> I compared Amarra, Audirvana 3.5, Roon, HQP Desktope and JRMC.
> The Amarra Luxe has the most natural and comfortable sound, with a slight accent on the bass.
> Behind it I would put Audirvana and HQP.
> I listened to Fidelia a few years ago, in my opinion it was inferior to Audirvana 2.x



I have preferred Fidelia to Audirvana so far, but did not use Amarra or Pure Music.


----------

