Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Mac OS X Music Players - alternatives to iTunes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac OS X Music Players - alternatives to iTunes - Page 8

post #106 of 2313

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

post #107 of 2313

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

post #108 of 2313

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

post #109 of 2313

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

post #110 of 2313

Not anymore; They have added text to the add-on (i.e. require basic version).

 

$20 isn´t that bad. Not sure if I really need the extra features for an $50 extra, but I guess within this hobby we get restless if we don´t "go advanced". :)

 

I have used PM for awhile. And AyreWave (now Decibel) and Audirvana. The latter is really good in my rig. My initial impression of Fidelia is that it has some edge enhancement to the music I´m not quite sure I like (yet). I´ll use the next 2 weeks to decide.

post #111 of 2313

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

post #112 of 2313
Quote:
Originally Posted by djjhin View Post

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


You can always get Snow Leopard for $30. Amazon has the same operating system for about the same price.

 

Fidelia sounds very interesting. You can also sync your library from iTunes. That should save a lot of time organizing.

post #113 of 2313

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

post #114 of 2313
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmanxxi View Post

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

 

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

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmanxxi View Post

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

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

post #115 of 2313

I did a little more research: Amarra definitely uses the iZotope dithering algorithms, and also uses the 64-bit Sample Rate Converter (SRC) in version 2.  
 

So if this is correct, Fidelia and Amarra should sound the same when sample rate conversion is used, and if it's not used, I don't get why it would sound different from any other bit-perfect playback, especially with any device that has quality re-clocking in it (which ensures that "bits are bits" instead of "bits are mostly bits).  Unless you need the fancy features Amarra offers around EQ, it seems Fidelia or Pure Music are the upsampling products to consider based on functionality and price, and further, if you aren't worried about sound-shaping, Fidelia will in theory sound identical to Amarra.

 

Full disclosure:  I haven't tried Amarra, and it's inevitable someone will say it sounds better who has compared, but I think if that's so, it would be great to have some analysis to say WHY it sound better, as I can find nothing in the specs or manuals to explain a difference and neither product makes their own upsampling engine....  Could it be a "powerful placebo?"

post #116 of 2313

Fidelia's support is impressive. What's more is their very open to implement requests made by users.

 

So far my suggestions have been:

 

- Integration of album art keeping the unobtrusive nature of the player

- Playback in RAM

- Add genre, year and composer columns

- Add a button in the player hub that toggles up the library

 

After listening for a while I find the sound more pleasing and less harsh when all the iZotope additions (converter and dither) are turned off.

 

Edit: have been using Decibel as well, I like how it takes over the MIDI output completely and does playback through RAM. Sounds great to me too.

post #117 of 2313
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post

I did a little more research: Amarra definitely uses the iZotope dithering algorithms, and also uses the 64-bit Sample Rate Converter (SRC) in version 2.  
 

So if this is correct, Fidelia and Amarra should sound the same when sample rate conversion is used, and if it's not used, I don't get why it would sound different from any other bit-perfect playback, especially with any device that has quality re-clocking in it (which ensures that "bits are bits" instead of "bits are mostly bits).  Unless you need the fancy features Amarra offers around EQ, it seems Fidelia or Pure Music are the upsampling products to consider based on functionality and price, and further, if you aren't worried about sound-shaping, Fidelia will in theory sound identical to Amarra.

 

Full disclosure:  I haven't tried Amarra, and it's inevitable someone will say it sounds better who has compared, but I think if that's so, it would be great to have some analysis to say WHY it sound better, as I can find nothing in the specs or manuals to explain a difference and neither product makes their own upsampling engine....  Could it be a "powerful placebo?"

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

post #118 of 2313

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

post #119 of 2313

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

post #120 of 2313


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmanxxi View Post

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


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

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Mac OS X Music Players - alternatives to iTunes